Thursday, July 23, 2009

The Pasadena Star News Doesn't Read Itself

A month or two back I called the Pasadena Star News because I was trying to figure out who wrote one of their editorials. They had written something or other about Sierra Madre, and I figured if I spoke to enough people there someone would spill the beans. But it turns out that is a big secret for the inner sanctums of our local newspaper of record, and no matter what kind of routine I ran on them (pleased citizen wanting to send a cookie bouquet, angry reader, the guy who is about to cancel his subscription for any one of a million reasons, or, my favorite, the guy who has a lot of great ideas and thinks they should use some of them), none of my usual tricks worked. These guys held on to their big secret like they were CIA agents or something.

And now I think I know why. It's in case they make a mistake. Because if you're going to share an opinion about how the world should be run, and within that opinion is included a big old throbbing blunder, well, at least you have that veil of secrecy to hide behind. I can only imagine that Larry Wilson has wished for such a luxury from time to time.

Now I have to admit to something. I have grown fond of the Pasadena Star News. They have some pretty decent reporters, and the paper has an earnest and unpretentious way of going after the news. Their on-line features such as Topix, while certainly a bit rough at times, can also be an interesting workout for those of us who enjoy arguing politics with fabulously agitated people. And the PSN certainly does a much better job reporting on the affairs of our favorite town than that pair of junk weeklies we're cursed with.

So I have to tell you that I take no real pleasure in relating the following. Well, not too much, anyway. But it is kind of funny. And apparently I read their paper way more than they do.

Today's PSN editorial is entitled Our View: Cities should take the deal. And it contains an opinion that should be of keen interest to Sierra Madre, along with the many fine readers of this blog. That being cities such as ours should give some real consideration to dumping their costly police departments and bringing in the L.A. County Sheriff's Department. Very topical stuff. But then they go and ruin it all with the following:

"In tiny Sierra Madre, as in other small cities in these tight economic times, having its own police department is like having a millstone tied around its neck. It has nearly drowned them in a sea of red ink. That's why the City Council is looking at contracting out its police services with the Sheriff's Department or the Pasadena or Arcadia police departments."

I can only hope and pray Elaine Aguilar doesn't see that. She takes this sort of thing very seriously.

Now on June 24 (not all that long ago), the Pasadena Star News ran an article called Sierra Madre in better financial shape than many of its neighbors. And in it was the following paragraph:

"(Sierra Madre) projects $7.2 million in general fund revenues and $6.4 million in general fund expenditures in the 2009-2010 fiscal year starting July 1, followed by $7.9 million in general fund revenues and $6.8 million in expenditures in 2010-2011."

Now does THAT sound like a city drowning in red ink? I should say not. And while those figures are a little bit on the rich side, we really are running some rather nice surpluses these days, thank you. Mostly due to that 100% UUT increase we somehow got conned into voting ourselves.

But what makes this all a little exasperating is that the PSN's editorial department actually published a viewpoint recently (June 5) that talked not only about Sierra Madre's budgetary surpluses, but also how we need to get the UUT hike back on the ballot and voted out of existence.

Here is a telling excerpt from Our View: Sierra Madre should reconsider tax:

"As we noted in this space last March, whoops! An outside audit found an extra $1 million that hadn't been properly accounted for ... In little Sierra Madre, population 11,000 souls, that's real money. As we noted previously, it makes the difference between what would have been an operating deficit at the end of this month, the close of this city's fiscal year, of $315,000; instead, the city will be in the black with a surplus of approximately $46,000."

Drowning in a sea of red ink my foot.

Now, my dear Pasadena Star News friends, here's the real reasons why we're considering sending our Police Department packing. The first being they sue us a lot. We spend a ton of loot on lawyers to defend ourselves from junk lawsuits over nonsense like PD locker searches. It is both expensive and offensive to have these ingrates going after us this way. Especially after we voluntarily raised our own taxes to give them their damned raise. And secondly, we want to take YOUR advice and get rid of the UUT increase. And the best way of doing that is cutting the costs of law enforcement in this town, something that accounts for 52% of our General Fund expenditures. And if these studies the City Council is working on pan out, and the numbers look right, we might actually be able to do that by bringing in Lee Baca's outfit. Who knows?

