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

Following is a blazing letter to the editor in this week's Sonoma West, which allows comments. I like the "blood on their hands" part, but some of you may object to strong language that may alienate a few of those with bloody hands. Perhaps it is time to speak more of the following truths to power? Do any of you know this 5th generation Sebastopol resident named William Blaze?

I also heard from a credible, knowledgeable, political source that Noreen Evans recently rented a home on Stefononi Lane in Sebastopol, thus making the Dec. 1 deadline to re-register to vote and hence to run for supervisor. Can any of you politically-connected persons verify that information?

More drugs, more money
EDITOR: So let me get this strait, this whole argument is about the 439 wineries operating in Sonoma County (439 wineries!) wanting the right to grow, process and sell a drug that ruins an untold amount of lives, cause immeasurable amounts of financial and physical harm to familiars and communities worldwide and kills over 50,000 people every year in American alone? And their justification for wanting to be allowed to create this unneeded "product" is that selling this drug brings money into the economy and provides jobs for the local community?

So now, to be allowed to grow and produce this unneeded drug in our communities, they will need to change our communities to a place where they can be allowed to throw large lavish parties that attracts more drug users to our neighborhoods and terribly maintained rural roadways resulting in more traffic and an increased risk of potential drunk drivers.

This is all so that they can sell more drugs and make more money? They also want to suck up all the ground and river water unregulated as well?

This kind of reminds me of Columbia and how the Columbian drug cartels operate. Wine workers, cocaine workers, same-same. They both have the blood on their hands of the countless ruined lives and untold amounts of human suffering caused by the drugs they helped manufacture and sell.

Sometimes it's not all about money. Sometimes it's about necessity. And in this argument there is no necessity but corporate greed. If they were growing food or something useful, that would be one thing, but that's not the case here. Take me back to the days when Sonoma County grew apples and walnuts, products that contributed to the good in society, not the bad.
William Blaze
Sebastopol
5th generation

Thanks, Shepherd, for posting this. A few times I have posted here at Wacco my belief that we need to look at our own complicity in alcohol consumption as this is the driver for winery expansion in Sonoma County. The author is right about alcohol being a drug; and a highly toxic one. Ethanol, the active ingredient in wine and liquor, is harmful to body, mind, and spirit. It ruins countless lives every year. I think the comparison between Sonoma County's wine industry and Columbia's cocaine industry is a bulls eye.

The damage done by the wine industry is also economic and ecological. The economic damage is that a once flourishing and highly varied agricultural sector is now being turned into a mono-industry. Wine is not an agricultural pursuit; it is a drug industry. Agriculture is being driven out and being replaced by the depradations of a wealthy and powerful elite.

Although I am concerned about the expansion of the wine industry, this logic seems oversimplified and extreme. Over consumption of almost anything - not just wine - can ruin lives. Wine is an enjoyable part of my life, and I think there are health benefits to moderate consumption as well. It is more about the size and commodification of the wine industry that is spiraling out of control. In the 80's and 90's Sonoma County had mostly small family wineries, and it felt like there was a balance. Now, the big money has moved in and there will be a complete takeover without a fight.

I also don't think you can blame only the wine industry for the problems of agriculture. There are political and macroeconomic issues at play with agriculture, where the price of products are at or below the cost of production. Our apple industry didn't disappear just because growing grapes was more profitable.

If we want to win the argument and stop continued expansion of the wine industry, it will take carefully researched and developed arguments to win over the majority of people and politicians. Most people like wine and alcohol, so to attack it's production and consumption is probably not a fruitful strategy.

Ron

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

...my belief that we need to look at our own complicity in alcohol consumption as this is the driver for winery expansion in Sonoma County..

---

What's "extreme" is the wine industry's take-over of food farming ag. land in this county. 96% of the fruits and veggies sold in Sonoma County are imported, according to GoLocal. It took an extremely strong mass movement to stop the American War on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. I do agree that moderation by the wine industry would be good. That will not happen unless there is a tremendous rise in public opposition.

Logic alone is not enough, in my opinion. Leaders like King, Mandela, and Gandhi and their followers also used emotional intelligence. We need strong words. Though I would not have phrased things the way this 5th generation Sebastopol resident does, I appreciate him for writing it and Sonoma West for publishing it. Don't shoot the messenger and his protective passion. Confront Big Wine, as we have confronted and limited Big Tobacco and are seeking to do so with Big Oil and Big Coal. Together, they are destroying our Earth, including this county. Sonoma County is no longer an ag county; it is an alcohol county.

