Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Sam Lowry
Is this you? Claim Profile »
3 days ago
in TOO EARLY TO JOKE ABOUT KING OF POP’S PASSING? on The District Weekly
Yes, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would have ben.
1 reply
DWR
Good one! Well done.
5 days ago
in TOO EARLY TO JOKE ABOUT KING OF POP’S PASSING? on The District Weekly
What would we tell our children...that we met on The District Weekly's comment boards?
- 2 points
- Jump to »
LB City Girl
I'd tell them I was attracted to your sense of humor and common sense!
Sam Lowry
That could scar a kid for life.
6 days ago
in TOO EARLY TO JOKE ABOUT KING OF POP’S PASSING? on The District Weekly
From: Normal people
To: The Media
Enough with the pandering. Let's move on.
Kthxbai
To: The Media
Enough with the pandering. Let's move on.
Kthxbai
- 2 points
- Jump to »
LB City Girl
I think I may be falling in love with you, Sam.
DWR
Oh Sam, you're taking MJ's passing all too seriously. Be a sport and play along a bit and share your "Where Were You..." tale. It will all soon pass into history anyway.
If you don't have a good tale to tell, make one up; I wish I did. Just don't mention it was fabricated.
If you don't have a good tale to tell, make one up; I wish I did. Just don't mention it was fabricated.
1 week ago
in WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU HEARD THE NEWS? on The District Weekly
I'm just sayin'...we're not talking Mother Teresa here.
1 reply
Dave Wielenga
Although they dressed similarly.
1 week ago
in WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU HEARD THE NEWS? on The District Weekly
Better yet, who cares?
2 replies
Dave Wielenga
Aw, Sammy.
LB City Girl
I am in total agreement, Sam. Who cares? Can we start listening to currently produced music now?
2 months ago
in COUNCILMAN-ELECT GARCIA PICKS HIS STAFFERS on The District Weekly
Part of that is because our local elections aren't lined up with state and national elections, where the turnout is the highest. You'll notice that neither city council or city staff is rushing to change this. This is yet another reason why Long Beach needs charter reform.
1 reply
LB City Girl
This is an excellent point. The last national election had the highest turnout of any election in recent history. It would be interseting to see how the local elections would have been with that kind of turnout.
You have to figure that our elected city officials realize that the less voters there are, the less voters they need to get to vote for them. Indeed, with voter turnout like this, all you have to do is get about a thousand people to vote for you to win a city council seat. Basically all you need to do is motivate one or two lobby groups and you are a shoo-in.
I was thinking about it some more, John G, because liked your statistical analysis so much-- we have to figure not every eligible adult who can is registered to vote. So in reality even less than 6.39% voted Robert Garcia in. Even sadder!
You have to figure that our elected city officials realize that the less voters there are, the less voters they need to get to vote for them. Indeed, with voter turnout like this, all you have to do is get about a thousand people to vote for you to win a city council seat. Basically all you need to do is motivate one or two lobby groups and you are a shoo-in.
I was thinking about it some more, John G, because liked your statistical analysis so much-- we have to figure not every eligible adult who can is registered to vote. So in reality even less than 6.39% voted Robert Garcia in. Even sadder!
2 months ago
in COUNCILMAN-ELECT GARCIA PICKS HIS STAFFERS on The District Weekly
There's a reason for that, lbr. The handful of what you consider "real" scandals, and the steady flow of wrong turns you deem "nearmisses," they're all indicative of a system that's broken, and remains so because of all the infighting that happens in this town. That doesn't even take into account all the unreported stupidity that goes on every single day here.
There's only one of group of people who are ultimately responsible for that, and that's the voters. Shame on us for not manning up and putting good people in office, and not demanding the charter reform it would take to make this a great city.
There's only one of group of people who are ultimately responsible for that, and that's the voters. Shame on us for not manning up and putting good people in office, and not demanding the charter reform it would take to make this a great city.
2 replies
John_B
Sam Lowry: Well said, Sir!
It's so nice to hear from the occasional reader who actually understands the relationship between public policy failures and the people ultimately responsible for public policy...
...the electorate.
It's so nice to hear from the occasional reader who actually understands the relationship between public policy failures and the people ultimately responsible for public policy...
...the electorate.
LB City Girl
Sam, only a small percentage of our registered voters turns out for local elections. Literally, 10-15% vote, meaning as few as 8% of the people may actually be choosing our city council. Everyone who cares, needs to get off their butts and vote in every election--especially the local ones. Local elections affect our daily lives much more than people seem to realize.
3 months ago
in IS THAT A BIBLE IN YOUR HAND, OR ARE YOU JUST HAPPY TO SEE OUR KIDS? on The District Weekly
Jason. Dude. You got no style, but I get your point. Jeanine: use this for the teaching opportunity it is. Teach your kid that religion and belief should be on the inside, and respect for others is something we can all dig. Maybe this is a good time to introduce your kid to the church of the FSM.
And digging up all the nitpicky laws, Jeanine...those are tactics that The Man would use to fight Critical Mass, or harass photographers taking art pics in the port. Please don't model double standards to your kids.
