Penley Dam: Final Effort

 Posted by on 11 July 2011 at 7:00 am  Activism, Colorado, Penley Dam
Jul 112011
 

After many delays, a series of hearings about the proposed Penley Reservoir and Dam was scheduled with the Douglas County Commissioners, starting on June 27th. I went to a whole lot of trouble to attend that first meeting. I wanted to hear the developer’s presentation about the project, and I wanted to speak in defense of property rights. Much to my annoyance, the developer didn’t attend, but instead asked for a continuance. That’s odd, and I suspect that the project is somehow in limbo.

At this point, I don’t plan to attend any further meetings, but I did submit this letter to the Douglas County Commissioners about the project:

Dear Douglas County Commissioners,

My husband and I are residents of Indian Creek Ranch. We support the right of the owners of the Penley Ranch to develop their property. We support the building the proposed dams and reservoir, if that’s what the owners choose.

We support this project based on the principle of property rights. Property rights protect every person from undue interference in his affairs by others, including interference from neighbors and government. Property rights make civilized society and economic growth possible, including the development of much-needed water storage resources.

The owners of the Penley Ranch deserve to have their property rights respected and protected–just like everyone else. As far as we can see, the proposed project would not violate anyone’s rights by imposing an unreasonable risk of harm or nuisance on neighboring landowners. Our only concern is that the developers ought not be permitted to take land using eminent domain, as that would be a violation of property rights.

Of course, some of our neighbors are quite unhappy about the proposed project. But the Penley Ranch is the property of its owners, not of anyone in Indian Creek Ranch. To deny this project due to public pressure would be to violate the rights of the property owners–and that’s dangerous for all of us who value our homes and land.

Sincerely,

Diana Hsieh, Ph.D
Sedalia, CO 80135
Douglas County

 

As you might recall from this post, I’ve suffered under the regulatory yoke of campaign finance law. Now I have a real chance to strike back… and I need your help… by Tuesday!

First, here’s the basic story of why I’ve been subject to campaign finance laws.

In the fall of last year, Ari Armstrong and I published The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception under the auspices of my Coalition for Secular Government. That work was made possible by 63 pledges ranging from $4 to $300 from individuals who support our fight against the “personhood” movement. We did that work because anti-abortion zealots got another “personhood” amendment on the ballot — Amendment 62. Our purpose was to reveal the full range of horrific consequences of this measure, as well as provide a solid moral foundation for abortion rights. That’s something that the traditional leftist defenders of abortion rights can’t and won’t do, not even with all their millions of donor dollars.

Unfortunately, Colorado law does not permit people to speak freely in elections. I was forced, by Colorado’s campaign finance laws, to report all donations and expenditures over $20. For expenditures, I had to report names and addresses of businesses, as well as what I’d purchased. For donations, I had to report the names and addresses of donors, as well as places of work for donations over $100. The reporting was a huge drain on my time, and I was petrified of doing something wrong, and thereby incurring fines of $50 per day. In addition, I was appalled that the state required the publication of private information about donors, particularly given the harassment and violence often perpetrated by anti-abortionists against defenders of abortion rights.

Now, fast-forward to today. Colorado’s Secretary of State must revise its regulations on campaign finance as applied to “issue committees” due a fabulous victory for free speech won by the Institute for Justice in the Parker North case. Basically, the Colorado Supreme Court didn’t abolish campaign finance for issue committees, but they indicated that contributions and expenditures in the $2000 range should be regarded as “well below” the threshold for reporting. So what has the Secretary of State proposed in response? Well, they’re going to have the exact same system, except that the trigger for reporting will be $5,000 in contributions or expenditures, rather than the existing $200 threshold. You can read all the details in in this four-page PDF.

Yikes! I was hoping for something much better, something that would actually enable ordinary citizens to speak out in elections without concern for government regulations. Yet $5000 is still a very, very low threshold, likely to be exceeded by ordinary citizens attempting grassroots activism on some ballot measure. Moreover, once that threshold is met, those ordinary citizens (and their donors) will be subject to the same burdensome and invasive reporting requirements as they are now.

So… what can we do? Alas, we cannot hope to abolish these unjust campaign finance regulations. Colorado’s state constitution requires them, and for now, they stand. Here’s what our constitution says:

The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare . . . that large campaign contributions made to influence election outcomes allow wealthy individuals, corporations, and special interest groups to exercise a disproportionate level of influence over the political process . . . that political contributions from corporate treasuries are not an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas and can unfairly influence the outcome of Colorado elections; and that the interests of the public are best served by . . . providing for full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions, independent expenditures, and funding of electioneering communications, and strong enforcement of campaign finance requirements.

That’s truly awful, and I hope that IJ’s work on free speech will soon abolish all such campaign finance regulations. In the meantime, you can help me advocate for the minimal possible speech regulations consistent with our state constitution. How so?

