Dear Editor,
From: Dorothy Cutter
Morro Bay
Hi! This issue [January] was very good as usual but something stands out as especially important.
The gloves are off about our new mayor and you are fighting back with facts. I hope we keep the information flowing because there are so many important things coming before this council that will change the face of the town. I am talking about the WTTP; the General Plan and the Power Plant, to name a few.
Thanks for your paper . I read it cover to cover and pass it on to whoever does not know about it.
From: Catherine Ryan Hyde
Cambria
Really, really good, and important, article: California Special Districts and Local Area Formation Commissions – Government Agencies Outside the Law?
After making enquiries with the City of Morro Bay & PG&E it appears that Morro Bay is still scheduled for installation of these meters between February & December 2011. Apparently no moratorium was placed on the installation of the meters. According to PG&E the installation of these meters is not optional, but I have read & heard otherwise. Can someone clarify the Smart Meter situation for me?
Many thanks!
[Editor's Note: We have more information about this in the March issue, Anne. See PG&E Installs Smart Meter over Resident's Protest]
This is a typical example of big frogs in a teeny pond thinking that they are important. How disgusting and disheartening to think that the people elected to represent ALL OF THE CITIZENS of Morro Bay tolerate this childish, mean spirited and bullying behavior by their supporters.
From: Jane Swanson
San Luis Obispo
The article by Linda Stedjee titled "How Does Your Garden Grow" does an excellent job of explaining the dangerous contaminants in sewage sludge and how the public is being told it is actually good for us. Remember how we were at one time told that tobacco was good for us? And today we are being told that nuclear power is good for the environment because it replaces CO2 with radioactive wastes that are toxic forever. It seems that where money it to be made, truth quickly gets sacrificed.
This article and some of its reference sources should be required reading for the SLO County Board of Supervisors and other government entities with responsibilities for protecting the health of people and the environment.
|
From: Randi Frost
Location Not Stated
In two articles, SLO Coast Journal purports the difference in votes between Betty Winholtz and William Yates was .01% [sic: "0.01%" is the proper notation].
The SLO County Clerk reports the election results as follows: WILLIAM YATES - 2,408 - 50.32%, BETTY WINHOLTZ - 2,336 - 48.82%, Write-in Votes - 41 - 0.86%
Simple math using the clerk's numbers: 50.32% minus 48.82% equals 1.50% (not 0.01%).
Hence, your reporting is erroneous by a factor of 150! A grievous error that by any journalistic standard calls for a correction.
Additionally, while SLO Coast Journal reports there were 5,084 votes for mayor, in fact only 4,785 votes were cast in the Morro Bay mayor race (again, refer to the official election results).
The correct math to calculate things for ourselves is then 72 divided by 4,785, which equals 1.50%—exactly as reported by the County Clerk.
It appears that the math used by SLO Coast Journal was 72 divided by 5,084, which equals 0.014; however, it is not correct to add the percent sign to this quotient which represents a ratio, not a percentage. The percent sign represents the pure number constant 0.01 and, thus, you must multiply the ratio 0.014 by 100 first. Thus, 1.4% is the correct answer to the equation. Because SLO Coast Journal used an incorrect number of votes (5,084 vs 4,785) the answer of 1.4% is incorrectly lower than the true 1.5%.
This highlights another disingenuous move by SLO Coast Journal: The fact that 0.014 was conveniently rounded down to 0.01. Rounding down a larger number such as 10.014 wouldn't be problematic, however SLO Coast Journal's rounding down of 0.014 to 0.01 is irresponsible—this move blantantly discarded 40% of the represented value!
Ironically, these gross misrepresentations are presented in articles complaining about "political elites managing and distorting information" via "psuedo-newspapers" written by a political elite (McCurdy) writing on a psuedo-news Internet blog!
The two erroneous SLO Coast Journal articles are at January, December 2010
I won't bother challenging SLO Coast Journal's hypocrisy in its election endorsements which accuse Yates of bullying, chauvinism, misogyny, intimidation, temper tantrums . . . while at the same time writing in the "Yates 4.0" article that his supporters are 'acerbic' and 'in the gutter'.
Tu quoque!
And, to be clear, I am not asserting that a 1.5% spread is not a close election; but it is 150 times more than SLO Coast Journal published.
I simply point out gross mathematical factual error on the order of two magnitudes along with self-indulgent rounding error. The types of errors that would be prominently corrected by responsible "Journal"-ists.
|