Maybe I should call the Pasadena Star News today and pretend to be the guy that wants to help them out by editing the editorials covering Sierra Madre. And then again, maybe not. I do have a day job, and we all know that if you don't focus, you can make mistakes.

67 comments:

  1. They should pay you, Sir Eric, to review any editorials they plan to print about Sierra Madre ahead of time, and it would save you having to correct them in the Tattler the next morning, and save them from running yet another fallacious editorial.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have never seen the word "whoops!" used in an editorial
    before. But I'm betting that after they see this it will be used
    a little today at the Star News offices. Their point about
    reconsidering how our policing dollars are spent is a good
    one, though. That definitely requires a good long hard look.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Save the Star News from running a fallacious editorial?

    they LOVE the things!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Virginia!
    Damn, you're right, I stand corrected.....LOL
    Besides, we have so much fun here on the Tattler goofing on them!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just look at all the garbage it printed during the past two elections in town. The Pasadena Star News has always operated this way. It's nothing new.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If this paper wants to be taken seriously it needs to get and keep its stories straight. You can't go from editorializing about how a city needs to cut its taxes one month and then say its drowning in a sea of red ink the next. Crazy stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Our councilmembers, Zimmerman, Watts and MacGillivray love the Star News......of course not enough to ever grant them an interview.....SMRRD loves the PSN, of course not enough to ever grant them an interview.....
    And well they should love them.....their endorsements of other candidates and pro-BIA and CAR only help us win votes.....the people in Sierra Madre are sharp. PSN endorses it......vote against.
    Zimmerman, Watts, MacGillivray were NOT endorsed by the PSN, Yes on Measure V was NOT endorsed by the PSN, Nancy Shollenberger was NOT endorsed by the PSN.....THEY ALL WON ANYWAY!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wonder if the POA will ever wake up to the fact that their methods are causing a lot of cities to consider ditching their police departments. Years of arrogance, bullying and outright lies by their union about the cities they supposedly serve is coming back to bite a lot of cops on their well cushioned posteriors. People have had enough and they aren't taking it anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I can't wait to read all of your whining and bitching after the LA Sheriff takes over police work for Sierra Madre. You'll love the parade of shaved headed storm troopers that get rotated through our town. You'll love double the response time on calls for help. You'll love the increase in traffic citations to residents for chicken shit stuff. You'll deserve what you get in spades.

    ReplyDelete
  10. POA tactics seems to be a subset of SEIU Local 721 that covers County sheriff as well, so the union behavior wouldn't change. However it's turned into a favorite tactic to get higher pay via a *local* association, Long Beach is dealing with the same thing.

    http://www.presstelegram.com/editorials/ci_12806448

    If police were contracted out to County sheriff, then officer public liability would also be contracted out on a shared basis, as per an opinion in the Star-News today (that much-maligned rag).

    http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/editorial/ci_12895059

    But the tactic of serial nuisance lawsuits by local police associations would no longer be a problem, and the retirement funds would be maintained by the county, not individual communities - but note that CALPERS recently lost billions in bad real estate investments.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090715/bs_nm/us_calpers

    The cost then becomes the loss of local control and accountability. If that's not happening now, perhaps it's a moot point. I suspect that Diaz is being made the target by the POA for this reason, if she's trying to "daylight" things.

