Pearl Chase Week

classic pearl chase with flower 80 years old

As we count down to Pearl Chase’s birthday this week, here’s a quote from the woman had more influence over the development of the city of Santa Barbara than any person since Junipero Serra.

“Many new things in this fast-moving age make it difficult to keep pace with an ever-changing world. Let us communicate, cooperate, and coordinate our efforts for good freely.” –Pearl Chase

About Editor

Publishing since 2005, the mission of the award-winning website is to help Keep Santa Barbara Santa Barbara™. Please bookmark, www.sbview.com

15 Responses to Pearl Chase Week

  1. el_smurfo November 12, 2013 at 9:57 am #

    Since we are such a “green” town, we should hook a generator up to Pearl’s remains. We could power the city with the energy generated by her rolling over in her grave.

    • Green Eye Monster November 12, 2013 at 10:19 am #

      In that case if there is energy to be harvested from Old Pearl rolling over in her grave today, let’s instead sell the secrets to perpetual motion found in that exact same gravesite.

      WSJ devotes a whole editorial section today to “California’s Green Reality Check”. 11/12/13

      Here is what it needs to do to meet California’s 2050 Goals, and still be off by 100%:

      1. 50% of electricity from wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. (Notice MIA is hydroelectric)

      2. Grow zero-emission cars from 50,000 to 17 million

      3.Increase fuel efficient to 78 mph

      4. Expand rooftop solar by 800%

      All at the same time California is producing students who continuously rank 49 out of 50 in educational achievement, while taking increasing dollars for more remedial education required every year just to get them into colleges. So most likely we won’t be producing our own rocket scientists to pull this off most likely by 2050. Where will this Black Swan come from to solve our environmental goals.

      No mention about controlling the major pollution generators elsewhere in the world who actually are not looking to the State of California as their environmental role model, except to increase their own polluting industrial output selling us solar panels and electric cars.

  2. Anonymous November 12, 2013 at 10:40 am #

    Who is today’s Pearl Chase or someone even close?

    • Pearl's legacy is now an institution November 12, 2013 at 12:15 pm #

      Kellem DeForest does a pretty good imitation, even though he is now confined to a wheelchair. And the Graffey family is moving into the position of being keen and insightful local historians with their fingers on the pulse of old Santa Barbara.

      The spirit of Pearl is now institutionalized in many civic protection and beautification organizations that quietly get things done: neighborhood associations, The Pearl Chase Society with the strong leadership of Sue Adams and Barbara Lowenthal and their loyal band of supporters with deep commitments to this city’s past and architectural present. Santa Barbara Beautiful, SB Historical Museum, Mens’ Garden Club, SB Rose Society, the Old Mission ……(there are more others can add)

      Join and support any of these worthy causes that work to preserve and protect what needs to be kept in Santa Barbara that keeps it Santa Barbara and works with the community at large to mitigate what can get in the way.

  3. el_smurfo November 12, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

    Awesome article, G.E.M.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304448204579182154135387652

    The closest thing we have to Pearl Chase in this town is problem Kellam de Forest, but any rational voice is lost in the winds of green zealotry, overbearing planners and architects with whole departments in their pockets. I’m actually quite surprised that the Mission doesn’t have solar panels, the warf hasn’t been closed to vehicles and the courthouse converted to affordable workforce housing units.

    • Foolproof GreenScheme November 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm #

      Now there is a real green plan – close the workplace and put in housing for workers instead, who now have no jobs which in turn also cuts down on commuting. Ka–ching: more sign-ups for unemployment and welfare benefits and even more people can be lifted out of poverty at the same time.

      And if they get this social safety net funds electronically delivered to their online bank accounts, there is no need even for the postman to spend carbon to deliver their monthly checks.

  4. Anonymous November 12, 2013 at 9:57 pm #

    So what are you anti-environmental fellows doing to “communicate, cooperate, and coordinate our efforts for good freely”? Just wondering.

  5. Knowledge gap November 12, 2013 at 10:43 pm #

    Don’t confuse being anti-junk science with being anti-environmental. Two very different things. Talk about the widening gap between knowledge and superstition – look no further than the green movement for the latter.

  6. Barbara November 12, 2013 at 11:13 pm #

    97% of climate scientists, would you call that junk science? superstition?
    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
    And why did this Pearl Chase piece inspire this thread?

    • Junk Science November 13, 2013 at 8:24 am #

      Consensus in our politically corrupted world of “science” today is not nor ever has been science. One would assume reasonable people would still know the difference. Passing consensus off at science is junk science. Sorry.

      Scientific Method is science. Independent corroboration of the scientific method is even more science. All you have today which you call “consensus” is speculation – and one of the biggest money sucking holes for no value we have inflicted upon our selves that make the wasted efforts dedicated to the Iraq War pale in comparison.

  7. el_smurfo November 13, 2013 at 8:36 am #

    I would call it the influence of money (grants) and political power on science. It’s a self selecting “consensus” since any theory that doesn’t match the current political direction doesn’t get funded. They tried to model this behavior, but the models diverged from reality about 15 years ago and no amount of propaganda will make them line up again.

  8. Voice of Reason November 13, 2013 at 11:24 am #

    So, can any of you so-called “conservatives” explain why “conservative” politicians in every other western country accept climate change. Just not here in the good ‘ole USA?

    Also, if you don’t believe in science or call it “junk science”, how do you explain the “conservative” uber-Christian belief system? Is it truly easier to believe in Creationism over Evolution? Apparently, in the bizarro US “conservative” world, even that is “junk science”.

    • el_smurfo November 13, 2013 at 3:20 pm #

      Nice straw man, but equating creationism to global warming hysteria is actually a funny comparison, as they are both fundamentalist religions with extremists pushing them. FYI, I don’t believe in any of it, including your continued false choice arguments of left/right, conservative/liberal, science/denier, creation/evolution. Maybe you need to change your name to Voice of Logical Fallacy?

      • Voice of Reason November 13, 2013 at 6:07 pm #

        HA! As Neal deGrasse Tyson always says: The thing about science is, even if you don’t believe it, it’s still true! Not sure what you believe in el smurfo, but that sounds like an awfully sad and detached way of life.

  9. Dead end argument November 13, 2013 at 9:49 pm #

    Science does not have to prove religion. Two separate entities and appeal to two separate parts of the human psyche. Faith is knowing; science is knowledge. Mediate on the difference.

    You of course know the old saw about the famous atheist who wrote on the wall God is Dead, Nietsche, And later underneath that statement was written, Nietsche is Dead, God.

Leave a Reply