BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Thursday, March 29, 2007

TKA Kicks It Up Yet Another Notch

Yet another theme for employers at the SDLG Center for Union Busting Studies studies will have to be to be in a continual state of denial and blame others for your problems. This might have worked when Travis Armstrong tried to blame a public official here and there and maybe a big, bad union -- but what about extending the net?

In today's opinion, Armstrong take on Sara Miller McCune and her foundation (who joined with her Sage Publications in publishing Scott Hadly's Reinventing Newspapers), Mayor Blum and former Supervisor Susan Rose and a whole:
web of interconnections among the activists, the politicians, developers and certain nonprofit groups is tangled and deep. A common denominator of some of these folks is that they appear to abhor a press they can't bully.

If that wasn't enough, he also plans to take on non profit organizations:

In the months ahead, I plan to detail more about the political ties, financial entanglements and personal grudges of these individuals and anti-News-Press organizations, such as Hap Freund's Channel 17, the developer-backed Coastal Housing Partnership/Coalition, Fund for Santa Barbara and the Environmental Defense Center.

Travis' smackdown also now has a tag team partner. It's none other other than COLAB's Andy Coaldwell -- who doesn't even have a residence in our county. I can see it now -- "Are you ready to rumble! In this corner -- from the Fund for Santa Barbara - it's Geoff "Super Lib" Green and the EDC's very own Linda "The Bully" Krop in a battle royale, mano a mano 16 round fight against the Travis "Wrong Way" Armstrong and Andy "COLAB" Caldwell..."

Just about all of us will be touched by Travis' attempt to smoke out the evil forces that 'abhor a press they can't bully". We better make our "salsipuedes" plans now. By the way -- what does he mean by saying that he has a "diversity of staff"?

Labels: ,

78 Comments:

Anonymous worker bee said...

This column is but the fever dream of a lunatic. Here we go again with the cabal formed to silence sworn liar Travis Armstrong.

We've been told before about Armstrong's "plans" to unleash the smoking gun revealing that McCaw has had nothing to do with the destruction of her paper. What a laugh riot. I pity this poor man, who can look himself squarely in the mirror and lie.

At least we have nude Dr. Laura to help us make sense of this mess.

3/29/2007 7:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Honestly, every time I read one of Travis' rants I get sick to my stomach. This man is supposed to have a position of responsibility and leadership; instead he is pointing fingers and talking about mysterious cabals and conspiracies, with no shred of evidence or proof that there is such a dark force against the News-Press. This is completely inappropriate and I will say a JUVENILE reaction. Is this really what Travis believes, or is he a mouthpiece for Wendy'S view of the world? I would be interested to hear from Nelville Flynn on this topic.

I am just a typical reader-- a middle class homeowner in Santa Barbara. I have no ties to any political group or agenda. However, let me say that I and many people I have talked to do not respect or believe anything written in the News-Press. Travis and Wendy, this is what has happened to your readership. We don't believe you. We don't trust you to tell us the unbiased truth. We really hope that you can see the bigger picture before it is too late.

3/29/2007 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Travis wrote a reasonable column today. I don't understand all the prior hyper-ventilating. It is time for the newspaper to be an independent investigative voice.

I do believe that stands for the best in American journalistic tradition - the Fourth Estate, and all of that?

Let the chips fall where they may. The reader can decide, but at least questions are being asked. This is a healthy new direction. And NewsPress readers appreciate it.

It seems like only those who claim they refuse to read the NewsPress are the ones still getting into a self-lathering froth about what they think is going on.

It is refreshing to read this new perspective from the new NewsPress. Give it a chance.

3/29/2007 9:01 AM  
Anonymous worker bee said...

anon 9:01,

I'll have whatever you're smoking.

-or-

Pass the Turkish Delight, because I want to hang with you and the White Witch in Narnia.

-or-

How much an hour do you charge Wendy to plant that nonsense on the blogs? Nice work, if you can get it.

3/29/2007 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra said...

Well of course Travis is right. There IS a vast conspiracy of interconnected politicians, non-profits, and developers, not to mention the dreaded activist.
The question is who are they? And are their efforts and organizations (including the News-Press) good or bad? It's just like the national lobbyist issue. My 'County's Congressional Liaison Officer' with the California Assembly is just your evil lobbyist. It's how the system works and the game is played. May the best promoter and debunker win.

Hey, I'm for fixing up the Plaza.

3/29/2007 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra said...

Hey great to read Scott Hadly's piece. Thanks for the link to him. I always enjoyed his work at the Newspress. I hope whatever happens gets journalists like him a visible presence. How about an email for Scott.

3/29/2007 10:00 AM  
Anonymous David Pritchett said...

Seems like the community has given the NewsPress lots of "chances" and this paranoid conspiracy theory still is the reaction. Consider the source.

NewsPress has been invited numerous times to present their argument and answer questions. They were invited to the Clergy symposium last Sunday, invited to respond to dozens of news reporter inquiries, invited to start a show or appear as a guest on one on SBChannels (community TV channel 17), and many times could have exited the castle to speak during one of the 10 or so rallies held outside their door.

Despite all the wasted publishing space in these editorials, space that could contain some actual local news instead, the hirelings in Storke Castle still have nothing but bupkis, which, when combined with $4.25, would buy a nice latte around the corner at Java Jones.

And writing of bupkis, the editorial asked and answered the allegations with this conclusion to that editorial today:

"What's their real agenda? It's so clear that you don't need me to answer that question."

That comment by Travis A. reminds me of my dear First Wife, who often was mad at me for "clear" reasons I simply should know without being told.

So, Bring It On, Nelville Flynn. Tell us all what that "real agenda" actually is so clearly. We cannot expect any actual facts and examples to appear in the NewsPress editorials.

3/29/2007 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Elvis said...

"Oh I used to be disgusted
and now I try to be amused."

3/29/2007 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I see the News-Press it's too late to comment on current columns et al. As anonymous 7:58 AM wrote "I am just a typical........." , I don't know the people like anonymous 9:01 AM "Travis wrote a reasonable column today. I don't understand......", where are these people when you're out on the street? The times I have read columns, my opinion is Travis preaches to the choir as directed, he's not offering anything new.

I thought it was interesting that __ Laura went on about boycotting Bank of America for a credit card policy. That may have been in her blog. I believe she closed her account. Her penchant for getting her political base to follow her is apparent, yet she played the just little me card. Next it's in the news Wendy has a lawsuit against Bank of America for another credit card problem. This is a coincidence?

3/29/2007 10:35 AM  
Anonymous GVG said...

Well put Anon 3/29 9:01 AM!

I especially like your line, "It seems like only those who claim they refuse to read the News-Press are the ones still getting into a self-lathering froth about what they think is going on."

An observation I have made reading this blog is that those who say they have cancelled their subscriptions are the ones who are hung up on every word the News-Press writes. I love Sara's repeated line that she says she manages to find a "pass along copy" to read. Other posters have prefaced their comments with additional ways they find to read the News-Press subsequent to their subscription cancellations.

My conclusions:

1. News-Press subscriptions are down slightly.
2. News-Press readership is up significantly.

3/29/2007 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The tie to Caldwell should finally put aside any reservations that McCaw is intent on making this paper the voice of the Libertarian elite in this town.

COLAB is far from a anti-development group. They stand for nothing but property rights in the strictest sense, and frankly, if they could publicly advocate the rescinding of voting rights for those who don't own property they'd probably do it.