    This is a seriously complex issue no matter which way it goes down.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Now hold on, 9:17

    I've always supported law enforcement. My Dad used to be with the L.A.P.D.
    One of my closest friends here in town is with the L.A.P.D.
    I was one of the petition carriers for you all to get your measure on the ballot.
    The folks signed the petitions, because they liked the police. We appreciated a local police force.
    Your union and a few of you are really out of line. Why are you suing our city?
    You haven't been fair with us, so if the city does get rid of you, I'll throw you're last comment back at ya' you'll deserve what you get in spades.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have a few thoughts to share with you Sir Eric so listen up.
    As tempting as it might be to rely on PSN, always presume that the Pasadena Star News has gotten between 10% and 25% of their story WRONG. I've found over the years this is a good rule of thumb. The whoppers I have seen in that paper after our city council meetings!

    Stop characterizing our possible dumping of the SMPD as a reaction to POA litigation.

    If that were our town's reason for eliminating the department, it would be actionable as wrongful termination since everyone is entitled to "uphold their rights" in the workplace [even if they are pursuing frivolous claims]. If it were otherwise, secretaries that sued over rump slapping or workers who sued for unpaid wages could be fired [and I hope you agree with me that wouldn't be good public policy].

    What we are doing is legitimately asking ourselves, hey what the heck are we getting for our money? Why are we paying so much more than our neighbors for police protection? Why, in spite of the fact that we pay a lot more for our police protection, are the officers at the SMPD so unhappy? Why have our city leaders allowed this untenable budgetary obligation where we are paying 52% of the general fund? How do we correct this very dysfunctional situation?

    If you find the state of our town's policing as alarming as I do, then you will agree with me that it is time for a change. Change is scarey this is after all the devil we know, but the PSN may be correct about our red ink when it comes to the SMPD in one regard: Salaries are not the only obligations we are incurring.

    We are also incurring future obligations to provide retirement and health care to this large city department. And I'm afraid we may find some red ink down that path.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 9:41 - Interesting thoughts, but:

    A) I'm entitled to an opinion, and I find the lawsuits offensive. Sure, they might be entitled to sue everytime somebody looks at them the wrong way, but that hardly means I have to like it. And I am not the City, as I'm sure even you must have figured out by now.

    B) You need to familiarize yourself with the tactics of the POA. Please refer to this site so that you too can realize that there is a method to their madness.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20080208222701/http://www.policeattorney.com/newsletter-94.htm

    C)The PSN article talked of "red ink" as something that has already occured. You are speaking of it as a possible future occurence. Apples and oranges and, as I see it, neither one correct. The future is a hard thing to predict. If you don't think so, try picking some winning lottery numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 9:41...Who is relying on the Pasadena Star News? As I read it the entire article about how wrong they were.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sir Eric, great teaching by example. The links you provide show that you remember what you have written previously, and there is continuity to your arguments.
    Refreshingly coherent.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey Old Kentucky at 8:28, that is very funny & true! Don't know how it does it its own city, but if the PSN is for something or someone in Sierra Madre, you know who the losers are going to be.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 9:17, regarding response time: the sheriffs would operate out of the same place, making it a sub station. I've heard that they've wanted to have it as a base of operations for years. They'd still be close. And maybe they wouldn't be quite as hostile to the people WHO TRIED THEIR BEST TO GIVE THEM ALL THE MONEY THEY COULD and were then slapped with bogus, manipulative, frivolously costly lawsuits.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good points Sir Eric, but I hope you will concede that future red ink should be part of this debate. And to the recent commenter, yes I realize Sir Eric's point that PSN opinion piece was wrong, I merely wished to in a tongue in cheek way warn Sir Eric off his man-crush on the PSN organization - good reporters indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sir Eric, we also do not disagree about the POA as I too find the POA and frivolous lawsuits offensive. It is good that you bring the POA to light. That needs to be done. But you and all of your readers should keep in mind (as I think another commenter mentioned), the POA is involved in other departments and will not be eliminated by contract police.

    I too find the tactics of the POA offensive, and I believe if the SMPD is dumped it will be their fault.

    Why? Because those tactics led to a pay increase this town can't sustain.

    Those tactics led to the level of disgruntled, low morale we currently see among our PD.

