WEATHER »

Comments by OurCoast

Page 1 of 1

Posted on April 1 at 5:20 p.m.

To Ken,

You are absolutely correct that the problems associated with the 'insider structure' hold for men as well as women.

The under-representation of women in elected office, however, requires action. Still, I would not ever vote for a women JUST because she is a woman.

Susan

On Parity, Not Party

Posted on March 23 at 2:21 p.m.

Great piece on the 2012 project, but just wanted to clarify one element.

The 2012 project seeks to encourage more women from diverse corners of professional life to run for office. That said, it does not 'support' individual candidates of either stripe.

As to the concern about 'agenda,' Hughes did clarify that women who are drawn to the 2012 project tend to be women who recognize the lack of female representation in electoral office as a problem that needs to be corrected. Based on what she said, that perception applies more to liberal, feminist and progressive women than to very conservative women who tend to run for different reasons.

Interestingly, in a small group discussion prior to the event, it was identified that a significant hindrance to getting more women to run was the difficulty they face from both political parties who tend to support candidates who come out of the insider structure.

Susan Jordan

On Parity, Not Party

Posted on May 21 at 5:19 p.m.

I think it is time that we all realize that we are dealing with an oil company here whose tactics are increasingly reprehensible.

Many in the local community don't know this, but this is not the first time PXP has tried an end run around the State Lands Commission's legal jurisdiction over this project.

PXP tried to pull this budget play back in January BEFORE the State Lands Commission hearing was held. Local enviros were unaware that PXP was in the Governor's office asking him to put the proposal in the January budget and bypass State Lands review completely. PXP failed and then lost at State Lands on the grounds that the end dates were unenforceable, the agreements were confidential and the titles to some of the onshore parcels questionable.

PXP always had, and still has, the option to bring the project back and attempt to address SLC's concerns. Instead PXP chose to go behind the local enviros backs AGAIN and get the Governor to push the project through in the budget process. This time they were successful. Our only hope is to get the Legislature to reject this ill-conceived effort.

This oil company wants to do an end run on our environmental laws. They care about profits and landing the plum of the first oil lease in CA state waters in 40 years. Their stock is in the toilet and Soros is increasing his stake in the company. There is alot more to this than meets the eye and we should all be cautious. http://www.theflyonthewall.com/permal...

I think it would be best if everyone stepped back and took a fresh look at the situation. The environmental groups who have supported the proposal are well meaning, hard working groups who want to end offshore oil drilling. The environmental groups who are concerned about the lack of enforceability, confidentiality, and precedent for new leasing and drilling off the CA coast are also also well-meaning, hard working groups who want to end offshore oil drilling.

I think its time that we all join together and start to question the tactics of an oil company that is deliberately misrepresenting this project to state legislators and the public and is willing to gut state law in order to get their project approved whether it meets the legal test or not. And, in this case, the California Attorney General has said it does not.

We should all object to these tactics and stand up for the laws we rely on to protect our environment and our coast. Gut the law for one, and all others will rush in behind them.

On None

Page 1 of 1

event calendar sponsored by: