"More Drugs, More Money" letter in Sonoma West & Noreen Evans in Sebastopol?

Daily the news is disconcerting. There is no end to the egregious excesses and vast injustices we are witnessing. Governments have become nothing but lapdogs for big business and banks. Corruption has become de rigeur and resentment is growing beneath the surface everywhere.

We are no longer a republic. We are now an empire and all empires fail due to debt and arrogance.

Here in Sonoma County, we are at a cross roads. Our land, which is our heritage, has been usurped by big business, private equity, hedge funds and institutional investors thanks to cheap money much of which is pretty dirty (courtesy of the Federal Reserve.) None of this would have occurred had there been regulation, a gold standard, the Glass Steagall Act, and the abolition of the fractal reserve system. QE means only one thing now and that is deference. Pensions are losing money and governments will implement higher taxes. Hence history will repeat itself. This is what destroyed the Roman Empire.

Is true democracy possible? I believe so because democracy is what it means to be fully human. In order for that to occur, it will take enough people realizing that it is human to be concerned about all of life. It is human to love and that if we do anything less, we dehumanize ourselves. But it must begin with ourselves, first and foremost, and that very well might be the shot heard around the world.

Podfish, in the second part of your reply here you refer to statements I never even said.
Regarding Shepherd's tantrum or rant or however you characterize it, I read it as vilifying other people in the same vein as Donald Trump and I don't view this as either ethical or effective.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

demagoguery is not a synonym for rant. Re-read Shepherd's post to better understand what a 'rant' is.

I can't say I understand how your questions follow from my post, anyway. 'how I feel' about Trump? where is 'how I feel' mentioned? especially confusing is the bit about giving permission to those 'whose positions (i) agree with'. Permission (or sanction, if that's what you meant) for what?

maybe you think rant is another term for tantrum?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gypsey:

Podfish, in the second part of your reply here you refer to statements I never even said.
Regarding Shepherd's tantrum or rant or however you characterize it, I read it as vilifying other people in the same vein as Donald Trump and I don't view this as either ethical or effective.

---

ok, I'll give it a bit of textual analysis, just to be pedantic. I don't like a claim that I 'refer to statements you never said', so here's what you said:

Your post:

Quote:

---

"Really? Is that how you feel for instance about Donald Trump? What makes it okay for folks whose positions we agree with, to practice demagoguery?"

---

I replied:

Quote:

---

demagoguery is not a synonym for rant. Re-read Shepherd's post to better understand what a 'rant' is.

I can't say I understand how your questions follow from my post, anyway. 'how I feel' about Trump? where is 'how I feel' mentioned? especially confusing is the bit about giving permission to those 'whose positions (i) agree with'. Permission (or sanction, if that's what you meant) for what?

maybe you think rant is another term for tantrum?

---

you ask two questions, it's not clear what you mean by 'part 2'. First, you ask if I feel a certain way about Trump. I don't see a reference to Trump in this thread before that. Next, you ask what "makes it ok...". That question implies I or some other group 'made it ok' - gave permission, sanctioned - and did so only if the permitters agreed with the 'position'. I reject that whole characterization. And it's not just a pedantic objection, actually. It's kind of an accusation of hypocrisy, implying you caught me in a partisan bias, and that I'm tolerating something that I wouldn't in those I disagree with.

see, there's lots of fun subtext that I suspect you didn't even notice as you wrote - and speaking through subtext is kind of characteristic of a rant...

I am sorry you misinterpreted my direct Q to you and my rhetorical Q (the second.) But I am not going to explain or defend them further. I made my point in my earlier reply about what is important to me.
And you have now shared what is important to you.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

ok, I'll give it a bit of textual analysis, just to be pedantic. I don't like a claim that I 'refer to statements you never said', so here's what you said:

Your post:


I replied:

you ask two questions, it's not clear what you mean by 'part 2'. First, you ask if I feel a certain way about Trump. I don't see a reference to Trump in this thread before that. Next, you ask what "makes it ok...". That question implies I or some other group 'made it ok' - gave permission, sanctioned - and did so only if the permitters agreed with the 'position'. I reject that whole characterization. And it's not just a pedantic objection, actually. It's kind of an accusation of hypocrisy, implying you caught me in a partisan bias, and that I'm tolerating something that I wouldn't in those I disagree with.

see, there's lots of fun subtext that I suspect you didn't even notice as you wrote - and speaking through subtext is kind of characteristic of a rant...