    Those tactics led to an open sore in the relationship of the residents to the SMPD and have shifted the town mindset when it comes to the PD.

    Those tactics give no thought to the amount we pay for PD in comparison with other towns our size.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous @9:41, maybe you didn't carry a petition for the sake of the police, or maybe you didn't sign one. Part of the anger against the actions of the POA comes from people making a big effort to get the police decent wages, to show them respect and appreciation. To have legal bullying follow that effort is a bad, bad mistake on the POA's part. But maybe you're just being cautious like a lawyer. People feel betrayed by the department that they carried petitions for.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Allow me to supplement the 9:41 comment, while you are not the city your blog will help shape the debate on this issue [I'm assuming all these fired up bloggers take all this energy and let our city council know what they are thinking too].

    So if you really want a contract department and not a continuation of the overpriced, unaffordable city department and all its dysfunction, then the discussion in this blog can help achieve that goal.

    Getting rid of the SMPD should be a rational decision based on the costs versus what we get for the money. It should not be a way to exact vengeance for POA behavior that has offended us. Ironically, I have not seen one rational comment for keeping the police. Instead we have only seen vitriolic comments, which seem to have the emotional IQ of a 14 year old, "You'll be sorry when I'm gone!"

    Will we be sorry?

    Still, lets not sink to that level of resentment. While we may not like everything that has occurred, there are 24 city employees with jobs on the line. The majority of them may have voted for the POA and its activity, but some may not have agreed. Some may have bad attitudes, but some may not.

    In spite of my sympathy for their plight, I happen to think most, if not all, of our PD jobs need to be eliminated and replaced with contract positions through Arcadia PD, Pasadena PD or LA County Sheriff. Those departments are staffed with better trained, more fit, more experienced and better equipped personnel. Where's the SMPD personnel counter argument to that? Some of our SMPD personnel couldn't qualify to join those forces, and that means our policing is substandard in spite of its high price tag. I've heard vague statements that response times will go up, will they? I bet most of those PDs would love to have a substation in Sierra Madre to better police along the foothills.

    I'm sympathetic to the great upset and disruption we will cause to the majority of our city policing staff by eliminating their jobs. And I think we all need to keep in mind that these people are trying to provide for themselves and their families. We may not like the tactics they have used [especially the downright underhandedness of their overtime hours], but that's what they are trying to do. I'm sure we can all understand the need to provide [although I'm sure most of us have moral compasses that would have rejected calling in sick just to qualify for overtime].

    All that sympathy and resentment and loyalty and disloyalty aside, we have to keep in mind how much we can spend to keep our town's infrastructure functioning and safe and provide other vital services to our citizens especially our kids and seniors. Like every other employer, we the citizens and taxpayers (as shareholders or de facto investors in Sierra Madre) have to look at this rationally and not emotionally. As a town, we too have obligations and a need to provide for our own community. We simply cannot afford the current situation year after year.

    And while it is difficult to predict based on our experience to date, the future seems likely to include emergency city expenses, expensive city maintenance, further expensive POA litigation, expensive SMPD pension obligations (those are a certainty) and expensive SMPD health care obligations (another certainty) that we will struggle to afford. Our leaders have an obligation to provide city services to their residents in a cost effective way so that residents are not overburdened with taxation. [Although I think we would be wise to keep some portion or form of UUT so that we do not face constant deficits and might have a few extras for our community, but I also happen to think we should spend it wisely.]

    So for me, the rational albeit painful decision must be to look for affordable policing and spend the money we save on other vital services.

    I am presuming a bit to tell you how to frame your discussion, but I believe public comments to our city council that sound like a mob full of resentment about the POA tactics and out for vengeance will not be helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Tattler, just a thanks for:
    The PSN makes a "big old throbbing blunder"
    Political blogs have "fabulously agitated people"
    PD lawsuits "both expensive and offensive"
    You've surely got a way with words.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "...ut I believe public comments to our city council that sound like a mob full of resentment about the POA tactics..."

