You are currently browsing the daily archive for April 12, 2012.
I know it tends to be feast or famine for my posting on anything lately. I hadn’t posted in almost a week, but today I’ve posted three times. I’ve a fairly full schedule, so I have to make hay when the sun shines.
First of all, tonight on the HumCPR show Charley will host a discussion with both Clif and Estelle about General Plan and other land use issues. That’s on KMUD at 7:00 p.m., and it’s a call-in show.
Don’t miss the debate at the Mateel this Sunday, with all of the information through this link. I am billed as a moderator, but Ed will be handling it alone as I’m committed to coach an Indoor Soccer double-header due to changes in scheduling. Ed is more than capable, and it should be a great debate. It will be simulcast on KMUD beginning at 3 p.m.
A little bit of controversy with the Democratic Central Committee last night, at least as far as Richard Marks is concerned. I wasn’t there, and I haven’t heard anything other than what is reported by Richard, but he seems to feel that Estelle was denied an endorsement because of her affiliation with HumCPR. Clif doesn’t qualify for endorsement as a member of the DTS Party, and Richard feels that as the only Democrat in the race she should have received the endorsement.
In the thread he complains that Roy Curliss was denied the endorsement several years ago (when running against Carlos Quilez, a liberal Republican (a dying breed) for the same reason (and I don’t recall Carlos getting the Republican endorsement – probably over the same issue).
Policies around development are a source of division in counties around the state, and Democrats tend to favor controlled growth advocates in their endorsements to the disappointment of union reps who emphasize jobs. It’s not a new issue locally or statewide, but I expect that HCDCC elections to become a little more politicized for awhile.
Lastly, although I’m now thoroughly bored with the topic, the billboard controversy is apparently covered in the Beacon-insert of today’s Times Standard. I can’t find it online, but if I do I’ll link to it. From what I’ve heard, it adds nothing new to the story.
Kym reports on a report that the deer population across the state has halved since 1990. The article attributes the increase in rural development and forest fire suppression (which is related as it is often intended to save rural homes). It cites high declines in the coastal range.
I post this at the risk of being accused of demonizing rural dwellers, and I expect that this thread, like Kym’s, will contain numerous “I see plenty of deer in my yard” posts.
And once again, I’ll emphasize that I do not oppose all rural development. I just believe that we need to slow down, step back, and assess the situation. But that means that someone’s dream of rural living might be delayed a few years and that doesn’t sit well around here. I suggest a policy of no further large subdivisions until we can figure out what is happening, work out some appropriate mitigating regulation if necessary, and develop policy with input from all stake-holders. But to suggest that rural development is anything but beneficial, because all rural residents are effective “stewards” by definition, seems to evoke serious anger and defensiveness. People moved here to be left alone after all. They know what they’re doing.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, for what they’re worth.
Apparently there’s some sort of controversy in which a liberal pundit named Hilary Rosen made a silly comment about Ann Romney not working (for which she has apologized), and the conservative Catholic League saw fit to minimize the value of adoption-based parenting in their Twitter response.
Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.
I guess adoptive parenting isn’t real parenting and our kids aren’t “our own.”
To their credit, the RNC responded appropriately.
But the Catholic League was clearly playing dog-whistle politics here. As an adoptive parent I’ve met people who don’t view adoptive relationships as being as valuable or deep as biological relationships. I was even treated to a biological theory one time as someone told me that he knew a parent who had child by birth and another by adoption and the parent admitted to having a “closer connection” to the natural born child. I’ve yet to meet similar “mixed” family parents who will admit to the same thing, though I suppose it’s not something a parent would want to admit, even to him/herself if true.
All I can say is that I love my kids so much it hurts. I have no basis for comparison as I have no children by birth (well, actually my children were in fact born, but I’ll rant about the terminology some other time), but it’s impossible for me to imagine a closer or “deeper” connection.
Literally, there are people out there who will tell me I’m living in politically correct denial. Probably not many, but I’ve encountered enough of it to know that they aren’t extremely rare. Certainly a larger percentage of humanity than represented by AB- blood type.