Not to sound like a broken records, but the change McCaw has established for this paper is calculated - it's the voice of Santa Barbara that SHE wants to see, advocating groups that SHE supports and that stand for the views that her and her friends have.

It's not a paper for the "regular" people of Santa Barbara - it's a paper for the rich. That's no accident - it's a strategic and deliberate move on her part.

3/29/2007 11:54 AM  
Anonymous we would stop calling you Travisty Factswrong if you only got the most basic facts right said...

The same day the Travisty-written lead editorial is a big bitch about how local clergy do not do enough about the gang problem, the competitor to the Newspress runs a front-page article, with a big color photo, about the complete opposite with the local clergy sponsoring a special community service the prior evening at a local church, all about the gang problem.

Read the text here at the Daily Sound web site
http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/beachfront/casa.htm

Travisty obviously does not get out much, if at all. Why is he so afraid to be seen in public and (OMG!) actually talk with the public and the people he bitches about?

3/29/2007 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Alanianony said...

It is such a relief not to be reading the destructive drivel that Travis calls editorials. His pathology taints every environment he inhabits. Wish we could just flick him off of Santa Barbara like an annoying flea.

Sadly, "folks" like him feed off of the negative energy they arouse. Anything for attention and to make things worse. Such a powerless little man seems to wish to inspire fear as well as loathing. Mostly, he is just attempting to further the right-wing agenda that characterizes this group of narcissists.

Poor Santa Barbara, having to listen to their spewings. Ah well, this too shall pass. Looking forward to the day their occupation of our little city is just an unpleasant memory.

3/29/2007 12:39 PM  
Anonymous Valerio said...

This Travis editorialist seems to be the local equivalent of George W. Bush, again and again, growing more desperate and irrational.

The tirade today by our "President" is pathetic with all the bluster about how Congress (both House and Senate) just do not understand about Iraq War, despite voters electing them and a bill to end the war passing both houses of Congress successfully and now with a threat of Presidential veto.

Travis Armstrong, Andy COLAB Caldwell, and now W all together.
Quite a cabal indeed!

3/29/2007 1:13 PM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

I'm almost agreeing with PhD Laura about the idea that blogs are just a bunch of hot air..... comments like 9:01am are left to stand on equal footing with any other.

No, I don't expect a chamber here where everyone just agrees with everybody else, but honestly: "NewsPress readers appreciate it."???? Whatever... notes like the above make it a ridiculous exercise to even check in here sometimes.

Makes me appreciate when letters to the editor of most major publications are at least vetted for publication. Sometimes judicious editing would help (nothing as draconian as the current SBNP) -- no wonder they require people to sign their real names, at least.

3/29/2007 1:35 PM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

Oh, and as for the Travis: This man really seems to have serious psychological problems, whether related at all to his DUI or not. Rants about conspiracy theories, persecution complexes, and stories about "tangled," "deep" "webs of interconnections".... along with that insane NLRB testimony about seeing a man lurking outside his apartment late at night, spying on him...

There are some very disturbed individuals in this drama. It is really very sad.

3/29/2007 1:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:01, the time for "chances" has passed. This is hardly the first conspirat-editorial written by Travis and/or the "Editors". They have been blaming their growing list of enemies for months and months for all of their ills, without evidence, facts or truth, and of course, without letting any of these accused people respond in the paper, as normal journalistic institutions with integrity routinely do. They and their spokespeople have been saying the "facts" are going to come out soon, have patience (e.g., letters from Millstein and Cappello to local lawyers, and promises in the media), and all we get are more harangues detached from facts or evidence. The only neutral adjudicator to weigh in on any of this so far, NLRB Judge Schmidt, has thoroughly trashed the News-Press and both Armstrong and Steepleton, calling them both perjurers, and calling their lawyers dishonest.

In addition to the Travis piece, today the NP Editorial took an unwarranted swipe at the SB Clergy, claiming that instead of getting involved in more than merited criticism of NP management, it should be working on the gang issue. The only problem with that is that the clergy have every right to seek justice for workers, and the clergy have done far more on the gang front than the NP has done or ever will do. There was a recent forum sponsored by clergy, if only the NP had bothered to cover it. No, it's too busy taking yet another ignorant vindictive (and formulaic) swipe at anyone and everyone who criticizes it.

It would be nice if the NP did some investigative journalism. Please cite examples of any it's done since July 6. In fact, it's illegally fired the very people who were capable of doing that job, demonstrating it has no intent to perform such honorable duty for this community. What the NP does instead is accuse without facts or evidence, fulminate without substance, sabre rattle without cause, victimize people while claiming the mantle of victim for itself, suppress others who dare to speak, lie, lie, lie and lie, and pretend it has absolutely nothing to answer for, no matter how many blows it takes from every quarter.

3/29/2007 2:55 PM  
Anonymous Lower Westie said...

Anon 9:01

I read a copy to today's paper that I found at a coffee shop. Travis was awful. Same old story.

But the worst was Laura writing about German babies being dropped in a chute, and the relative merits of having one's foreskin removed. . . "refreshing" you say?

3/29/2007 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Bobby the Brain G said...

In today's editorial by Travis Armstrong, titled "Our Opinion: Clergy and fighting gangs," he wrote, "The local media, too, didn't report in-depth on the gang problem as crime and other reporters chose easier subjects to tackle."

I figure he's taking another cheap shot at the illegally fired reporters, specifically Dawn Hobbs, the excellent former crime reporter at the News-Press.

If Travis were to make the slightest effort to research the facts, he would have found a series of stories that ran July 2, 2006, in the News-Press with the lead story titled "S.B. police say gang problems on the rise."

Dawn did an excellent job going above and beyond the call of duty in one of the best investigative pieces I have ever read about a city's gang situation.

Despite the fact she wrote it before I even came on board as the Assistant City Editor on Oct. 30, 2006, I did my homework while getting to learn the background on the community from my reporters.

I asked Dawn about the gang situation here and she told me how she got the idea one day to just approach the gang members and ask them to allow her to hang out with them and gain insight to their lives. Over several weeks she researched several gangs, gaining a firsthand perspective of what motivates them, where they come from and where they're going.

She gave me a copy of her stories and I was very impressed with her enterprise reporting skills, along with the skills of my other top reporters Tom Schultz, Anna Davison, Melissa Evans, Barney McManigal and Rob Kuznia (all of whom have also been illegally fired, along with me).

I was never, however, and am still not impressed with Travis Armstrong spewing lies in his editorials, making believe they are opinions based on facts, and then attacking anyone who justly calls his editorials bullshit.

Yep, folks like me and any other intelligent reader who hates being lied to by someone holding a position of public trust must just be opposed to freedom of speech and a free press, Travis would like to have you believe.

I am so tired of Travis writing lies in his editorials that, Sara, if you really want to see a smackdown, could you arrange a tag-team bout, no holds barred, in a ring set up in De La Guerra Plaza?

Just give me and Tom Schultz 10 minutes in the ring with Travis Armstrong and Scott Steepleton and we'll have an old-fashioned trial by combat. Losers have to leave town (and have their heads shaved bald, why not, heh heh).

We can sell tickets, the Hot Dog Man can sell hot dogs, and all proceeds can go to youth programs in Santa Barbara.

Please Sara, and just ask the mayor and local police to look the other way for the duration of the bout. 'Cause they shouldn't ought to see this.

I can arrange for a special guest referee, also. Former SB City Hall reporter Josh Molina, a friend of mine from back in the days at the North County Times in San Diego County, and fellow WWE fan. I think he'd be happy to oblige, and as WWE billionaire Vince McMahon says, "I can guaran-damn-tee the outcome of this match!" :)

Thank you very much.

3/29/2007 3:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Independent investigative reporting is good. But
- is investigative reporting the responsibility of an editorial section?
- is location for investigative reporting in the opinion section, with a couple of column inches.
- editorial bashing <> investigative reporting. It needs to be backed up by facts, and ask the parties being investigated to comment.

What is news, editorial, or opinion, and how can one determine it if the editor is doing the investigating, writing the content, and doing the editing, and incorporating opinions?

NP can talk separation of news and editorial, but editorials are starting step over that boundary regularly.

If TA wants to do investigative reporting he should do it. But don't wrap it as an editorial/paper opinion.

3/29/2007 5:39 PM  
Anonymous KC said...

anon 9:01- You find this refreshing ? ! ?

"I plan to detail more about the political ties, financial entanglements and personal grudges of these individuals and anti-News-Press organizations"

I am no fan of the NP, either past or present but that paragraph is the product of a strange mind- paranoid & self-indulgent- reminds me of Nixon in his final daze.

3/29/2007 5:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today's was perhaps the most compelling evidence that TKA has absolutely no clue as to how Santa Barbara works and might actually be losing his sanity. (I say this not to be cruel, because it is an honest assessment by an experienced professional who would know.)

Everyone on the South Coast, except for the extreme right wingers, consider Andy Caldwell a hot-head, whiny obstructionist who works -- without compromise -- against regulating any form of agriculture, business, or development. If it was up to Caldwell, every farm would be a massive agribusiness, the entire Santa Maria Valley would be paved over, and there'd be no rules whatsoever on development or labor and no restrictions on business at all.

While Caldwell should be applauded for the vigilance of his watchdogging -- this government watcher has never seen anyone attend so many meetings and be so well versed on most issues -- his views are almost always far out of whack with what the everyday Santa Barbara city dweller believes. And I know for a fact that there is a large contingent of ag interests who aren't so proud of Caldwell either, but since he occasionally works to their favor, they keep their mouths shut.

How can TKA align himself with pro-development, anti-regulation Caldwell and then claim to be a no-growther out the other side of his mouth? I understand that there are some fundamentally Libertarian ideas that may connect the two, but this is absolutely astonishing. It's an affront to the intelligence of our town. Either TKA doesn't know how this county works out of sheer ignorance, or he's so entrenched against the level-headed people who criticize him that he cannot see any truth at the end of his dark tunnel of denial.

And then, TKA puts a big fat cherry on top of his pile by calling out The Fund for Santa Barbara and McCune. These are integral, intelligent, and deeply caring parts of the Santa Barbara community that actually contribute to positive social change in ways that are applauded by the rest of the country. TKA should be ashamed of himself, no matter his hypocritical political bent. What has TKA ever done to help out our less privileged brothers and sisters? Nowhere near what The Fund and McCune have done.

To attempt to indict them in some conspiratorial complex with low-income developers (!), anti-free speech liberal politicians (!!), and a community access television station (triple wow!!!) is the most publicly bizarre opinion that's ever appeared in an established publication since the days of Heart's yellow journalism.

This is absurd, shameful, and silly. Please take the pen away from TKA because he's clearly lost it and it's sad to watch him slip into insanity in front of an entire town. I feel sorry for him.

3/29/2007 6:02 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

bobby the brain -- should have thought about the bout in DLG Plaza :) Good image.

elvis (costello that is) -- good line, I'll put on my red shoes.

GVG -- Sun Tzu's basic tenet was to know your enemy. If this is a war as Wendy McCaw has mad eso clear and TKA has made even more clear today...digging through the trash at least keeps them from getting my subscription rate.

Valerio -- ever notice how cabal has a Middle Eastern origin? See kabbalh. Maybe we are made out to not only be consirators but terrorists in our own right.

Don Jose -- I love it when my uncle chimes in.

David -- the first wife comment reminds me about how we still haven't seen the real data from the supposedly real poll that is oft-repeated by Travis.

3/29/2007 6:15 PM  
Blogger matt said...

I was just about to agree with the editorial that the local media hadn't done enough until I saw Bobby G's comment on Dawn Hobbs July 2 piece.

And then I thought to myself, "Wait, didn't we at The Independent run an in-depth, investigative, and exhaustive cover story by Cathy Murillo a couple years ago on the gang situation in Santa Barbara?"

It turns out that, yes, we in fact did run such a story and we've been featuring it in many of our online stories about the gang stabbing, which have been read by thousands of Santa Barbarans.

Hold on a second -- are the News-Press editorials not getting their facts straight? I just cannot believe it!

Here's the link to the July 2005 article:
http://www.independent.com/archives/2005/07/santa_barbara_gangsters.html

I won't even get into Travis' weird conspiracy theories, other than to wonder how The Indy can get involved in such a high-level, complicated plot.

Maybe we can help our staff find permanent housing via the Coastal Housing Parternship? Or maybe give money to McCune's foundation to help Latina mothers in Oxnard form support groups? Or maybe congratulate the Environmental Defense Center for stopping the development of such pristine places as the Wilcox Property, Ellwood, and the Carp Bluffs and then give them some cash to continue their efforts to help endagered species and fight offshore oil? Or, perhaps most evil of all, we could get a grant from The Fund for Santa Barbara to do volunteer work? Where do we sign up?

--Matt Kettmann
The SB Indy

3/29/2007 7:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, there is so much hate, bias and self-imposed ignorance here.

I look forward to the NewsPress investigation of the Little Old Ladies in Tennis Shoes Shadow Government myself. Bout time those biddies got exposed.

I think y'all need to stop scrounging in garbage cans and read the damn thing and see that there is good reason the paper has keep significant reader loyalties.

3/29/2007 7:59 PM  
Anonymous GVG said...

Wow! Anon 9:01 AM, I fear for your safety. Say something on this blog that does not flow in the direction of the prevailing wind and all that has been written here in the past about the protection of free speech goes out the Windows XP. Allegro 805 suggests your post is so egregious that it shouldn't have even been allowed.

Lower Westie: Thanks for adding "I found it at the coffee shop" for ways blogabarbarans get the News-Press and do not violate the gang code of ethics here that discourages the faithful from subscribing to the paper. Maybe Sara can start a thread with everyone posting ways that they take the News-Press. We can vote on the most creative, with the winner the recipient of a free picnic lunch in De La Guerra Plaza with Marty Blum and Susan Rose as dining partners.

Sara: I doubt Wendy McCaw will fret too much about not getting your $49.95 subscription fees.

3/29/2007 8:11 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

gvg -- I thought twice but nothing there has not been in the media except maybe allegro805's judgement that like any good follower of Dr. Laura (heehee)-- I am sure they will stand behind.

As for lunch with da mayor -- I'm all for it! I'd probably win :)

matt -- thanks for the comment. I remember Cathy's piece. It was good. The problem is Travis tells us what he wants to hear -- thus my complaint of hearing the whole story.

3/29/2007 8:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to let all know John Zant will be on the Oliver Hamilton show
on Friday, 3/30/07 on SB channel #17 @ 7pm. I miss his sports!

3/29/2007 8:55 PM  
Anonymous boB said...

Sara said that it was inappropriate to imply that a DUI suggested that the recipient might be alcoholic. I think that's a judicious and sensible admonition. Although interestingly, many judges sentence people with DUI's (even the first one) to attend AA meetings. Perhaps like Scrooge's Spirit of Christmas Future it is to point out what might be!

But I think that it shouldn't be out of line to
talk generally about alcoholics and alcoholism and the paranoid and conspiracy driven mindset that accompanies their/this disease in action.

Read the "big book" "Alcoholics Anonymous," attend open meetings of AA (some are "closed" by group conscience but not all), it's all there for anyone to see and read. Sober alcoholics understand the disease and are never surprised to see its manifestations in non-sober alcoholics. You might say that it's just a well-worn script being acted out.

Inevitably, sometimes very slowly, but certainly inevitably, the disease wins if it is allowed to go untreated. Death, jail, or insanity are among the final tragic results.

An earlier commentator talked about a "professional" opinion concerning the likely source of the behavior being observed and commented about. Most people talk about willful spite or agenda driven rhetoric. In AA we say that it's the "booze talking". The "wet brain".

But for sure there will be a "train wreck". It may happen like that movie where the old diesel-electric "Streamliner" plows through Grand Central Station, or it may simply be that the train falls over on an ancient roadbed with bad ties and bent rails. But surely it will happen. Nothing stays the same, everything comes to an end and so will this SB nightmare.

I love these blogs, but sometimes I think that instant overwhelming silence might have the greatest effect on bringing this horrible soap opera to its sad but inevitable conclusion.

3/29/2007 9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason Travis must still works at the NP is that "birds of a feather".

3/29/2007 9:06 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

9:00 pm -- I've unfortunately been around a few alcoholics in my life and it is the reason why I am a little sensitive about it. I think people should self-identify and seek help but there is no reason to out them. Generally speaking, I hear what you are saying and am a little shocked by your last line. Those of us that have dealt with alcoholics understand -- but perhaps not everyone will.

3/29/2007 9:27 PM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

Second Attempt to post...(you're not limiting input from the other side are you?)

The issues raised today by Travis Armstrong in his News-Press column are absolutely correct. BlogaBarbara, and Sara’s like-minded posters may be shocked by this opinion, but many of us see clearly the “web of interconnections” he writes about, and agree with him wholeheartedly.

The steady stream of attacks (in this and other blogs) aimed at TKA’s writing style or his personal misfortunes serve only to provide a smokescreen. The facts behind Travis Armstrong’s opinions are evident to anyone unwilling to buy into the group-denial exhibited by so many “faux progressives” in our community.

When speaking about the ties between the local political machine and the local development machine, TKA hits the nail on the head. In “Exposing Their Agendas” he is taking on the power and the money that controls this city. Perhaps, one day, some of you will wake up and appreciate Travis for what he is - - right!

3/29/2007 11:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, maybe THAT'S where Capello got the idea that journalists write whatever they want whenever they want, he's been hanging out with Travis.
It really becomes apparent from such ignorant rantings and inept news coverage that the professionals have left the News Press building. Time to turn out the lights.

3/30/2007 2:51 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Bil Carson -- wouldn't limit you Bill. Your posts are always clean! If I did, it would be part of the web :)

3/30/2007 7:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK Bill Carson

I freely admit that many of us "real progressives" cannot see clearly what the heck Travis sees that you also see.

Can you take the time to explain it to those of us that are still either to dim witted to see it or blinded by our prejudices to admit it?

Please provide us enough specifics to understand that this is not figment of yours and Travis' collective imaginations.

Specifically focus upon and identify this vast web of interconnectedness of "faux progressive" anti-newspress entities you speak of that fear the incisive and insightful investigative reporting that the current news press is so well know for.

We need to know whose these disingenuous culprits are so we can expose their horrible heresy and run them out of our fine community.

3/30/2007 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Mr. Moreno said...

Sorry, Bill, but saying TKA's "absolutely correct" doesn't make it so. You, like him, offer not a shred of evidence to back this up. Frankly, that's because you can't. Claims of a shadowy web of intrigue and conspiracies against the NP, visible only to a special few, are simply evidence of a profound paranoia. Or, to be charitable, disingenuousness.

3/30/2007 8:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill and others,
While these blogs may be anti-NP, your comments are always welcome here.

The community would hope that some of the conversations would happen in the NP letters to the editor section. But the NP is one-sided in both editorial/opionon, and letters to the editor. The NP internet presence is crippled internet site (subscribers only, no PDF of the paper), that lacks community discussion features (and would you trust the NP to post all views?).

Understand that is a community site. It existed before, and will continue to exist.

Also, understand that you or any other community member can start a blog, and use traceback to create distributed conversations, and post information that mi

Setup a blog, and nobody but yourself can edit your view. It will be open for everyone to see.

Hey, Neville. If you are not challenged, how about a Neville Flynn blog?

And there is a unique internet visonary who lives in sb Doc Searls (http://doc.weblogs.com/) who co-authored the "cluetrian manifesto", is a pioneering and prolific blogger, and is working on the concepts of newspapers on the internet (aka newspaper 2.0).

It is really unique coincidence that NP events are happening in the presence of such an internet visionary.

3/30/2007 8:55 AM  
Anonymous David Pritchett said...

We do not need facts, because, as the editorial indicated:

"What's their real agenda? It's so clear that you don't need me to answer that question."

3/30/2007 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carson is right. Proof can be found outside the din coming from the "faux progressives" inside city hall.

Look at the last few elections - there is a growing conservative voice from those out in the neighborhoods that are getting mugged by the city's faux progressive policies.

Loretta Redd spoke for a pragmatic, limited view of local government and would have won had not the even more pragmatic and conservative Terry Tyler not run at the last minute.

Between them, their consolidated votes going for a single candidate would have beat out liberal Grant House. It was an unfortunate last minute growing conservative vote split. The wrong message got sent to city council.

Dan Secord barely lost to Janet Wolf - again a clear conservative/liberal split of voter sentiment. They are out there but not yet at a critical mass to get their voices heard officially. This is changing with each election.

Listen to the voices in the neighborhoods - they are being failed in multiple ways. Those most in need who want more police protection get ineffective feel-good programs instead which drain necessary resources to protect those most in need first.

Those already flush with benefits get the attention, though they too are getting mugged with the invasion of feel-good housing policies contrary to their deepests objections. They are the liberals who are getting mugged and are shifting their views now that it is landing on their doorsteps.

There is a lot of discontent out there in VoterLand. The "faux progressives" no longer have their fingers on the pulse of the neighborhoods, and therefore the voters. They simply have their fingers on this shadow government campaign contributions.

And thus here is your developer/faux progressive link: campaign dollars to solve their view of city problems as long as it is in someone else's neighborhood.

The "faux progressives" are the most dangerous NIMBYS of them all -they concoct faux schemes to assuage their own "gilty" consciences, as long as they can live behind their gated communities and high on a hill with an unending supply of cheap domestic labor.

3/30/2007 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK Anonymous 10:18 I put the same challenge to you I did to Bill Carson

Give us some specifics so we can understand

You speak only of political changes in voter-land

Provide some support for the existence of the cabal of anti-news press faux progressives teaming up dominate Santa Barbara to the detriment of its citizens.

Please give us some facts

Provide names of these groups and the specific acts of their dangerous leaders

No more rhetoric and philosophy.

Only facts.

3/30/2007 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today's editorial shows that Wendy McCaw is still smarting from the spanking she received from the ACLU when she tried to bully the Santa Barbara hairdresser.

Someone else not the sharpest knife is Editor-In-Chief Scott Steepleton. What happens when Wendy lets him know that his big, big "news" story on the front page about the boat stuck in the sand advertises McCaw's number one business threat: Craig's list?