The Secretary of State of Colorado will hold a hearing in Denver on Tuesday, May 3rd about these proposed regulations, and they’re soliciting comments from interested parties. I’ll be submitting comments, as well as attending in person to speak. (Ari will do so too.) First and foremost, I will condemn campaign finance laws as inherently a violation of free speech rights. Then, recognizing that such regulations are required by our state constitution, I will argue that those regulations should be made as little burdensome as possible. I will propose that only individual contributions and individual expenditures above a certain high threshold — say $5000 — should be reported. In addition, only the name and city of donors should be reported, not their home addresses and/or places of work. Such regulations — although still wrong and evil — would satisfy the demands of the state constitution while eliminating most of the burden of advocating for or against a ballot measure.

So what can you do? If you live in Colorado, I’d love for you to attend the hearing with me, to speak out in person for greater freedom of speech, and hence, against these proposed regulations. It’s 2 pm on Tuesday May, 3 in the Blue Spruce Room (Second Floor) of 1700 Broadway in Denver.

Whether you’re able to attend or not, please submit written comments! I’d particularly urge you to do so if you’re a resident of Colorado — or if you contributed to Ari’s and my “personhood” paper. Please submit them by 12 pm MT on Tuesday, May 2nd to Andrea Gyger at andrea.gyger@sos.state.co.us. Please reference “8 CCR 1505-6″ — and the “Proposed Revisions and Amendments to the Secretary of State’s ‘Rules Concerning Campaign and Political Finance’.” Also, please cc me!

You need not write anything complicated or long. You only need say (1) that you’re opposed to campaign finance laws, including for so-called “issue committees” and (2) that you think that any regulations mandated by the state constitution should be made as minimally invasive and burdensome as possible. If you wish to include further details in support of my proposal, that would be great, but certainly not required. If you’ve donated to the “personhood” paper, please include that fact, since then you’re an “interested party,” even if you live outside Colorado.

Thank you, thank you to everyone who chooses to write! If we can make these campaign finance rules less onerous, that won’t just be a small victory for free speech in Colorado… it will also eliminate a major exercise of unjust government force against me, personally. And for that, I will be so grateful.

Jan 282011
 

As you might recall from my prior post, some local developers seeking to build two dams to make a reservoir on the Penley Ranch, a property that borders our neighborhood. Many of my neighbors are adamantly opposed to that project. After seeing the presentations offered at the Douglas County Planning Meeting in mid-December, I decided that the project was fully within the rights of the owners of that property.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend the follow-up meetings in mid-January, when I might have been able to speak my opinion to the Planning Commission. However, a friend volunteered to do so for me, and here’s the statement of mine that he read:

26 December 2010

Dear Members of the Douglas County Planning Commission,

We are residents of Indian Creek Ranch. Unlike many of our neighbors, we support the right of the owners of the Penley Ranch to develop their property. We support the building the proposed dams and reservoir, if that’s what they choose.

The reason that we support the developers is simple: property rights. Property rights say that what’s yours is yours and that what’s mine is mine. Property rights protect every person from undue interference in his affairs by others. Property rights enable every person to live his own life, using the resources he’s earned as he sees fit.

The owners of the Penley Ranch deserve to have their property rights respected and protected–just as we do. As far as we can tell, the proposed project would not violate anyone’s rights by imposing a tort or taking land by eminent domain. Of course, some neighbors might not be happy about the proposed project. But the Penley Ranch is the property of its owners, not of anyone in Indian Creek Ranch, and we ought to respect the rights of those owners.

For those reasons, we urge Douglas County to approve this project. In addition, we urge our neighbors to reconsider their opposition. We urge them to uphold the principle of property rights. Remember, the Penley Ranch will be developed–somehow, someday. Indian Creek Ranch can work with the developer now to make the project a win-win for everyone–or we can find ourselves living next to a landfill in ten years. Let’s choose our course wisely.

Sincerely,

Diana Hsieh, Ph.D and Paul Hsieh, MD
[Address omitted]
Douglas County

Unfortunately, the Planning Commission caved to the public pressure by recommending against the project. The debate now moves to the Douglas County Commissioners. Unfortunately, they moved the date of that meeting to an evening when I already have settled plans, so I don’t imagine that I’ll be able to torture myself by attending. However, I’ve updated and submitted the above letter as follows:

27 January 2011

Dear Douglas County Commissioners,

We are residents of Indian Creek Ranch. We support the right of the owners of the Penley Ranch to develop their property. We support the building the proposed dams and reservoir, if that’s what the owners choose.

We support this project based on the principle of property rights. Property rights protect every person from undue interference in his affairs by others, including interference from neighbors and government. Property rights make civilized society and economic growth possible, including the development of much-needed water storage resources.