It is not a question of liking wine. I drink and like wine. My concern is with the over-growth of wineries as event centers in rural areas and how that displaces food agriculture. One cannot live by wine alone, though one can live without it. Following is a link to an article of mine that Transition Voice published yesterday. I do not apologize for strong words that express strong emotions. I would prefer to live in the natural Redwood Empire than the commercial "Wine Country." It is far more than what my friend Ron describes as "expansion." It is a take-over by the huge multi-national alcohol corporations, which own beer, spirits, and wine companies. The costs far outweigh the benefits.

https://transitionvoice.com/2015/11/...-wine-country/ (allows comments)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:

Although I am concerned about the expansion of the wine industry, this logic seems oversimplified and extreme...

---

The original post, by Mr Blaze, was a rant against wine. Webster defines a rant as "a bombastic extravagant speech, bombastic extravagant language".

It'd be helpful for anyone considering a rant against wine, to remember that our Lord Jesus drank wine.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

...It'd be helpful for anyone considering a rant against wine, to remember that our Lord Jesus drank wine.

---

To me this is a much needed conversation and awakening of the need to be proactive regarding the wine industry taking over this beautiful area and yes indeed while many enjoy smoking and drinking the alcohol and tobacco industries do not at all care about the people or the environments they plow over and mow down.

Thanks for this balanced and fair response. Regarding the post comparing wine to cocaine, let's remember that cocaine, meth and heroin are addictive in themselves. Comparatively, addictions to alcohol, gambling, food, sex, video games and (yes!-even cannabis) ---the substance is not the villain --it does not create the addiction, the drive or chemistry in the person, does.

BTW In terms of land and resource use vs. economic benefit, the elephant in the room is cannabis. As I see it, we have an opportunity to make our economic engine work--viticulture and cannabis--- but only if we recognize the benefits and manage the downside. And that while walnuts and apples made our county viable in the 19th century, the 21st century has a whole different set of consumers.

So thanks again Ron for your well-considered response.
And for the "blood on your hands" group, all I can say is that in my opinion, extreme rhetoric has never helped any issue to be resolved, or any community to come together.
Gypsey

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:

Although I am concerned about the expansion of the wine industry, this logic seems oversimplified and extreme. Over consumption of almost anything - not just wine - can ruin lives. Wine is an enjoyable part of my life, and I think there are health benefits to moderate consumption as well. It is more about the size and commodification of the wine industry that is spiraling out of control. In the 80's and 90's Sonoma County had mostly small family wineries, and it felt like there was a balance. Now, the big money has moved in and there will be a complete takeover without a fight.

I also don't think you can blame only the wine industry for the problems of agriculture. There are political and macroeconomic issues at play with agriculture, where the price of products are at or below the cost of production. Our apple industry didn't disappear just because growing grapes was more profitable.

If we want to win the argument and stop continued expansion of the wine industry, it will take carefully researched and developed arguments to win over the majority of people and politicians. Most people like wine and alcohol, so to attack it's production and consumption is probably not a fruitful strategy.

Ron

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

It'd be helpful for anyone considering a rant against wine, to remember that our Lord Jesus drank wine.

---

I don't actually recall any references to him drinking it.

but he was definitely a winemaker, though one sadly lacking in craftsmanship and willing to take egregious shortcuts.

it's a good point, though - if he was temperance-minded we'd have the wine-into-water parable instead!

Water for the people, fishes, all animals, watersheds, creeks, rivers, lakes, lands, trees and all animals!

Hi Tommy,
I appreciate that you evoked Jesus. As you may be aware, I am an ordained United Methodist minister who used to spend many hours reading and studying the Bible. Jesus may have drunk wine, moderately, (as I admit in this thread that I do) but he gave rants, like in the temple against the money changers. Being "extravagant" is not always bad. It can be an appropriate response to the extremes of others.

The Center for Climate Change recently hosted a rant, as they did back in 2007. I was one of the judges, since in my speech classes I teach people how to rant. So I honor a good rant, for a good cause, like reducing the over-growth of Big Wine, even when they throw us a few crumbs by hosting music events. :)

I would not have selected the words that Mr. Blaze did. Perhaps he is one of the many who have been damaged, either himself or family members, by alcoholism. Following are the guidelines for a good rant, which Mike Sandler sent out. I like how he gets humor in there, which can benefit a good rant. Please note items 8.