    Yeah, that would be bad.

    Wot an ass.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Wow, that hurt my feelings deeply 12:09

    ReplyDelete
  25. Self identified presumptuous one,
    Turn about is fair play, so here's a recommendation for you. Your ideas have some validity, so if you'll just refrain from the preaching about the way other people express themselves, maybe they'll be heard more clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 12:00 - Yeah, people speaking out about the big issues facing this city are the real problem in this town. How shameful that people should care and want to speak their minds at City Council meetings. Better to leave everything to the people who really know what is going on in town. Proven leaders like John Buchanan, Joe Mosca, Rob Stockly, Enid Joffe and Bart Doyle. These are the guys who know where the problems are and really have the gumption and get-go to make things work out for all of us.

    And if you doubt any of this, go take a look at One Carter. Or the years of unfinished audits to Sacramento. Or the fate of the DSP. Or, for that matter, that wonderful agreement Enid Joffe got us with the POA. I think the word used to describe that one was "historic?"

    Don't know who you are friend, but if you blow any harder there won't be a building left standing from here to El Monte.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Somehow I doubt the sincerity of the poster at noon. Either it's a hustle, or the fellow has wandered on to the wrong blog.
    Noon, you probably want the Sierra Madre News Net.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Good suggestion Sam. Maybe the 'I am presuming a bit' writer ought to post an artcle on the SM News Net.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think you've all missed the point of my comment.

    I favor everyone being involved and speaking.

    I'm just thinking ahead to what these comments will sound like at city council, and I'm not the one who will sound like an ass. "Boo hoo the police dept hurts my feelings by resenting the raise," isn't going to win the day.

    In other words, do you have anything else to say on the topic besides we're mad about the POA?

    [Other than I'm a preachy, ass that is.]

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sounds like another member of the Downtown Investment Club with a bad case of Sir Eric envy...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dude, you're just being beligerant and nasty. You throw in an idea or two that might have some validity, and then get down to what you're really here for, which is showing your resentment for what is currently the majority political faction in this town. Your bitterness is not only apparent, it is pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Are you people morons?

    The 12:00 posting completely supports Sir Eric's position that the police dept is overpaid and needs to be shown the door.

    However, the post does show a bit of sympathy for the minority of the police shmucks who will lose their jobs that might not support the POA tactics. By all means a terrible crime, let the roasting alive continue.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hey it's a troll!
    Anything else to say - you mean like the statistics written about and posted that explain the financial realities we're dealing with? You mean like that? Like every article the Tattler has done on the subject, every link, copied & pasted chart, all those researched comparisons?
    And you think your point has been missed.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nobody has said Noonie doesn't have some valid points to make. It is the accompanying insults that is the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Just another bitter dirt.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Noonie the Troll, looking for some fun.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 12:32, you are completely incorrect.

    I have no resentment about the majority political faction, because in most parts it is my faction too.

    I've never voted for Mosca [not even the first time cause he didn't give me a good feeling after talking to him], supported measure V, fought Maranatha HS on the hill, don't want the mega church to eat our town and I've never been a member of the communist party. In fact, I think many of you would agree with most of the positions I've taken in this town.

    Why must the people on this blog always assume some dirt background when someone says something the least bit different?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Now there's one of the real conundrums about Sierra Madre. Some of the most mediocre and untalented people to be found anywhere have somehow convinced themselves they're an elite. And to this day they can't figure out just how it can be that they were so unceremoniously thrown out of power.

    ReplyDelete
  39. There may be more problems than their worth getting involved with other jurisdictions....like Arcadia PD or Pasadena PD.
    I would like to know all the facts about getting involved with the county. If it would just open it up for more government control....specifically, help over development....I don't want to go there.
    I don't know enough to form an opinion at this time.
    I would like to hear from Doctor Stacatto on this issue. If you're reading this, Doc....please jump in.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 12:41 - it's a blog. You insult people you get paid back. Be nice, and people will be nice to you. It's very simple, and I'm surprised I've had to tell you this.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 12:47, there was nothing mean about the 12:41 comment that warranted being called an ass or a dirt or a troll.
    The comments about the POA do sound like a resentful mob, and they will get us nowhere if you want to dump the SMPD, which would in fact be the ulitimate "revenge" against POA tactics.