3/30/2007 11:35 AM  
Anonymous Co D said...

boB said... "But I think that it shouldn't be out of line to
talk generally about alcoholics and alcoholism and the paranoid and conspiracy driven mindset that accompanies their/this disease in action. "

Thank you boB & SDLG for this thread. I tried to post a similar thought recently & it was not allowed which is okay- perhaps my wording was too personal. I'll try again-

In addition to what boB says above, isolation, distortion of percption (indeed it is called a disease of perception), and blaming are all common symptoms of this disease. Emotional growth is severly arrested.

My experience with this disease has led me to a deep compassion for those who suffer from it. Often they need help to get help.

There is often a lot of denial & enabling among those who help support the alcoholic/addict to continue using. Sometimes it has to get really really bad for the enabler to change what they are doing.

There is that old frog in the water analogy (frog in boiling water will jump out, frog in tepid water turned slowly up to boiling will stay there & cook).

I know which is why my sig is Co D

3/30/2007 11:45 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Co D - thanks for sticking with it. I've been retiscant for several reasons but mostly because this is an issue that is personal in nature and could easily get out of hand. Let's be clear we are talking in general terms here. Thanks.

3/30/2007 12:02 PM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

GVG said...
Wow! Anon 9:01 AM, I fear for your safety. Say something on this blog that does not flow in the direction of the prevailing wind and all that has been written here in the past about the protection of free speech goes out the Windows XP. Allegro 805 suggests your post is so egregious that it shouldn't have even been allowed.

--------------
GVG, get a grip! I basically was trying to express that I get mighty tired reading the same BS from multiple "anonymous" commenters over and over again -- poorly written, illogical "broken records", not backed up with example and which really don't contribute much to the debate. It made me realize the difficult job of real Editorial Page Editors (I do not count TKA among these) who have to select letters for publication. These letters usually represent diverse views (open the LA Times... or even The Independent if you want a local example), and views that even (imagine!) diverge from the journalistic or editorial view of the newspaper in question (anybody near DLG Plaza listening?). They also don't usually publish comments from the same person more than once every 'X' number of days (maybe 30 or 60). I don't consider this censorship, I consider this editing!

Don't get me wrong, I think the blogosphere is a great thing in allowing everyone "democratic" input on topics of wide interest. But sometimes it really does just devolve into a pissing contest (I hope that is not a censorable phrase, SDLG!). I said earlier, or on another thread, that I don't expect an echo chamber where everyone agrees... it's just that certain anonymous commenters seem to revel in their veil of anonymity and lobbing "grenades" into what is often a very reasonable discussion of divergent views. It also bugs the heck out of me that there are scores of posts attributed to "Anonymous" ... Sara has exhorted us to pick some kind of identifier just for continuity's sake (after all, you know I'm allegro805 and I'm still anonymous, right??). That's the kind of limitation I'm talking about (and the kind of screen that one can't hide behind in a "Letter to the Editor" of the traditional press). [Unfortunately, this is also a limitation of Blogger's comment feature; though one can prohibit "anonymous" commenting, that also eliminates the happy medium option of choosing the identity of "Other"...]

One final thing: You, GVG, and lots of other people seem to get confused about "protection of free speech". That concept, Constitutionally, pertains to public speech infringed upon by a government entity or individual(s); it has NOTHING to do with the running of a blog OR a newspaper. The SBNP situation has nothing to do with "Free Speech" as a First Amendment issue, and legitimate critics of the SBNP are not trying to couch it as such an issue. Do some research if you're not clear on this.

3/30/2007 3:22 PM  
Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

Travisty does not seem to be too proud of this smackdown missive, as it is not included at the free access part of the Newspress web site, a paranoid and delusional hit parade of their imagined greatest hits
http://www.newspress.com/npsite/commentaries/

3/30/2007 4:45 PM  
Anonymous Al Bacara said...

yes, let us get past the paranoid, persecutional slant of the latest Travis-NP rant, [is anyone surprised?]. The world according to Wendy is their reality. Has any 'other' views, opinions or letters to the [umm] editor been published in the NP lately? Is it wrong to expect opinions supported by actual facts and counter points to be part of a 'free press' ? Maybe THIS is why they feel so attacked elsewhere. Can't control [blogs, other press outlets, NRLB, the law etc] what they don't own. But make an enemies list [ala Nixon etc], blame the messenger, marginalize their opinions, and attack. If they run out of people, causes, groups and places to investigate, they can always investigate themselves.If its everyone else's fault, then there is no reason for BarryTravisWendy to do any personal intro-spection. SPIN BLAME POINT DEVALUE DELAY DENY. The LA Times had a [but NOT the same scale and circumstance as NP] editorial problem, but gave a 'voice' to all sides of the story. Didn't blame a mayor, or look for a hidden agenda. oh well, All the King's [Queen's?] horses and all the ...... couldn't put...

3/30/2007 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra said...

Here's the way it is in Santa Barbara: There's a rock in the road. Certain groups lobby to move it to the left.

Another group is instantly formed when the question comes before council and they want to move the rock to the right. No compromise they shout.

The night of the council meeting another group shows up and they want the rock to be left alone. This argument goes on for two years.

Nothing happens. A "Vision Committee" of community experts and stakeholders is formed.

Ten NP editorials are written on the question. Three accuse the council members of nepotism and being in bed with developers, activists, and the weirdos.

Meanwhile, the "don't move the rock people" take out ads and march around the rock after each meeting. Architects write op-eds about the beauty of change and El Paseo. And it just goes on and on.

If you've been here long enough you get use to it. So it goes in Santa Barbara.

This NewsPress fiasco is sad. But as Scott Hadly pointed out in his recent article, newspapers have a long a varied history here in town. I say bring back the Storke family. And let's fix up the Plaza. As Barney might say: "I am a Plaza visionary."

3/30/2007 6:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

allegro, there are some First Amendment issues in the overall SBNP mess. True, the First Amendment is about governmental regulation of speech, but when the SBNP sues a writer like Sue Paterno in court, the First Amendment protects her, and if bluster Barry Cappello were ever to make good on his bogus threat to sue shopkeepers for displaying "McCaw, Obey the Law" signs in their windows, they would be protected by the First Amendment. Similarly, much of the expressive actions taken by the SBNP employees are statutorily protected under labor law that is analogous to the First Amendment with some substantial limitations. The reason the union and the SBNP haven't actually sued each other in court yet has a lot to do with the First Amendment. So, because the enforcement and protection mechanisms surrounding all this require state action, the First Amendment (and its California equivalent) do come into play

3/30/2007 6:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Allegro805,

Just stick with commenting on the issues presented and stay away from fighting what you see as a poster's personality, and you will do just fine.

Signed: anonymous

3/30/2007 7:22 PM  
Anonymous Andy Caldwell said...

You folks amaze me. Your obessive hatred and animosity towards the News Press is frightening. This particular post on this particular story is a perfect example of the ignorance and dishonesty of so-called progressives in this community.

I will give you an example of how you are missing the forest for the trees with respect to the editorial that Travis wrote that started this particular exchange.

Quite simply, the McCune Foundation and the Fund for Santa Barbara are 501 C3 tax exempt organizations that give full deductions for donations. By law, they can only fund other 501C3 organizations and/or purely charitable projects. The Santa Barbara County Action Network and PUEBLO are NOT 501c3- In fact, the SBCAN website specifically states that donations to it are NOT tax deductible because they engage in activities are not permissable under the tax code for C3's. If you go to the websites of these foundations and these political organizations, you will see they have paid activists to come to the North County to "Organize". This money laundering scheme is illegal. It speaks of a political agenda of both McCune and the Fund for Santa Barbara.