Mike’s rant-a-thon judging standards from summer 2007.

Participants give a 3 minute rant on the state of the world, and why things are messed up.

Participants will be judged by an impartial panel based on the following criteria:

1. Passion (Swearing? Yelling?)
2. Content (current affairs preferred over the fight between Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie, though lost points here could be made up in nonlinearity and creative blaming)
3. Humor (take it seriously, but give it some zing- i.e. Chihuahuas versus Hummers)
4. Ridiculous metaphors (i.e. Bush’s foreign policy is _____)
5. Esoteric References (naming the specific guard you hate at Abu Ghraib is better than just mentioning Abu Ghraib)
6. Relevance (Botswana’s export tariffs are upsetting, but remember to bring it back to the main point)
7. Creative blaming (Dubya is indeed responsible for Hurricane Katrina, but little did you know that Jenna Bush is even more at fault)
8. Nonlinearity (ex: how is the wine factory proposed on Gold Ridge Road related to Rupert Murdoch’s consolidation of the media)
9. Satire/ Parody (ex: facial expressions and impressions of DC’s finest)
10. Gestures (Scalia-type performance art, foam middle fingers welcome)
11. Density (how much of the above can you pack into 3 minutes?)

Tips: Remember to alternate between bile, venom, and humor. Like a fine soufflé, a quality rant needs just the right amount of ingredients to turn out right. The difference between bile and venom is subtle, but can be discerned during public comment at a Sebastopol City Council meeting. It is also an art to be able to rant like Greg Palast without falling into regrettable Jenkel-ism.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

The original post, by Mr Blaze, was a rant against wine. Webster defines a rant as "a bombastic extravagant speech, bombastic extravagant language".

It'd be helpful for anyone considering a rant against wine, to remember that our Lord Jesus drank wine.

---

The question is whether or not you choose to disturb the world around you, or if you choose to let it go on as if you had never arrived. -Ann Patchett, writer (b. 2 Dec 1963)

This is a response to Tommy's and then Shepherd's comment on Tommy's post. It is true that Jesus drank wine. And he turned water into wine. No argument there.

This issue has come up in Christianity before, several times. From the 18th through the early 20th centuries a number of Protestant denominations critiqued the implication that therefore it is OK for us moderns to drink wine and alcoholic beverages. This mostly came from Methodist (hi Shepherd) and other Wesleyan denominations. The Quakers were also a tradition opposed to alcohol consumption for various reasons. The Methodist opposition to the use of wine in communion led to the development of Grape Juice, invented by Dr. Welch, who designed it specifically for Methodist usage in communion services.

It is a fascinating, but little known, or understood, debate. There is an interesting book by Jennifer Tait called 'The Poisoned Chalice' that is a history of this disagreement. I like Tait's book because she is sympathetic with both sides and is, at the same time critical of both; a rare accomplishment for an historian.

Basically my view is that the social context of alcohol has drastically changed from the time of Christ. We now have to contend with distilled spirits which significantly raise the ethanol content of these beverages. In response to the appeal of distilled liquor, wine has significantly increased its alcohol content. I like to make a comparison to modern weaponry. A rifle from 300 years ago was a sluggish affair with limited effectiveness. A modern assault rifle, in contrast, in some forms, hardly requires the user to take aim; instead the assaulter just sprays bullets in a hail of destruction. The rise in alcohol content makes modern alcoholic beverages far more potent and destructive in a similar way.

The Methodist opposition to alcohol arose because of their focus on the working class and their attempts to ameliorate their condition. What the early Methodists observed was that alcohol had an extremely debilitating effect on working men and their families. For Quakers, the emphasis was a little different; they tended to comment on how alcohol consumption often led to violence, various sinful behavior, and made silent contemplation more difficult.

In closing I want to note that I realize that there are many people who drink responsibly and I am not disputing that.

My appreciation to Jim for entering this theological discussion and providing important historical details. It reminds me of my ordination, 1967, where I agreed not to smoke or drink alcohol. I have followed one of those agreements, never having had a cigarette to my mouth. :) There was also the tacit understanding that I would marry a Methodist woman, which I did not do.