    Having said that, Old Kentucky is right - let's look before we leap. However, getting rid of the SMPD for awhile would eliminate all those expensive contracts we currently operate under. In a few years if we find our experience with another Dept to be unfavorable, then we can form another dept. And at that point, we may find the experience beneficial in how we set the new dept up.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 12:52 - Sheer idiocy, Noonie. People can say whatever they want, whenever they want. Do you actually believe that people talking about city govt and politics on a blog represents a threat to Sierra Madre?

    It's called democracy, oh esteemed and magnificent one.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Oh gawd! Who let the control freak in here?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Well thanks for the lesson in Democracy 12:57. I just thought it lacked any perspective other than POA BAD!!
    Now can we get back to the subject at hand [that would be Sir Eric's article] before Sir Eric shuts the entire subject down as terribly dull and off point [that being what a pompous ass you all feel I've been today].

    ReplyDelete
  45. Actually I thought is was rather entertaining. Though I found one thing puzzling - where did you come up with the notion that all people have been saying here is "POA bad?" To me that looks like a strawman that you have set up to serve as a counterpoint to your own positions. It is a shame that you have so little faith in your own voice that you feel the need to resort to such a tactic. It shows weakness.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Just as we need a forensic audit to exam the City's books,we may need outside qualified experts to investigate the workings of the Police Department.The Community needs facts, not opinion or heresay.We do have a problem and there is a need to address it;but without bias or strong emotional involvement.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Exactly Sister Sarah, which is why I POSTED THE STATISTIC about La Canada Flintridge and Westlake Village yesterday. And hardly anyone has commented about those stats, which I think really show that there is virtually no difference in the crime rates of two communities that have opted to go with a contract with the sheriff.

    And Sir Eric, I think there's plenty of negative comments about the POA, and some of them are mine.

    I don't like what I've seen happen with the SMPD from the "Sierra Madre Sucks" T-shirts to the lawsuits to the overtime.

    The point I'm trying to make [and apparently not very well] is this blog can help shape the discussion and that approaching this issue from a place of resentment and hurt [11:53 comment for instance] is counterproductive especially when there are 24 people's jobs at stack. And again, for the record, I think we should eliminate those jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I adore you sr eric, I absolutely am awestruck at your intelligence. What a fresh breeze and cool drink of water you are...

    When I hear We as in that editorial, I always wonder if that person has a mouse in their pocket. That CIA mentality and those wilsons squeak...I let my fingers do the walking on The POA for several reasons the other day, and it looks like little dieter carlos has grandiose ideas, (in person he kind of reminds me of the cartoon mouse always trying to take over the world) which as someone else stated above will most probably be the end of talks between any police department and any city, he probably filled a niche for them, but what he filled it with well, I think you have to put boots on to walk through...

    ReplyDelete
  49. Oh, and I'd like to see the people of this community rise above the level of rhetoric of say the comment at 9:17 a.m.

    ReplyDelete
  50. been there, done thatJuly 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM

    Precisely Eric. Thanks for refreshing my memory about the straw man strategy. There ain't a whole lot new in ye old propaganda techniques.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 1:29, wrong choice. That person at 9:17 said what they really thought. The agenda was not hidden.

    ReplyDelete
  52. 1:29 the 1st - People are going to say what people are going to say. 9:17 does use an unfortunate word, but what the heck. We're not here to play nanny.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Give me liberty or give me a platformJuly 23, 2009 at 1:36 PM

    I don't think any of the posters here are so naive as to go to the podium with the rants and invectives surfacing today. After all they're smart enough to read, write, blog, and affluent enough to own a computer (or at least to make their way to the library). I love the idea that people can say what they want on a blog (within limits). The bottom line on the whole Sierra Madre Police Department is that we can't afford it -- if the Arcadia PD, Pasadena PD, or the LA Cnty Sherrifs are cheapers, end of story. If your style is pedantic, methodical, and dull, hurrah for you. I like colorful, irreverant and full of slings and arrows!!!