That is the point that Travis was making when he quoted me. But in your ranting and raving you just glossed over that little fact, didn't you?

I have given you a fact and an example.

A note to all you people who won't sign your name- have the courage of your convictions or pipe down! You have every right to agree or disagree- but why do it anonymously? It is very easy for you people to gang up on opinion leaders who have the courage and decency to sign their name and stand up for what they believe in- whether you agree with it or not. Think about it. You are becoming a nameless, faceless mob.

3/31/2007 6:58 AM  
Anonymous Mic DeNiro said...

One more time on whether or not the First Amendment is involved in anything going on regarding the News-Press.

The First Amendment prohibits interference with speech by the Federal government. That prohibition extends to acts by state or local government via incorporation through the action of the Fourteenth Amendment. Interference by any non-governmental entity is not prohibited.

If any of you have any doubt on this last point, I suggest you read the Supreme Court's decision in National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Tarkanian (488 U.S. 179), which noted that "[e]mbedded in our Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence is a dichotomy between state action, which is subject to scrutiny under the Amendment's Due Process Clause, and private conduct, against which the Amendment affords no shield, no matter how unfair that conduct may be."

On the specific issue at play regarding Sue Paterno and the SB shopkeepers, under its First Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has set limits on what sort of culpability on the part of the speaker a plaintiff suing for defamation must establish, but this hardly supports the conclusion that "they would be protected by the First Amendment," as Anonymous 3/30/2007 6:57 PM claims.

Might I suggest that if Anonymous 3/30/2007 6:57 PM wants to put his money where his mouth is, he step out from behind his cloak of anonymity, hurl a defamatory statement at Ms. McCaw sufficiently vitriolic to elicit a response from Mr. Cappello, and see if the First Amendment protects him.

3/31/2007 7:28 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

FYI - I have no way of knowing that the above is andy caldwell other than the context.

Mr. Caldwell -- glad you joined us. How is a foundation giving to a 501(c)4 an issue? c4's are advocacy organizations but still non-profits...

3/31/2007 7:43 AM  
Anonymous Mic DeNiro said...

Sara De la Guerra at 3/30/2007 12:02 PM said, in reference to allowing posts regarding Mr. Armstrong's DUI and inferences that he must be an alcoholic,
"I've been retiscant (sic) for several reasons but mostly because this is an issue that is personal in nature and could easily get out of hand. Let's be clear we are talking in general terms here. Thanks."

I'm wondering why such reticence doesn't extend to publishing links to nude photos of Laura Schlesinger, most recently by worker bee at 3/29/2007 7:31 AM on this thread.

Surely the photos, taken in private and subsequently published in what must qualify as the behavior of a cad, are "personal in nature."

Am I missing something? Perhaps
"we are talking in general terms here." If so, what are they?

More importantly, how does such a link raise the level of the discourse and contribute to anything other than titillation?

3/31/2007 7:53 AM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega said...

Most people in Santa Barbara in the old days, in times of trial and difficulty, would pass by the Casa de la Guerra, gather in the courtyard, take off their hats to the patriarch, discuss community events, and a rain of gold coins would soon soothe the troubled polis.

No 501 (C) 3, no lawsuits menacing free speech, and afterward, a fandango, fiesta, and exciting bull and bear fight in Plaza de la Guerra. (Wendy might not like that).

Can't we all just get along and get on with moving the rock?

3/31/2007 9:00 AM  
Anonymous wineguy said...

I believe what Andy Caldwell is calling "political" is any activity in which people work together for change. Sounds political to me, too, but it's not illegal for a 501(c)3 organization to engage in this work. What is illegal is for these groups to support electoral campaigns on behalf of candidates or parties. The Fund and the McCune Group do not support these kinds of campaigns and therefore are non-political in the eyes of the IRS. Caldwell wants to blur this distinction in order to make these and other progressive organizations appear somehow subversive.

Caldwell also continues to harp on the fact that although these groups are based in the South County they persist in spending some of their money in the North County. We just had an election on this very issue, and Santa Barbara remains one county. There's nothing wrong in working together.

3/31/2007 9:08 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

mic -- with all due respect, the issues you bring up are typical of an old media versus new media perspective.

If the News-Press, for instance, publishes the URL of BlogaBarbara (which it has) they are not responsible for content even though that reference they made is moderated by their editor. Same would hold true with more extreme examples. What if a newspaper or magazine ran an article and included references on a subject that most of us would find reprehensible? If someone drives to the library, checks out the references, reads them and uses the information inside -- that newspaper or magazine is not responsible for that person's actions even though they provided the links.

Newspapers publish references to objectionable material all the time -- do you not look at that the same way? Dr. Laura's pictures, which is something she chose to do and must have guessed the possible consequences even in an old media age, have been in the ether for quite some time. Basically, you can Google them.

I'm not sure I agree with worker bee's republishing links to them or whomever the "cad" was that originally published them but they are freely available. I will say that the issue you bring up is one I identitfy with and struggle with often -- but people know when they view the Internet that visiting a blog or a web page can bring just about anything. For that matter, reading a hundreds of year old book by the Marquis de Sade could bring up just about anything whenever you turn the page. The reader knows this and so does the web surfer.

Alcoholism is personal in nature as you and I can't decide for someone else if they are an alcoholic -- it is something that is a matter of self-identity. If they are in treatment for it -- one of the twelve steps would mean that person would acknowledge that they are an alcoholic as well.

Part of me also says that treating alcoholism in such a way -- like we can't talk about it -- keeps it the dirty little secret that causes dysfunction in millions of families. Perhaps even enables...CoD might have an opinion on that. Speaking of it in general terms may just be a good thing for all of us...but the problem I have here is that a DUI does not necessarily an alcoholic make....and who are we to decide that?

3/31/2007 11:09 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

wineguy -- good points. SBCAN, who is the recipient of funds from these organizations (and a competitor to COLAB for the hearts and minds of North County folk, can do issue based advocacy with the funds. Nothing wrong with that -- perhaps developer funds to COLAB could be looked at in a similar, conspiratorial way. Again interesting that TKA says he is against growth but I guess it's okay that COLAB promotes growth? So contrarian I can hardly wrap my mind around it -- and I guess that's the point, confuse the reder and they will read into it what they want.

3/31/2007 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Mr. Moreno said...

I found Caldwell's allegations of "money laundering" on the part of the McCune Fdn and Fund for SB dubious, so I did a little checking.

In fact, I've just spent nearly two hours scouring the IRS website and its various publications (557 is a particularly stimulating read) and I can find no language anywhere that supports Caldwell's assertion that 501(c)(3)s can give only to like organizations or charities.

There are many restrictions on funding lobbying and political campaigns, "self-dealing" and other activities, but nothing on funding non-partisan organizations that engage in community activism.

The McCune Fdn, in fact, reports that in November 2006 it granted SBCAN "$35,121 to support staff and program of progressive network bringing together groups of activists and volunteers to focus on public policy issues and work for change in North County."

Although Caldwell may find this alarming, it is hardly a) money laundering or b) the smoking gun of a vast left-wing conspiracy to destroy the NP or fund an "invasion of the North County by South County politicos," as he wrote in a fevered opinion piece in the Santa Maria Times on March 22.

In short, Caldwell's arguments are groundless and, potentially, libelous.