I have served Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal churches. As a missionary in Chile during the Allende government, I lived with the Holy Cross fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. The Calvinist tradition of the Presbyterians is very restrictive. For the last decade I have been on a board of an Episcopal Church, and I previously served as an Ecumenical Associate at the Montclair Episcopal Church in Oakland. I find them to often be the most tolerant of diversity, including alternative sexual orientations. The Methodist bishop, from Texas, who ordained me and under whom I served for a decade, was quite restrictive.

Methodist communion is, indeed, grape juice, as Jim says. We called the Episcopalians "Whiskypalians." Both Anglicans (Episcopalians in the U.S.) and Catholics use wine for communion.

When I first moved to Sebastopol, in 1992, I preached a couple of times at the Methodist Church here and taught a course on the soul. These are more theological details than might interest most of you. I offer them because the basis of my objection to Sonoma County's bloated wine industry is ethical. Its multiple costs far exceed its financial benefits, to a few, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

This is a response to Tommy's and then Shepherd's comment on Tommy's post. It is true that Jesus drank wine. ...

---

One more comment regarding alcohol and its effects on society. I found Shepherd's post helpful; from my perspective Shepherd is acting in the great tradition of Wesleyan spirituality that is grounded on an ethical vision. There is a sociological dimension to alcohol usage which is, in my opinion, not brought up with enough frequency. And that is how alcohol usage has been used to inhibit and weaken (physically, financially, spiritually) marginalized groups. For the early Methodists it was observed how alcohol, particularly distilled spirits, was used to disempower the working classes. In the history of the U.S. alcohol was a significant factor in marginalizing Native Americans. This was also true in Australia. In many ways the manner in which alcohol wrecked entire cultures and groups resembles the plague of crack cocaine in the 80's and 90's in the inner city, or the plague of 'hillbilly heroin' in poor white regions today.

Those who have a lot of wealth do not see these effects and have the resources to mitigate them if they happen to land in their own homes. For example, someone who is wealthy can take a month off and go to a facility that has a lot of services to assist them in overcoming substance abuse. In contrast, those without extra resources are simply stuck trying to deal with the effects on their own. Even if they could find the money to go to a facility, how would they be able to take a month off for such a program? There are programs designed for ordinary people, like 12-step programs. But it is also true that resources for dealing with substance abuse problems tend to be aimed at those who can pay for them.

Hi Jim,

I like your thinking regarding the political/social implications in our country toward the use of alcohol and it's use by those in power to dis-empower groups of people such as native people were and who had previously not been exposed to the poisonous effect of alcohol and had no tolerance for it. May I also add alcohol has been used by unscrupulous men wanting to disable women for sex. It has long been known that most date rapes have occurred when alcohol has been consumed. A note to correct the perception that the twelve steps programs such as A.A. may only help a certain demographic while those who can afford treatment facilities are in some way better off, when, actually and according to statistics, A.A. groups have successfully contributed to the cessation of alcohol use for tens of thousands of individuals, albeit, many have so-called slips, but can and do return to the program for support. Certainly, as you pointed out this program is available to anyone, if they are willing to take the first step.

My appreciations to Roberta for reminding us of one of the worse uses of alcohol, such as wine, to frighten, threaten, and abuse women. Unfortunately, here in Sonoma County we recently had an incident of that by an elected official.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Roberta Llewellyn:

... May I also add alcohol has been used by unscrupulous men wanting to disable women for sex. ...

---

Shepherd,
It's always a delight to engage with you on the skinny branches of what's so in Sonoma County.

- notwithstanding the rant-a-thon judging standards, imj, rants only serve the ranter, in getting stuff off their chest. Since they're basically emotionally driven, the deeper truth gets lost in extreme aspects of the rant. This gives evidence to those on the other side of the issue, that the ranter, and their position is bs.

- Sonoma Co wine industry: my view is that you're an anarchist flame thrower, as you'e told me in regards to water use by the wine industry, that you don't research the quantity of water underground and delivered by the Lord above, the quantity used, and the increase due to the increase in wineries... that you're just bringing the issue to people's attention. I suggest that you'd be more effective if you got the data & the science. Look at global warming, CO2 content, etc - their points of view are strengthened by the pictures of glaciers melting and receding, & by the increase in CO2 levels.