---

As always, you vote with your money ....

"The overflowing crowd at the Nov.16 County Workshop on winery events illustrated how deeply the community cares about the need to preserve our agricultural landscapes and rural character of Sonoma County. Sadly, the Sonoma County Vintners stated that they will oppose any effort to restrict or limit winery activities and events. And, the Sonoma County Winegrape Commission launched a letter writing campaign to their 1,800 members, calling concerned residents and neighbors ‘liars and bullies.’"

https://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_we...88dadfadf.html

wait a minute - the Winegrape Commission calling concerned citizens and neighbors liars and bullies? me thinks the shoe is on the wrong foot here ...

Methinks the Winegrape Commission is also cut from the same bolt of cloth as the pushers of "community" fluoridated water schemes. The double-speak, pushy behavior, psychological projection... all out of the same playbook.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:

wait a minute - the Winegrape Commission calling concerned citizens and neighbors liars and bullies? me thinks the shoe is on the wrong foot here ...

---

I appreciate gardenmechanic's comment. This week's Sonoma West has the following reponse by Preserve Rural Sonoma County's Padi Selwyn and yesterday's PD has the following letter from Fred Allebach.

We are your neighbors ~ Sonoma West News and
Times: https://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_we...88dadfadf.html

The overflowing crowd at the Nov.16 County Workshop on winery events illustrated how deeply the community cares about the need to preserve our agricultural landscapes and rural character of Sonoma County. Sadly, the Sonoma County Vintners stated that they will oppose any effort to restrict or limit winery activities and events. And, the Sonoma County Winegrape Commission launched a letter writing campaign to their 1,800 members, calling concerned residents and neighbors ‘liars and bullies.’

These statements stunned community groups who are working constructively with the County to develop balanced zoning standards that address local and cumulative impacts associated with the intensity, scale and concentration of visitor-serving and agricultural promotional activities, as required by the General Plan.

Such negativity from the wine industry is an attempt to deflect the debate away from the real issues of the need for impact-based standards, mutual respect for neighbors and compliance with our laws.

We are not the enemies of the wine industry. We are your neighbors and customers. Land use conflicts and impacts are real. The Board of Supervisors tasked the Permit Department to develop standards for promotional activities and events on Ag lands given the exponential growth of wineries and event centers has reached a tipping point. The General Plan evaluated the impact to Ag lands from winery and tasting room development based on only 239 facilities by 2020; yet, 436 facilities exist today with 60 applications in the pipeline. And, the shift in the business model to one reliant on high intensity hospitality uses and food service has compounded the impacts and land use conflicts, requiring the County to act.

Preserve Rural Sonoma County supports a balanced, consistent development code that preserves rural lands and protects neighborhoods and communities from the impacts from hospitality and entertainment activities. It’s time to uphold, not undermine, the policies in our General Plan designed to steer tourism-related hospitality uses to our vibrant town centers and to preserve the integrity of our rural agricultural lands for future generations.

High impact hospitality uses, when sited in the wrong locations, have a negative impact on Sonoma County as a premier destination. Sonoma County has benefited from Napa’s over-development and its diminished tourist experience– let’s not make the same mistakes. In 2014, several national bicycle tour companies, who fill hotel rooms and restaurants mid-week, wrote to our County officials warning that the proliferation of more and more event-related traffic on narrow, winding country roads was creating road safety concerns. They said that they might have to curtail tours here, as they’ve already done in Napa, due to unacceptable traffic and safety conditions.

We support small farmers and family operations, yet the rights given through a use permit are passed on to new owners. We are concerned with the rate our family operations are selling to large corporations and out of state developers who may not share our values regarding the long-term stewardship of the land.
Residents have every right to provide input on matters that affect our lives.

Please make your voice heard by sending comments to [email protected], Director of the Permit & Resources Management Department, whose team is crafting protective standards and criteria now.

Padi Selwyn is a co-chair of Preserve Rural Sonoma County

Legitimate questions
EDITOR: Grape growers feel that legitimate questions and concerns interested citizens have about sustainability and the size and scope of event centers amount to lies and misinformation.

I favor limits and regulations for winery event centers. I don’t believe my questioning the overall effects of wine tourism on sustainability or the quality of life here is in any way illegitimate. Sustainability demands true cost accounting, not anecdotal defensive posturing. A fair analysis of the status of the wine industry as a whole in Sonoma County would say it’s quite well represented. Enough is enough. Nobody is exempt from limits.

Many related wine-tourism-hospitality issues have come into question in the past few years: tasting rooms, hotels, tourism improvement districts, low wages, high rents, inflated costs of food and services. These are all part and parcel of a gentrifying economy that leaves social equity and environmental justice considerations secondary to unlimited, unregulated economy.

People of conscience want a more ethical society, not endless free-for-alls that just make more tragedy of the commons. Now it is time to favor residents’ quality of life and sustainability concerns and to take steps to balance a fair spectrum of economic outcomes in the county.
FRED ALLEBACH, Sonoma

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:

wait a minute - the Winegrape Commission calling concerned citizens and neighbors liars and bullies? me thinks the shoe is on the wrong foot here ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:

wait a minute - the Winegrape Commission calling concerned citizens and neighbors liars and bullies? me thinks the shoe is on the wrong foot here ...

---

sure, could be that one side is that of the angels.

Or could be another hint that maybe people see their opponents the same way, no matter which end of the rope they're holding. Probably too much to ask that people take that into consideration when negotiating over differing interests....

Maybe "angels" would look upon their opponents as "friendly fire". Where are the angels when we need them? Would angels take sides in any negotiation?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

sure, could be that one side is that of the angels...

---

After mentioning Noreen Evans' political relocation to Sebastopol to a fellow Main Street proprietor, he replied that it was no surprise because politics is an addiction like drugs, and that Congress is filled with many such addicts who are unable to sustain a withdrawal. Hence my posting to this thread which Shepherd so intuitively started.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Michael Anthony:

After mentioning Noreen Evans' political relocation to Sebastopol to a fellow Main Street proprietor, he replied that it was no surprise because politics is an addiction like drugs, and that Congress is filled with many such addicts who are unable to sustain a withdrawal. Hence my posting to this thread which Shepherd so intuitively started.

---

it's also a job like construction, so it makes sense that people move to an area where it's more likely be hired.

In my view, the prior post (After mentioning Noreen Evans' political relocation to Sebastopol to a fellow Main Street proprietor, he replied that it was no surprise because politics is an addiction like drugs, and that Congress is filled with many such addicts who are unable to sustain a withdrawal. Hence my posting to this thread which Shepherd so intuitively started.)

was cynical. There are many examples of people who get involved in politics for the public good.

I agree with Tommy and the prior poster on both of the major contradictory points below. Politics can be an addiction, and there are many good examples of people involved in politics for the public good.

From my point of view, I appreciate all 5 of the dedicated Sebastopol City Council members. It is not because I always agree with each of them. What is clear to me is that they are each value-driven and seek to represent the interests of the entire community. I do not feel that about the Sonoma County Supervisors.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

In my view, the prior post ...

---

Really? I've never seen one of these "public good" politicos.

The observation about elected office as an addiction and being less-than-transparent motivation is spot-on IMO. In the case of Mssssss. Evans, it clearly is an ego stroke.