As for his challenge to eschew anonymity, I must decline. Given that my employer would surely fire me the moment it saw this post, I choose discretion.

3/31/2007 11:20 AM  
Anonymous boB said...

The reason that I wanted to talk generally about alcoholics and alcoholism is because there is such an incredibly great difference in the outward personna of the sober versus the nonsober alcoholic.

Sooner or later a sober alcoholic comes to the realization that much of what he/she said or felt while in the midst of practicing his/her disease simply was not what he/she wanted to say or portray or be associated with.

Now, practicing alcoholics, in fact, do many important and worthwhile things. They can conceive theories and write literature and be kind to old people. But at the same time they should not generally drive cars or fly airplanes or do surgery while drinking.

But often, alcoholics simply see things through a glass darkly. They see things backwards and upside down. These are not necessarily just traffic lights and one-way street signs, but can also involve incorrectly identifying bad and good guys and bad and good ideas and stuff like that.

If an alocholic is a periodic, then they wake up periodically to this terrible hangover and the dreadful realization of what they did when they were drinking, or the dreadful realization that they can't remember what they did while they were drinking.

But when an alcoholic begins to drink continuously, all sorts of even more terrible things happen that a periodic is able to avoid. Metabolism begins to depend on alcohol. Removing it from someone whose metabolism has become alochol based can lead to death. But at the same time, keeping the fuel intake going can lead to totally distorted and warped thought processes that simply get more and more "out there".

When an observer comments on the motives and the agendas of a chronic alcoholic whose metabolism has become alcohol based, this is simply a waste of time. That alcoholic is operating from premises and perceptions that are not real.

Alcoholism is a disease and alcoholics are very sick people. Like diabetes, that also makes people very sick, the disease when treated allows the person with the disease to gain remission and operate on a relatively normal level.

Like diabetics, sober alcoholics talk about themselves as in recovery, not cured. But while sober and not drinking, many things heal that were badly broken while the alcohol was being consumed. Or in the case of the diabetic when the blood sugar was out of wack.

Bottom line is that sadly there is no way that this blog or any other blog is going to engage a practicing chronic alcoholic in rational debate. Alcoholics have to hit bottom, and then if they survive, and admit their powerlessness over alcohol, there is a chance for sobriety and recovery. Only then will the curtain be pulled and the real person in the alcoholic's body become visible.

Every alcoholic in recovery wishes this for the practicing alcoholic. Sometimes it's really hard to be sympathetic to the nonsober alcoholic because of the really terrible things that he/she may do or have done while drinking. But sober alcoholics do not judge the alcoholic who hits bottom, admits powerlessness, and then sets out on the quest for sobriety. While no one condones the behavior that may have occurred, the alcoholic with a desire to stop drinking is embraced as a brother or sister by the sober alcoholics who will share with him or her their stories and pray that this newcomer can find what they have found.

If the newcomer is able to stay and grow, then the miracle begins to happen and the real personna shows. That's a promise!

3/31/2007 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega said...

So many code words these days: "progressive", "libel", "political speech," "benchmarks"...yet in the polis of a res publica we should find that in our very own Public Plaza anything goes as far as speech is concerned. After all, it should be the community forum for the battle of ideas.

Over the years, I have found that Travis Armstong rarely speaks for what I care about. His voice is paid for by Wendy and he gets a forum as long as Wendy pays. I don't have to read it.

And Andy Caldwell makes some interesting points from time to time in the County. We know who pays for his voice and what he represents.

Dr. Laura has much to say and she is often very wise. The three of them are voices in the community.

There are other code words around here that bother me. "Density" is one of them. Personally I prefer my watchtowers along the question of a necessary urban boundry line and thus I am willing to accept much more density downtown--living where you work and play makes obvious sense to me. Density downtown will make for a lively cultural downtown.

The discussion shouldn't be about developers but about the development. Some are good. Some are bad.

What finally is the real issue we are talking about in this particular posting of Sara's on the Travis column?

Travis thinks there is a conspiracy and so does the opposition here. Some might call this a climate of opinionated paranoids.

People who got fired at the Newspress need to get over it and get a job somewhere else and move on.

Travis gets to do his thing as long as Wendy pays the bills. That's the way it is.

I am free to not read or care about Travis. I would love to read some of you former jounalists at the Newpress somewhere else. So there you are.

There is much more important stuff on the horizon than inside baseball accusations. Some of you are very talented. Careers are always open to talent.

3/31/2007 4:59 PM  
Anonymous COLAB-rodor Retriever said...

A few additions to this winding thread...

Let me first start off by saying I give kudos to Andy (if it is indeed him) for using his real name to post. Unfortunately for some of us who must work in this "small world" of places it's not always so easy to do so without fear of retribution, retaliation, litigation, etc...

In terms of Andy and COLAB, I think Travis and the NP (in the bizarro world of "fair and balanced" investigative reporting) would also be serving the public by investigating, with the same vigor, COLAB's organizational structure and the "behind-the-scenes" ties COLAB has to both Travis and the Chumash Casino.

I wonder, Andy, since you're being so forthcoming, if you could shed some light on COLAB:

Is COLAB setup as a non-profit? If so, what type (c3, c4, c6, other...)?

What is the exact mission of COLAB?

Who are the directors and officers of COLAB?

If you are the leader of COLAB Santa Barbara, and involve yourself so heavily in the politics of OUR County, why do you choose to live in San Luis Obispo County?

Thanks so much in advance for giving us more information about your organization.

3/31/2007 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don Jose, You can be as "agnostic" as you want about all of what you write, let bygones be bygones, que sera sera and all that rot, but when you say:
"People who got fired at the Newspress need to get over it and get a job somewhere else and move on.", that's where I draw the line.

Wendy violated federal labor law when she fired those 8 people, and did all she could to ruin their livelihoods and intimidate others who might be, or were, interested in supporting a union. You can say that that has yet to be proven, but that's not consistent with a "get over it" attitude any more than it would be when an accused criminal violates the law and is pending trial.

The law Wendy violated is a public law, involves the public interest, and implicates a greater society than just Wendy and the immediately affected 8. The NLRB has long taken that position, as has the Supreme Court, and if it were otherwise, then anyone could prosecute the NP for its labor violations (whereas under the law only the NLRB can make the decision to do so). I expect that the NLRB will soon be heading for serious law enforcement activity, aimed at vindicating both the public interest in labor law enforcement, as well as benefiting the individuals most directly harmed by Wendy's predations.

3/31/2007 5:35 PM  
Anonymous Andy needs NONPROFITS 101 said...

Andy--- or you who call yourself Andy: take a quick primer in the world of "C3" and C4" organizations before slandering individuals and organizations....... all of the organizations you are slandering and libeling have C3 foundations attached---PUEBLO, EDC, SBCAN---- and while you're at it, research how many "right wing" organizations have the same LEGAL separations.

Why don't you stop attacking any individuals or organizations who dare to disagree with your agenda and just live and let live. Let the power of ideas--whether financed by huge corporate ag such as your organizations--- or those supported by a myriad of private and foundation donations--- battle it out in the marketplace of ideas. YOur meanspirited tirades do no one any good.

3/31/2007 6:38 PM  
Anonymous Co D said...

SDLG wrote "Part of me also says that treating alcoholism in such a way -- like we can't talk about it -- keeps it the dirty little secret that causes dysfunction in millions of families. Perhaps even enables...CoD might have an opinion on that. "

Thanks Sara. First off, boB's comment was right on and beautifully expressed. It is a difficult subject. Part of me respects the anonymous nature of the recovery groups and the other part of me says why does this disease have to be treated differently than the others- like cancer or diabetes.