    ReplyDelete
  54. 1:36, great comment.

    ReplyDelete
  55. One should never confuse stuffy and pompous communication with sophistication. If that was true John Buchanan would be a genius.

    ReplyDelete
  56. 1:36, this reminds me of a discussion I had with my husband about the Tom Lykos show and the men who call in for dating advice. He said it was entertainment, and I said the guys were true believers out there armed with the $40 date technique.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I think we could get away with NO Police Force at all. We have one now and nothing EVER gets solved, who capped the dude at 1 carter, who robbed Corfu,why did 900 cops from 12 jurisdictions have to extricate the Yahoo on Windsor ln.? We should tap able bodied Sierra Madreans to serve on the volunteer police force with only a bare minimum of sworn officers on hand in case the post digestive fecal materiel hits the rotating air circulation device. Everyone on my street is so G-Darn nosy a crook aint got a chance. If we realease the inner "Mrs. Kravitz" in our citizenery I pity the criminal trying to pull a fast one on our town.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Funny post 3:07. You're sure right about nosy neighbors. More good than not though.
    The guy who brought murder to Carter was caught.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Wouldn't it be funny for all this time and effort to be wasted on ranting and raving about the police department, only to find out that the statistics city hall gave out (52% of budget) was fraudulent?

    It certainly seems odd if not suspicious, that no one representing this blog is actually asking tough questions.

    BTW: I don't need Sir Eric to tell me what to think of the Pasadena Star News, Mountain Views News or the Weekly. I can draw my own conclusions. If I thought those rags had any credibility, I would read them. As far as I'm concerned this Blog is irrelevant to any serious debate regarding serious issues that affect Sierra Madre.

    I highly doubt you will have any influence on the next election, but if it's necessary for you to feel important, then keep yelling in the wind, all you want. I won't be listening anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Awww, somebody's mad.

    Buh bye!

    ReplyDelete
  61. The suggestion of a private security service and/or a County service is interesting.We certainly can not continue to endure the present arrangment.With the County,are there ramifications with could in any way impact us negatively with their service?We would be dealing with another government entity and it is hard to believe there isn't something which might be of concern to us.Has anyone explored this?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Amused by noblesse obligeJuly 23, 2009 at 4:25 PM

    My grandmother used to say, "his nose is so high in the air he'd drown in a hard rain". Too bad he won't be around anymore, or not.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I don't agree with you 4:12.
    I think volumes of serious issues with some very serious comments are on this blog nearly everyday.
    Wouldn't it be funny if you finally realize a lot of good information that proves to all be true is on this board?
    Sorry you feel otherwise, but it's your loss.

    ReplyDelete
  64. How can you not read the papers? Even if they are lousy, you at least got to know what the canards are.

    Makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Sierra Madre business ownerJuly 23, 2009 at 5:10 PM

    Noonie has been a weird departure from a fruitful discussion.
    Think that was the point?

    ReplyDelete
  66. The Tattler is a community forum guided by a known and trusted source, open to anonymous exchange. Topics are au courant, often instructive and frequently hilarious. There's nothing else quite like it -- free and open to those of like mindedness or contradictory persuasion. Thank you Sir Eric for your gift.

    ReplyDelete
  67. 2 Librans - reflectJuly 23, 2009 at 7:30 PM

    I too have felt that rejection was my lot in life. But I then discovered that if I attempted to regain my place through kindness and commiseration, success would surely follow.

    ReplyDelete

The Tattler is a moderated blog. Annoying delays when posting comments can happen. Thank you for your patience and understanding.