Camp Candland attempts damage control

Elena

Politics has become a game of “take no survivors”, a game I find very discouraging when critical issues must be resolved between differing parties.  The Rural Crescent, since its inception, has been a unique tool, not just for land use, but an opportunity to bring Republicans, Democrats, and Independents together, united together, even if only on one issue.  For me, the RC is a tenuous bridge builder between people from different ideological perspectives.

What Peter Candland has demonstrated is a complete and utter lack of understanding of why land use can be the one issue that brings people together.  Does Peter Candland prefer to make enemies?  Does Peter Candland prefer to just dismiss people who he believes are Democrats?  Honestly, I am shocked.  Isn’t democracy based on differing views?  If everyone believed the same or were bullied into silence, would that be a representation of the Democracy our founding fathers created?

 The purpose of the pledge is to allow the community to clearly understand where the candidate stands regarding his or her commitment to the Rural Crescent.  Space is provided for clarification, should the candidate care to elaborate.  All communication with candidates  is posted on the ARC website.  The pledge sheet only contains two components:

  • Vote to support the Rural Crescent’s current 10 acre minimum residential zoning.
  • Oppose the expansion of sewer within the borders of the Rural Crescent as outlined in the current Prince William County Comprehensive Plan.

As anyone can see, those are the only 2 items to support.  There is no hidden agenda and there is absolutely nothing about abortion or immigration, legal or illegal, in anything having to do with Rural Crescent affairs. 

Read More

Climate Change-the new wedge issue

MoonHowler

 

Melting Glacier in Glacier National Park: Before and After

The Washington Post:

“Climate change has become a wedge issue,” said Roger Pielke Jr., a University of Colorado professor who has written extensively on the climate debate. “It’s today’s flag-burning or today’s partial-birth-abortion issue.”

Historically, climate change has ranked near the bottom of issues that voters care about as they evaluate presidential candidates. It wasn’t a factor in 2008’s primary season or general election. The major parties’ nominees endorsed the scientific consensus and believed that the government should curb carbon emissions.

In fact, John McCain, back in 2007  clearly said to voters,

“I do agree with the majority of scientific opinion, that climate change is taking place and it’s a result of human activity, which generates greenhouse gases.” He made global warming a key element of every New Hampshire stump speech.

So what has changed?  It appears that some Republican candidates are trying to  out-conservative each other.  Others have stuck with scientific thought.  Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman have both indicated  that they  agree with the majority of scientific opinion, that climate change is taking place.   It’s a result of human activity and that green house gases are a by product of this human activity:

The nominal GOP front-runner, Mitt Romney, drew sharp fire from conservatives when he said in June that he accepts the scientific view that the planet is getting warmer and that humans are part of the reason. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. (R) on Thursday tweeted: “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

Read More