As You See It: Oct. 9, 2010

As You See It: Oct. 9, 2010

There are 6 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Oct 9, 2010, titled As You See It: Oct. 9, 2010. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

Thank you for your Wednesday article, Up in Smoke,' about increased tobacco sales to minors and efforts to curb this practice locally.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

Hey Ron Lowe

Santa Cruz, CA

#1 Oct 9, 2010
Thanks for the entertainment,I use the OP/LETTERS page
every day to help voters from giving up "hope"!

United States

#4 Oct 9, 2010
Teren Ellison, I like your blog, but think you are an hypocrite. Why are you so concerned with other people's retirement money? Read some of those quotes you love so much and figure out what they mean instead of trying to curtail the freedom of other individuals.

So very sick of Santa Cruz hypocrites like you.
Another Lowe hate letter


#5 Oct 9, 2010
Ruth Valdez: It would be interesting to know how many military suicides result from troops being exposed to left-wing leaders ranting that they fought and killed in an unnecessary war based on lies. I served during Viet Nam, and hearing that sometimes made me think about eating a bullet.

Ron Lowe: Another of his usual Republicans-are-Satan diatribes, this time comparing Nevada candidate Sharron Angle opposing Harry Reid unfavorably to Ghengis Khan. The fact is the left hates the thought of any woman or ethnic minority being a Republican, because they're all supposed to take a seat in the back of the Democratic party's campaign bus and do as they're told. Hence, Christine O'Donnell being portrayed as a witch on a broom, Meg Whitman as a Mexican-hating liar, etc. All slimed like Palin. The reason: Deep in the chest of Ron Lowe and other lefties beats the raging heart of intolerance.
Wilt Whatman


#6 Oct 9, 2010
There once was a loser named Lowe

who spewed his hate to and fro.

His small lefty brain

could never abstain

from reviling the "party of no."

“Where Did All the Money Go?”

Since: Sep 08

Santa Cruz, CA

#7 Oct 9, 2010
Michael Simms wrote:
Rein in vacation rentals

Once again, the rights of many were trampled by Realtors and business owners. When I built my home 25 years ago, there were no vacation rentals near me. Now I have one on each side and one behind. Within 300 feet, I have seven that I know of. Where are my rights to a neighborhood and to peace and quiet? These people are running motels in a residential neighborhood for profit. Most do not live in the area. I wonder if anyone on the housing committee lives next to a vacation rental? One individual actually told me to sell my house if I did not like to live in an area dominated by vacation rentals. All we are asking for is regulation; livelihoods should not be affected as existing rentals are grandfathered in. Do not allow those motivated by profit to dominate this issue.

Michael Simms, Santa Cruz
I understand your frustration. I lived in a high rental area myself for a few years. Generally, it was fine with the occasional, maddening jerks. Fortunately, I never had to call the police although I did have to talk with one of the landlords who seemed generally concerned, apologized, and actually addressed the parking problem!

While I no longer have any skin in the game (I don't own a rental and I don't live near any rentals), I think that the proposed ordinance was a bit excessive to the problem, especially the seven night minimum stay requirement. If the county wants to tax and control home rentals like it does hotels and B&Bs, then give home owners the same minimum rental requirements of just a single night.

Instead of punishing ALL landlords, why not target the ordinance at the specific bad behavior that we want to discourage, which are all public-nuisance items anyway (excess noise, garbage, clogging streets with cars)? I did like the idea of a posted contact so that you can contact the landowner directly. Sometimes it's difficult to track down the landowner.

Before any such ordinance is passed, I'd like to see a detailed land map of the affected area. There is no need to apply the ordinance county wide, due to the much different environemnts in different areas.

Background Information:

“Where Did All the Money Go?”

Since: Sep 08

Santa Cruz, CA

#8 Oct 9, 2010
Randall Sparks wrote:
Why should Democrats be in control again?

If you think that charging more to employers for health care, raising taxes on the job makers, raising the dividend tax and adding a carbon tax to energy, along with reinstituting a death tax and the other 15 taxes cut by George W. Bush will get more people working, you are living on another planet. Let's start from the beginning. Bush put TARP on the table and it has been paid back, all $700 billion of it. So Bush did not leave a $1.4 trillion debit to Obama and the democratic Congress. Guess what? Obama lied to you --$700 billion was a loan to the banks. Now Obama and the Demagogues want to spend the paid-back money instead of paying down the debit. Who plays the fear card? You were supposed to be afraid of the crippled economy, but the recession ended in July 2009, according to the Bureau of Statistics. Obama and the Congress still rammed through $800 billion in stimulus payback for being elected to bigger government, unions and special interest. To this day he has not spent or even earmarked $280 billion of that stimulus package, but he cannot find it in his heart to use $30 billion to $50 billion to support unemployment insurance? So he got Congress to get another $30 billion for that purpose. So tell me again why Democrats should control Congress?

Randall Sparks, Watsonville
Why should Democrats be in control again, especially here in California? Easy! Because they currently control the redistricting process and ensure that many career politicians have nice politically safe districts.

Need an example? Look at Proposition 27. Many believe, myself included, that Proposition 27 was the brainchild of Michael Berman of secretive Berman & D'Agostino Campaigns, a man who has been active in many of California's redistricting decisions. How much power did/does Michael Berman wield? In 2001, here's what U.S. Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez said about redistricting and paying Michael Berman for his sage guidance.

"Twenty thousand [dollars] is nothing to keep your seat. I spend $2 million [campaigning] every year. If my colleagues are smart, they'll pay their $20,000, and Michael will draw the district they can win in. Those who have refused to pay? God help them."

And who is Michael Berman's brother? In a sheer coincidence, his brother is U.S. Congressman Howard Berman. Strange, huh?

Who is paying for Proposition 27? It's many of the same self-serving politicians whose political careers would be at risk if they had to compete in free and fair elections. Our local Congressional Representatives Sam Farr and Anna Eshoo are included.

The remainder of the list includes other special interests and well-connected big-money donors that already invested millions of dollars in these same politicians.


Proposition 27 Revealed!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

401K Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Question on 401k Jul 15 Tom 1
I can't rollover my 401K Jun 29 djrock 2
Distribution Costs May '17 pairunoyd 1
What is the Nikkei 225? Apr '17 deniharris 2
401k canceled Apr '17 Spring-e 1
What is the Wilshire 5000 Index? Apr '17 matthet17 2
What is the S&P 500? Apr '17 jamessm246 3
More from around the web