$70 for a daypass? That's completely unreasonable.
I am encouraged to see the Bohemian publish Sheperd's article about Standing Rock's efforts to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. This issue is not getting enough coverage in the media and the honest coverage has mostly come from independent journalists so I appreciate seeing this in a local paper very much. I attended both actions in Santa Rosa on the 15th and know our community will continue coming together to support Standing Rock on the long road ahead. Please be sure all or your friends and family know about this and don't assume they have heard. These are reliable sites for donations, information about what is happening on the ground and actions nationwide :
Thank you Sheperd!!
Thank you for Shepherd Bliss's article on Standing Rock. It is essential to have this kind of thorough coverage, as local, national and, already, international awareness grows.
Well done Bohemian!
And thank you Shepherd.
Great to see this article by Shepherd on this very important ongoing effort by Water Protectors and allies. One correction is the cost of the pipeline is in billions not millions - 3.8 billion. Many from this area have traveled up and are helping in their way. Those of us behind have many ways to contribute as Shepherd points out.
Thanks Stett. We can certainly use a trustworthy press right now.
What can we do about it? There is a fourth option--REJOICE!
YES ON PROP 57!!!!
The follow-the-money letter is hard to follow. The writer grumbles about receiving political mailers from lackeys/handlers of Lynda Hopkins. What he means is that he got some mail from an independent political committee that Hopkins has no control over; Noreen Evans has verified that reality in regard to independent groups supporting her.
However, the letter oddly refers to lackeys/handlers. A lackey is a manservant, houseboy, or a flunky; while a handler in this context would be a person who actually manages a political candidate. The metaphors are thus confusingly mixed.
The rest of the letter is short on substance but full of fallacy and incivility. Eric Koenigshofer, who supports Hopkins, is effectively labeled a pig, and Lynda Hopkins is called a toady. The first epithet is uncivil, and the second is sexist. Why does the writer feel the need to resort to the fallacies known as ad hominem attacks and guilt by association?
Lynda Hopkins is no toady. She is a strong woman who will serve the best interests of the entire Fifth District as our next supervisor.
I'm Evans has no specifics. And the ones she has are illegal or not practical.
Noreen's only argument is that she has been in government so many years. Where is real policy? Oh ya pot for potholes (she won't get that money) and use pension money to fund housing (oh ya that's illegal). Time for new ideas.
a perfunctory perusal? done at perhaps at a precursory level?
David Katz hits the nail on the head with respect to Erik K. It is sad that he brings so much money and misery into the local contest for the 5th District. His funding of the unsubstantiated allegations against Noreen Evans are a disgrace.
This is very educational content and written well for a change. It's nice to see that some people still understand how to write a quality post.
In the terse, anti-Lynda Hopkins letter, the writer opined that she should not be running for county supervisor, because she is the mother of two young girls.
Does he mean that she should not work outside of her home? Would he say the exact same thing if it were her husband who was seeking this county job? Haven't we gotten beyond such antiquated thinking?
Simplistic either/or arguments are in vogue: the woman can apparently either choose to be a good mother or a good supervisor, but not both. To the contrary, Lynda Hopkins is an excellent mom, and she will--simultaneously--be an excellent supervisor.
Mark Tansil, Sebastopol
Too many of our police officers are acting from fear of, rather than from love of, their fellow human beings. We do not adequately educate or train them to fulfill the only oath they take which is to "serve, protect, and defend" the Constitutional Rights of All People, not just the ones who look, sound, and smell like the wealthy living on the right side of the tracks.
I'd say he definitely sucks.
I hesitate to comment in the Bohemian as they have over-edited my comments before but, I sure agree with Padi Selwyn; the current growth rate of permitting more wineries especially in rural neighborhoods needs to be reviewed more carefully. The one big industry in our county has for too long enjoyed the full support of our county supervisors. Their appointees to the planning commission have rubber stamped too many of the projects brought before them.
With a weakened coastal commission, and more investors seeking to put wineries on our coastal hills, we need to Elect a 5th district supervisor not beholden to the big moneyed interests.
This rampant over-development by the wine industry impacts not only Sonoma County, but our neighbors in Napa, Mendocino, Lake, and more recently Solano Counties. I enjoy wine and there are certainly many good grape growers and wine makers in our region, to which the wine industry makes important contributions. However, given that wine is a boom-and-bust product, it has become a serious threat to our economy--too many eggs in the same basket. 96% of the veggies and fruit sold in Sonoma County are imported from outside, according to Go Local, which means that we are no longer a food ag county. In terms of food security, this is a dangerous imbalance that must be addressed.
I was remembering laughter just fine up to "And, speaking of women, I thought Caitlyn Jenner was actually a man?" We are not a joke, and we are not disguising ourselves to fool anyone. We are who we way we are. This is transphobia, and it's bigotry, whether intentional or not. This has no place on the pages of your nominally progressive rag. This is no more appropriate than racist humor.
Quoting from the piece, "Yet buried in the pages of the proposition is a specific change to the licensing framework. In just a handful of words, the AUMA creates a new cultivation license with no limit on the scale of cultivation, effectively repealing protections for small farms that were enacted by the state Legislature."
Unless a state ballot measure is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, rather than a simple ballot measure, anything and everything can be changed by the state legislature. It is more work and money to lobby to change it to Craft Cannabis people's liking but it could and should happen. All this potential gloom and doom of wiping out the small grower can be changed by the legislature, especially if the elected Prohibitionists finally realize, as some of them already have, that Craft Cannabis cultivation is a sizeable part of their constituents' local economy, and has been in some parts for 30-40 years--sort of kill the goose that lays the golden egg theory! Now that it is in the "mainstream", Craft Cannabis money flowing in the local economy is bigger than ever. Allow the local economy to be killed and they will be voted out of office and replaced. The legislature can change whatever they want by passing future legislation, slyly or overtly, good or bad. The Craft Cannabis side just has to work harder for that to happen to what the Cannabis people like. That means people like Hezekiah and his organization has to raise more funds and hire more lobbyists than they have now. Cannabis is in mainstream politics all across the country and the pro-Cannabis PAC groups have to work it like all the other special interest lobby groups.
In all the states that have passed adult use rec legal, the original ballot measure provisions have been tweaked and outright changed from their original intent. Legislatures will change future ballot measures everywhere in the states that pass adult use/rec legal. It just means and boils down to more work for the Cannabis PACs.
North Bay Bohemian
2016 Metro Newspapers. All rights reserved.
Website powered by Foundation