- It's myopic to lament the loss of family wineries, as truthful as it may be. This is the United States of Money. Economic forces resulting in large alcohol companies buying small family wineries is as American as apple pie. The development of the wine tourism industry in Sonoma County is one of the strongest forces in the County. To say something's wrong with it is a simplistic egoic judgement of the reality of the County today. I think only when you make peace with reality, that you have an opportunity for effective action. I will be on retreat with Adya for the next week, minding my breath rather than rants, so I'll be unable to respond further.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

Hi Tommy,
I appreciate that you evoked Jesus. As you may be aware, ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

- notwithstanding the rant-a-thon judging standards, imj, rants only serve the ranter, in getting stuff off their chest. Since they're basically emotionally driven, the deeper truth gets lost in extreme aspects of the rant. This gives evidence to those on the other side of the issue, that the ranter, and their position is bs.

---

I completely disagree, if you accept Shepherd's criteria for a 'rant'. Much good writing, and most good oratory, is emotionally driven. Not solely so, but it better be a strong component. The deeper truth is not lost, it's highlighted in a good rant. A bad rant, like other badly-formed communications, may have the failings you mention. But a good one is more memorable than a reasoned argument unless you're already really intellectually engaged with the subject. And even then, a good rant still has a lot to add.

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?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

... A bad rant, like other badly-formed communications, may have the failings you mention...

---

You have made an important statement re the concept of the effect of alcohol on marginalized groups in society, but I don't know of many marginalized groups who drink fine wine.

Regarding the great tradition of Wesleyan spirituality, your concept of Shepherd's actions is in my opinion, mistaken, I will be replying privately regarding this issue.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

One more comment regarding alcohol and its effects on society. I found Shepherd's post helpful; from my perspective Shepherd is acting in the great tradition of Wesleyan spirituality that is grounded on an ethical vision. ....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gypsey:

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?

---

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?

Ah, if only elected officials were somehow immune to the foibles of humanity, and especially those humans with an abundance of testosterone. However, we also have some elected female officials who are not above use of their power, maybe not in the same way.

The other part of this equation is that I've never witnessed anyone forcing wine or any alcoholic drink down women's throats in order to frighten, threaten and abuse them. But I have heard of women going to men's homes that they don't know, for a "drink", and regretting what follows, which is usually called "rape". I'd be willing to bet that this happens on a regular basis here in Sonoma County. The women may not report it because they may feel responsible that they consented to drink enough to impair their judgment. Was that also the point where they dropped the "inhibitions" that may have saved them?

As adults, we have to know that any form of alcohol affects judgment; that's why it's illegal to drive after drinking over the legal limit, because innocent people and animals are at risk. Anyone who "abuses" any form of alcohol to a degree that impairs their judgment is at risk for the consequences. I know someone who killed a pedestrian while DUI, and spent 7 years in jail. She's still an alcoholic, and drunk every day, many times unable to stand up without falling. But fortunately, she doesn't drive anymore.

Most people probably drink to "relax" and drop their social inhibitions. After all, what's a party without alcohol?
Most of my life I've avoided parties because of the alcohol consumption, and the over indulgence that can cause violence. I lived with it as a child, and now that I have a choice, I don't want to risk that in a crowd of people, especially strangers. Someone can be triggered by a remark, and it can start with pushing and shoving, then escalate to a full blown fight, but if a weapon is available, there will be no hesitation to use it.

Only last week, my friend reported that her roommates had a party that escalated into yelling, fighting, and one of the young men went upstairs, and came down with his gun. She was in her room most of the time, except to go to the kitchen for food. She witnessed this violence, and it left her afraid to continue renting a room in this house.

When we blame alcohol, we need to look closer at our own responsibility, but that's something very lacking in many areas.

This has gotten a bit off topic about the effects of an over abundance of wineries, and the consequences to our community environment, sustainability, and well being.

If only Wacco members could refrain from injecting barbs in those who don't agree with their perceptions, we might go a long way towards really being an example of a "conscious sober community".

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

My appreciations to Roberta for reminding us of one of the worse uses of alcohol, such as wine, to frighten, threaten, and abuse women. Unfortunately, here in Sonoma County we recently had an incident of that by an elected official.

