Consider abortion when protecting innocence
What absolute hypocrisy. The fact that our governor halts the death penalty in California doesn’t bother me. This state is not exactly known for executing anyone on a regular basis. Our last execution was in 2006. What does bother me is his proclaimed concern for the 737 convicted, and sentenced inmates on death row. Many of whom he claims are probably innocent.
This same hypocrite so concerned with “might be” innocence doesn’t bat an eye about the innocence of babies aborted on demand in this state. Which of these two groups, convicted prisoners on death row or unborn babies, is truly innocent? He claims that one in 25 people on death row are actually innocent. Well of the 60 million abortions performed in this country how many of those babies were innocent?
He doesn’t want to be responsible for executing an innocent person. That’s great. I agree. But, by supporting abortion, governor, aren’t you agreeing to execute an innocent person? Of course you don’t call it an execution do you? No in this state and country it’s called a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body. Except it isn’t her body that’s being killed is it?
Shame on you governor. God is not mocked. You and every pro-choice supporter can call it whatever you want but death is still death, killing is still killing and abortion is just that - the killing of a baby.
Appeal to save Cat Canyon
As an environmental consultant, most of my experience was with just the kind of impact statement at issue with the ERG plan for oil extraction in Cat Canyon. The county planning department reports have been timid and seriously deficient. In addition, they utterly fail to address crucial issues presented to staff after the draft document was released.
The staff recommendation of Alternative 1 allows for drilling 80 percent of the wells in the original application. I’m reminded of the story of King Solomon ruling between two women, both claiming to be the mother of a child. Solomon revealed their true feelings and relationship to the child by suggesting the baby be cut in two, with each woman to receive half.
Here, staff offers almost all to the applicant, and the remaining fifth to those objecting to the project. Either there are significant unmitigable risks … or there aren’t. Either some risks are catastrophic … or they’re not. This recommendation sounds much more like a lack of clarity and courage than it does the wisdom of Solomon.
Further, I was surprised and dismayed to learn that the outside consultancy employed for these studies was chosen by the applicant itself. In the interest of maintaining at least an appearance of impartiality, this is unsupportable.
And I wonder, if approved, would budgets for oversight and monitoring be proportionately increased to meet the expanded risks stemming from a significant growth of extreme oil operations … with their 40-year lifespan?
Each of the five Planning Commissioners is entrusted with decisions that affect the future of our county and the health and well-being of its residents. Many pathways to deny this proposed project are available to them. If they are not absolutely convinced this project poses no serious jeopardy to the county and its residents, they need choose just one reason of many to reject this project … and they will find that easy to justify.
Some things are obvious. Rejection would not result in a single car running out of gas by the roadside, here, or anywhere on Earth. Nor would the price of gas at the pump change.
As oil output dwindles in Kern County, the oil companies are looking covetously at our beautiful land. We need not go down the unfortunate path that Kern County has.