She was a BFD in Sacramento, and quite the queen when she returned to her realm to see her subjects. Now that she is not in elected office and is "just a lawyer" in a podunk town... well, she's no longer the belle of the ball, is she?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

... was cynical. There are many examples of people who get involved in politics for the public good.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

...Now that she is not in elected office and is "just a lawyer" in a podunk town... well, she's no longer the belle of the ball, is she?

---

maybe it's because I just saw StarWars and so am tuned in to cheezy movie dialog, but that sounds like something from some turgid small-town drama. Kind of a catty observation, or to be less sexist, snarky...

Here's an article from the Washington Post about how Americans are drinking themselves to death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tes/?tid=sm_fb

Alcohol related deaths are at a 35 year high, and that does not include deaths from drunk driving. A sobering read.

Thank you for this timely news. Maybe it will save a life. I'd like to see drunk driving death stats for Sonoma County. I just started my research, and saw this "wine country" DUI report, from 5 years ago, and I don't think it's improved, but we can hope that maybe, the DUI checkpoints have had an influence. Anyone have up to date stats to share?

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/WINE-COUNTRY-DUI-INVESTIGATION-151467295.html

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

Here's an article from the Washington Post about how Americans are drinking themselves to death...

---

If it was one man making less than glowing observations about another man, would it be "doggy" discourse?

Catty, snarky, turgid (funny you should use that word)... whatever. I'll cop to some snark and there is some small-town drama, but the "dialog" is based on personal experience with this one.

IMO Evans' track record indicates some, shall we say, issues around men. She has also made at least one blazingly hypocritical and sexist decision as a state senator.

Now we can add "carpetbagging" to the list. Did she really think nobody would figure that one out, or that blatant district-shopping would be OK?

Much as I dislike Effren Carrillo, she is no improvement. Evans and the rest of her demographic cohort need to pass the baton to the GenX-ers and the Millenials and get off the stage. Thank you for playing. Now go away.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

maybe it's because I just saw StarWars and so am tuned in to cheezy movie dialog, but that sounds like something from some turgid small-town drama. Kind of a catty observation, or to be less sexist, snarky...

---

I don't know Noreen Evans, but do appreciate first hand experience, (and public record) even if based on personal perception or opinion. I do agree with you on this: "She and the rest of generational cohort need to pass the baton to the GenX-ers and the Millenials and get off the stage."

Put downs and name calling are part of what makes WaccoBB a "conscious" community. And we know that there are "degrees" of consciousness. Non-violent communication leads the way, but some cannot follow.

I could tell some stories about Gurus I've worked with who had less than stellar consciousness, but always professed "transparency", as I witnessed them put down their wife or children, in addition to anyone who worked for them. They "look good", but upon closer inspection, their dark side showed up, ready to battle for ego supremacy. If I named names, I'd get sued for slander. :wink2:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

If it was one man making less than glowing observations about another man, would it be "doggy" discourse?

Catty, snarky, turgid (funny you should use that word)... whatever. I speak from firsthand experience with this one. IMO Evans is a man-hater and a flaming hypocrite. Now we can add "carpetbagger" to the list. She and the rest of generational cohort need to pass the baton to the GenX-ers and the Millenials and get off the stage.

---

I don't know, Shandi, this post sure seems like "put downs and name calling" ... I guess this is what makes WaccoBB a "conscious community"... or not. :hmmm:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

I don't know Noreen Evans, but do appreciate first hand experience, (and public record) even if based on personal perception or opinion. I do agree with you on this: "She and the rest of generational cohort need to pass the baton to the GenX-ers and the Millenials and get off the stage."

Put downs and name calling are part of what makes WaccoBB a "conscious" community. And we know that there are "degrees" of consciousness. Non-violent communication leads the way, but some cannot follow.

I could tell some stories about Gurus I've worked with who had less than stellar consciousness, but always professed "transparency", as I witnessed them put down their wife or children, in addition to anyone who worked for them. They "look good", but upon closer inspection, their dark side showed up, ready to battle for ego supremacy. If I named names, I'd get sued for slander. :wink2:

---