---

I don't know about demagoguery, sociology or any of that. I do know that I was blown away when I became a member of the Graton Fire Department and went out on just about every call for several years when I was a young man. I was shocked at how many people in our district were, killed and maimed at the hands of drunk drivers. From three teens dead coming home from the beach to a beautiful 16 year old Latina who when I opened the car door was whimpering quietly and looked ok until she turned here head and the left side of her face was cut to shreds and hanging down to her chin. Her boyfriend was wandering around the car saying over and over "we were just drinking Bacardis, it was only Bacardis" . 75% of all the accidents we went to were alcohol related. Our firemen were at the scened of one accident when another drunk plowed right in the back of our parked fire truck at full speed. The carnage is unbelievable. 5000 times more likely to take your life than ISIS. I fully protect and respect your right to drink, have fun and even kill your liver if you want, but at home or when you have someone else to drive you. But stay off the STINKNG ROAD if your drinking.

While we're on the subject of alcohol and its multifarious damages--and I speak as a happy imbiber--we should not overlook the effect of prenatal exposure. Not every fetus so exposed will take a big hit: some have a protective allele; other factors do make a difference; some fetal and maternal vulnerabilities are impossible to predict...plus a lot of the damage gets missed by standard testing.

BUT !!! Prenatal alcohol damage affects around 4% of us. It shows up as AD/HD, problems with judgment, planning, memory and reasoning. People with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders are almost never diagnosed correctly in many states of the US--Canada is way ahead of us, as are Alaska, Washington and Minnesota. And because it isn't diagnosed as the disability it is, people with FASD get punished, shamed, imprisoned, addicted...and impregnated early and often. And whoops there goes another generation.

Anyone raising adopted kids or grandkids whose behavior is puzzling and frustrating should consider FASD. Or if your own mom drank and you've always wondered why you're not functioning "up to your potential"...ditto. This is a spectrum--from apparently normal to pretty impaired. Please give me a holler if you want more information, resources, a sympathetic ear. ~ kathy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

One more comment regarding alcohol and its effects on society....

---

Dear Tommy,
I support your right to defend the wine industry and derive pleasure from it. I do not mind a good argument. However, I do not appreciate your name-calling and debasing a difficult argument to an ad hominen personal attack.

I am anything but an "anarchist," which people have been killed for in this country. In fact, I call for more government regulation of the wine industry. Nor am I a "flame-thrower." Your dismissing someone as slinging "bs" is certainly not helpful to the discussion.

After hearing Martin Luther King, Jr. and poet Robert Bly, I resigned my commission as an Army officer, went to seminary, and pledged myself to non-violence. I committed civil disobedience at the National Democratic Convention in Chicago in l968, which landed me in Cook County Jail, after which I was found not guilty, because I exercised my First Amendment constitutional rights of free speech. I am prepared, once again, to do civil disobedience in this campaign challenging Big Wine. I worked with the Quakers to build a chapel on the Caribbean island of Culebra, which the military was using to test bomb. What I throw is words, not flames, in the hopes of convincing people of certain values.

You lower this important discussion about the consequences of alcoholism when you turn to unfounded accusations about the character of those with whom you disagree. I do this not to "delight" you or others, but to convince people of the harm that the over-grown wine industry does to food agriculture and the dangers of alcoholism. Ideas are important.

You may live in the "United States of Money." There are many realities and many of us are not as tempted by the god of money as some are. In spite of the problems that some of us are attempting to address, our lovely Sonoma County remains a wonderful place to live and enjoy. I am not resigned to accepting the rule of the 1%, as you may be. Many Americans and people around the world, like at the climate protection conference in Paris, are struggling to assert that "a better world is possible."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

...my view is that you're an anarchist flame thrower, as you'e told me in regards to water use by the wine industry...

---

My last post was getting too long, so I decided not to respond to Tommy's claim below that I "don't research the quantity of water underground." Then I read the following letter in today's Press Democrat. I offer it as a refutation of Tommy's claim. Such research is apparently difficult to do, or even impossible.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

Shepherd, ...you'e told me in regards to water use by the wine industry, that you don't research the quantity of water underground...

---

Friday’s Letters to the Editor

Preserving groundwater
EDITOR: On Nov. 16, I was a citizen spokesperson at the winery/event center public meeting at the Glaser Center in Santa Rosa (“Sides spar over winery rules,” Nov. 17). Very few speakers addressed the issue of water conservation and sustainability of our groundwater. I am deeply concerned about the vast amount of water it takes to support our county’s wine production.