But talking about it in general terms is good because our culture is still in need of a lot of education on the subject. Many still believe that it is not a disease.

It is my experience that shame is often at the heart of this disease and is what this disease thrives on.

When it is spoken of in terms of disease, it can be a great relief to the person suffering. Shame no more.

Intervention is a way to speed up the self-identifying process. Intervention is about deep love & honesty.

I think intervention, not waiting for a person to hit bottom or to self indetify is a really progressive development in this disease.

3/31/2007 8:05 PM  
Anonymous don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega said...

Dear Anonymous:

Good luck in the justice quest. For you, the battle is joined as they say. Pursuing justice takes time so much time. And life is so short. But by all means, spend your life's allotment of time anyway you want. You are master of your destiny. Or are you?

3/31/2007 9:21 PM  
Anonymous KC said...

Mr Caldwell-

The 'fact' you mentioned is not a fact at all.

I am suprised that you don't understand the guidelines required of 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations. They are allowed to participate in a wide range of political activities.

I have had no prior opinion of you as a person or the work of your organization. But your lack of knowledge on some very basic nonprofit information (easily researched in 2 minutes at most) is quite astonishing.

4/01/2007 11:10 AM  
Anonymous KC said...

After reading Mr. Caldwell's opinion in this blog, I thought I should do a bit of research to better understand his point of view- I was suprised at his lack of knowledge regarding nonprofit organizations.

So I read his recent commentary in the SM Times. He describes a greater presence by a certain nonprofit in North County as 'infiltration' as if something sordid & covert were going on.

News flash- over the past 10 or so years, many many nonprofits & funders based in the South County (because that is where they originated due to the fact that that is where the county's wealth is concentrated) have extended their reach into the North County because they realize it is a part of the county that has been greatly underserved.

If Mr Calwell is going to take on respectable nonprofits doing good work in our community, he really needs to take off that chip on his shoulder and spend some time doing more homework.

4/01/2007 12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone find it ridiculous that a guy who coined the term "Twisted Sisters" would be lecturering people about the tone of their criticism of the News-Press?

And what about COLAB? The L in the name refers to Labor. Since when did they truly represent labor interests?
This guy is making the most of his organizations status for political purposes both in the North County and the South County and he doesn't even live here.

He's made a good living over the last decade or so showing up at every board of supes meeting to lecture them on his pet issues. Good for you Andy, you've done your members proud I'm sure, but should you really start bringing up this stuff about "money laundering" and inappropriate activisim?
A little of the pot calling the kettle black, no?

4/01/2007 1:56 PM  
Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

Who is more desperate:
Travis or Andy?

Discuss.

4/01/2007 7:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mic Deniro, in response to your provocation, "Might I suggest that if Anonymous 3/30/2007 6:57 PM wants to put his money where his mouth is, he step out from behind his cloak of anonymity, hurl a defamatory statement at Ms. McCaw sufficiently vitriolic to elicit a response from Mr. Cappello, and see if the First Amendment protects him.", you blow right by the point. Actual defamation is not protected by the First Amendment. You seem to confuse offensive language and the ability to sue with First Amendment protection.

The reason reporters like Sue Paterno, and unions and employers in labor disputes are afforded a higher degrees of protection from civil attack is precisely because of the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence. Public figures like McCaw (and the paper) have to show a higher degree of culpability against writers like Paterno (and usually are not able to do so) in order to enable a robust, free public debate on issues of concern to the community. That is what the First Amendment is all about.

So, if I were to step out from behind my cloak of anonymity and hurl a defamatory statement at McCaw, then I would not be protected, because that would mean I had said something about McCaw that was both defamatory (factually incorrect, and damaging) and malicious (I knew it was wrong). No one has said that defamation is protected by the First Amendment. But also note that the Teamsters go around wielding "McCaw, Obey the Law" signs, and Cappello and his bully friends don't sue them. Why? Because he knows such a lawsuit would backfire, because the union is not worried about the resources it would take to file a slam dunk anti-SLAPP suit that would end up with Wendy paying the union's attorneys. Cappello gets away with his threats against shopkeepers because they are concerned about having to hire a lawyer. The First Amendment doesn't directly protect against that. But it damn sure does ultimately ensure that speakers with the courage and the legal backing can invoke that protection.

Bullies don't pick on people who can stand up against them. But if Cappello were to sue a shopkeeper for putting a "McCaw, Obey the Law" sign in his window (and by the way, McCaw is going to be prosecuted for trying to stop her reporters from putting such signs on their vehicles), it would be the First Amendment to the rescue.

(The state action component is satisfied when plaintiffs like McCaw try to get the state civil law enforcement machinery to punish or recompense them for alleged defamation. Or put another way, the First Amendment is the bulwark that protects non-malicious offensive speech from liability)

4/02/2007 7:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To add to the "general discussion" of alcoholism and general drug abuse. It has been noted by professionals that those who have problems with chemical dependency often project their own problems upon others. When reading these posts I have to consider if this is in fact the case here, is there projection going on with the commentors? As Sara DLG has pointed out, when pointing the finger at someone, there are several fingers pointing back at yourself.

4/02/2007 8:19 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Let's be careful about this line of reasoning --most people who are educated about this either went through it themselves or had a close family member/loved one who are recovering. Looking at how dependency affects a person is a filter -- we could just as easily find another one if we wished.

4/02/2007 9:22 AM  
Anonymous Co D said...

Anon 8:19-

Projecting is a common human attribute not limited to those with chemical dependency issues. It is found in people who don't live self examined lives and don't take responsibilty for their thoughts and feelings and actions.

I am not sure how you see fingers pointing in this thread. Where you see fingers pointing, I see people sharing own personal experiences with this disease. Are we projecting our insides out? Perhaps.

It is a rare person who has not been affected in one way or another by chemical dependency.

Yet it still remains, in many circles, a taboo subject.

4/02/2007 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the worst that could happen if alcohol abuse is taken out of its taboo status? Who does it hurt most, when this silence is finally broken.

Is it not more often the speaker who hides in fear from the anger, denial and withdrawal threatened by the alcoholic?

Who then, in fact, is the impaired one. AlAnon is one answer.

4/02/2007 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sara,

You usually keep the threads pretty much on target but are letting this one meander into one about alcoholism and recovery. What gives?

Let's get back to the TKA discussion upon which this thread was started. Start another one about alcoholism if people want to argue about that.

Sheesh!

4/02/2007 9:49 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Sheesh -- one of the problems with comments that hit 70 and above is that you get some side topics that might not be great posts but are important and interesting in the context. This is probably about it on this subject and I agree that it's time to move on -- but as this post is getting to be a few days old, that should happen naturally.

4/02/2007 10:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You raise a good point, SDG. Stories that get all of our knickers in a twist, yelling and scratching about, so quickly become ...... yesterday's news.

Public comment may in fact be one of the "soft addictions" NewPress today talks about. Is the goal really productive public comment or self-administered adrenalin hits?

I ask myself this ...... often.

4/03/2007 12:24 PM  
Anonymous Happy-for-Agitators! said...

What I found most ironic about Andy's column/Travis's rant was the whining that (to paraphrase) "outside agitators are coming to N. County to work for social change and are being funded by nonnprofits and foundations."

If this "logic" prevailed, then imagine how much longer it would have taken for whatever successes this country has experienced in desegragation, women's rights, or gay rights! or economic justice. or environmental progress.

4/04/2007 9:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home