And digging up all the nitpicky laws, Jeanine...those are tactics that The Man would use to fight Critical Mass, or harass photographers taking art pics in the port. Please don't model double standards to your kids.
1 reply
Jason
Sam, if you read her response, and since she noted that her kid begged her not to embarrass them in this particular petty instance, it stands to reason she's done it before. This would lead one to come to the fair conclusion that the woman doesn't listen very well. We can fairly assess that she rattles easy, is prone to histrionic behavior that embarrasses those closest to her, despite the rational feedback they give her, which in her children's case, intimidate them into mirroring her neurosis. If anyone is pushy or tyrannical in this story, it's the author. All neurotics are oppressive.
As far as her poor kids are concerned, the problem isn't the bible-thumper. It's their own mother.
So in this instance, style really doesn't matter much.
As far as her poor kids are concerned, the problem isn't the bible-thumper. It's their own mother.
So in this instance, style really doesn't matter much.
10 months ago
in ‘THIS IS OLD LONG BEACH’ on The District Weekly
You know what, John? All of this would have a lot less stink to it if Hankla would have offered a robust defense of his stance after Dave published this story. Instead, Hankla, "outed", decides to take his toys and go play elsewhere. I've seen him do this before.
Look at the bigger picture . . . this is just one deal where a long-time Long Beach power player got caught with his hand in the influence jar. All Dave did was put a light on it. Can you imagine how many other such deals happen here all the time that DON'T get caught?
Look at the bigger picture . . . this is just one deal where a long-time Long Beach power player got caught with his hand in the influence jar. All Dave did was put a light on it. Can you imagine how many other such deals happen here all the time that DON'T get caught?
1 reply
John_B
Sam: Again, If Hankla's done nothing wrong, why would he need to offer a 'defense', robust or otherwise? And exactly how was he 'outed'?
Is it 'outing' someone to report that they are doing their job? Because none of the facts in this story indicate that Hankla did otherwise.
As asked before: What if Hankla was simply carrying our the requirement of his appointed position as mandated by our own City Charter?
If so, how is that 'getting his hand caught' in anything?
The entire premise of this story and comments like yours is that somebody did something wrong. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't.
Why must we assume, as this story does, some sinister motivation?
Would DeLong or Hankla have personally benefited somehow from having the Johnson Study researched separately? If so I don't see any evidence of that reported here.
Had the approaches recommended in the Johnson Study proven desirable, would either DeLong or Hankla have personally benefited from seeing them carried out? If so, nothing in this story says so.
Phrases such as "...conclusions that would cramp (Hankla's) expansion plans for the Port of Long Beach" tend to intimate that Hankla's not supposed to entertain plans for the Port's expansion.
But the Port is *mandated* to expand and it's part of Hankla's job, and that of his colleagues, to *facilitate* that expansion.
So DeLong learns of a study that could help him better serve some of his constituents (i.e do his job) and calls Hankla to tell him about it because the same Study could help him (Hankla) carry out his mandate to expand the Port (i.e. HIS job).
That's pretty much the gist of it yes? And, if so, isn't that what we pay them both to do?
Some of DeLong's colleagues became annoyed because they interpreted this as somehow undermining their own efforts in the same direction.
Fine...toes were trounced upon. But does that fact make what either Hankla or DeLong did ‘wrong’? Or simply unpalatable in the eyes of one or two others?
It just seems to me that a little more balance is needed in a story that is posted under 'news' rather than, say 'features' or 'columns' or ‘staff blogs’.
That's all I'm saying...
Is it 'outing' someone to report that they are doing their job? Because none of the facts in this story indicate that Hankla did otherwise.
As asked before: What if Hankla was simply carrying our the requirement of his appointed position as mandated by our own City Charter?
If so, how is that 'getting his hand caught' in anything?
The entire premise of this story and comments like yours is that somebody did something wrong. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't.
Why must we assume, as this story does, some sinister motivation?
Would DeLong or Hankla have personally benefited somehow from having the Johnson Study researched separately? If so I don't see any evidence of that reported here.
Had the approaches recommended in the Johnson Study proven desirable, would either DeLong or Hankla have personally benefited from seeing them carried out? If so, nothing in this story says so.
Phrases such as "...conclusions that would cramp (Hankla's) expansion plans for the Port of Long Beach" tend to intimate that Hankla's not supposed to entertain plans for the Port's expansion.
But the Port is *mandated* to expand and it's part of Hankla's job, and that of his colleagues, to *facilitate* that expansion.
So DeLong learns of a study that could help him better serve some of his constituents (i.e do his job) and calls Hankla to tell him about it because the same Study could help him (Hankla) carry out his mandate to expand the Port (i.e. HIS job).
That's pretty much the gist of it yes? And, if so, isn't that what we pay them both to do?
Some of DeLong's colleagues became annoyed because they interpreted this as somehow undermining their own efforts in the same direction.
Fine...toes were trounced upon. But does that fact make what either Hankla or DeLong did ‘wrong’? Or simply unpalatable in the eyes of one or two others?
It just seems to me that a little more balance is needed in a story that is posted under 'news' rather than, say 'features' or 'columns' or ‘staff blogs’.
That's all I'm saying...