As it was stated in the film, “Russian River, All Rivers,” there is no way of measuring the amount of water in our aquifer. If it is drawn down to zero, the tragic news is the aquifer infrastructure will collapse, and that space will never be used to hold groundwater again.

So to allow thousands of gallons per day to be extracted for wine production could, theoretically, make this drought last indefinitely. For centuries, Europe wine growers didn’t irrigate their vines. This may be a possible solution to this very serious problem.

PAULA CUMMING PEARCE, Sebastopol

Thank you so much for this jarring reminder. Since alcohol and tobacco were the "go to" avenues of entertainment for most "free thinkers" who weren't controlled by religious beliefs, previous to the knowledge that we have now, I can believe that many, even more than 4% of us have been damaged by this, and of course prescription/non prescription drugs, which may even be more of a culprit in fetal damage. Many of us who don't drink or smoke cigarettes, may take drugs of either kind.

I personally know people who have been damaged by alcohol, either in the fetal state or shortly after being born into an alcoholic family. As I mentioned previously, my brother was an angry infant who developed into a bipolar adult who suffered a tortured life, and ended it at 39. I somehow escaped the mental damage, but withdrew into a private emotional world because of the violence. This experience caused an aversion to alcohol and cigarettes. I find it hard to breath around smokers. Even though I praise the healing effects of cannabis, and use it from time to time, I still don't like inhaling smoke. I'd rather ingest it for pain relief or just "recreation".

Last week at a potluck, I had a glass of wine that was very mild and delicious, but I felt the effects soon after. I'm thinking I may have a sensitivity to alcohol, that may be related to hypoglycemia. Once at a party where I wasn't drinking alcohol, someone spiked my drink, and within the hour I felt sick and vomited. A few people thought it was funny. I went home immediately, since it was a neighborhood gathering. Nice little get together!

Once when I was about 22, I drank too much wine to "get back" at my husband who was an amiable drinker, but always wanted sex when he was drunk. ugh! Anyway, I began to see double, and feel very sick, so that was a lesson to me that you don't get back at someone by following their behavior!

One of my two sons drinks too much to relieve extreme stress; the other never touches it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kpage9:

While we're on the subject of alcohol and its multifarious damages...

---

Shepherd, I'm glad to see you speaking up against this "rant" and "name calling" from someone who obviously respects Jesus' example. WWJD? (What Would Jesus Do?) is a good reminder for those who follow the Bible and it's precepts, but we all know that's not the reality we live in, now or then. People continue to be murdered in God's name, so bringing Jesus into the conversation doesn't hold much "water" (or wine).

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

...However, I do not appreciate your name-calling and debasing a difficult argument to an ad hominen personal attack...

---

I find it disingenuous to hear from those who drink and support drinking alcohol defend winery expansions with its undeniable impact on environment, resources, and people, because they personally enjoy getting toasted. Individuals who support industries because of their own pleasure or enjoyment without thought or regard for the damage and danger inherent to countless other people everywhere are to my mind without conscious or credible input. Significantly, I have observed, as a new resident in Sebastopol, covert permission of under the legal age of alcohol consumption. This demographic as well as those legally aged young people, who I know personally, are increasingly impacted from wine and other alcohol drinking in this region. Certain local bar/restaurants or taverns with weekly music draw a predominately young crowd who regularly become drunk and receive DUI's from the waiting police, before the impaired person even gets their keys into the vehicle's ignition. While also countless others do not get stopped prior to drinking and driving and are dangerous to everyone, including themselves.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Roberta Llewellyn:

I find it disingenuous to hear from those who drink and support drinking alcohol defend winery expansions ...

---

that's disingenuous in its own right. Or maybe better termed a 'straw man' opponent. No one says that since they like to get toasted, the argument's over.

Without hunting for quotes from previous posts (e.g. I'm making up an argument) by identifying oneself as one who drinks and supports drinking, one is making clear their interests and even more, claiming to represent a class of like-minded others. That gives context to arguments they then offer in favor of winery expansion (if indeed they favor that) but even more they serve to counterbalance the point of view of those who would go farther than stopping winery expansion - if they could they'd remove alchohol from society completely. This thread has started to show a lot of that as a subtext.

but it'd be interesting if someone took up your challenge - who wants to claim that unlimited wineries would be awesome, and the hell with those too weak to handle their drink??