The owners of the Penley Ranch deserve to have their property rights respected and protected–just like everyone else. As far as we can see, the proposed project would not violate anyone’s rights by imposing a tort or taking land by eminent domain.

Of course, some of our neighbors are quite unhappy about the proposed project. But the Penley Ranch is the property of its owners, not of anyone in Indian Creek Ranch. To deny this project due to public pressure would be to violate the rights of the property owners. That would be a grave moral wrong.

Hence, we urge Douglas County to approve this project.

Sincerely,

Diana Hsieh, Ph.D and Paul Hsieh, MD
[address omitted]
Douglas County

That will form part of the record, even though I cannot attend to read it myself. If you live in Colorado, you’re more than welcome to write a letter too. You can write in support of property rights, as well as the development of much-needed water storage resources in Colorado. Please send any such letters to the following address:

Curt Weitkunat, Chief Planner
Douglas County Planning Services
100 Third Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104
cweitkun@douglas.co.us

E-mail is fine, but please send them by Thursday, February 3rd. Also, be sure to include your address.

Property Rights, Close to Home

 Posted by on 11 November 2010 at 8:00 am  Activism, Colorado, Penley Dam
Nov 112010
 

I’ve got a very local activist project brewing, and I thought I’d tell you about it now, before it gets hopeless complicated.

Many of the people in our semi-rural neighborhood are up in arms about a dam and reservoir proposed for a neighboring property. That property — the Penley Ranch — is between us and the Rockies, so any dam seems likely to mar our view somewhat and perhaps cause some other (seemingly minor) problems.

Unfortunately, many people in our neighborhood and area seem determined to use force — via our county planners — to stop the project. To justify that, they’re appealing to anything that might be effective: environmental regulations (including some endangered mouse), historic value, diminished property values, increased flood risk, etc. As far as I understand, water rights are not an issue.

You can find more details about the project — and the opposition to it — in this 9 News article.

As far as I understand, this dam project is wholly private. So, as you might expect, Paul and I regard property rights as paramount. But I’d not yet said anything, as the county meetings won’t happen until late December.

At present, my major concern is that the people opposed to the dam will represent the whole neighborhood as opposed to it. So far, the opponents been the only people talking, so they might assume that others agree with them. However, that would be terribly unfair to the rest of us.

This morning, a board member for ICRIA (our neighborhood association) expressed his reluctance about involving ICRIA in this matter, precisely because he imagines that not everyone agrees that the dam should be stopped. That seemed like the perfect opening for me to register my dissent.

Here’s the note that I wrote:

From: Diana Hsieh
Date: November 10, 2010 7:58:35 AM MST
Subject: Re: Meeting

Hi ICR Neighbors,

I don’t know as much as I would like about this project, but in light of Mark’s worries about [the board of our neighborhood association] representing the neighborhood, I figured that I should say something.

My husband and I are strong advocates of property rights. We believe that people should be able to develop their property as they please, without government interference, provided that they don’t violate the rights of others. So we must oppose any attempt to stop this project based on environmental regulations, diminished property values, historic beauty, or minor flood risk — absent some genuine tort.

Hence, we would be wholly opposed to either ICRIA or the Riding Club speaking on our behalf, given that we are not likely to agree with what is said. And if that happens, we will be obliged to speak out against what is said in our name — and that will only create hostility in the neighborhood and confusion about this issue. I’d really like to avoid that.

I would ask that people only speak for themselves — and for their neighbors that they know agree with them. Instead of using non-political organizations like ICRIA and the Riding Club, why not form a “committee against the dam” or something of the sort that can speak for all the nearby residents (not just in ICR) opposed to the project? That way, you’ll be representing people fairly and accurately. That would be best for everyone, I think.

– DMH

Alas, one woman already wrote everyone to express her disagreement with my proposal that opponents of the dam form a separate group, insisting that she wants the ICRIA board to speak for her. Our by-laws don’t seem to allow for that, but I fear that mere words on a page won’t be much of an obstacle. Alas.

Whether our neighborhood association involves itself or not, I might form a group for “Citizens for Property Rights in Douglas County” or something, to coordinate and represent those of us who don’t want the government meddling with private property. If you have any advice on doing that effectively, please let me know! I’ve never done anything so local before.

 

I’m delighted to report that Colorado’s “personhood” measure was defeated strongly, yet again. Ari Armstong and I were certain of its defeat, but we worried that it would gather significantly more support than did Amendment 48 in 2008. (Amendment 48 was defeated with 73% NO and 27% YES.)

Much to my delight, the results so far (with 88% of precincts reporting) show that “personhood” is almost as unpopular as ever, with 70% NO and 30% YES. That’s despite the more confusing language of Amendment 62 and far less of a campaign in opposition by the major coalition, Protect Families, Protect Choices — in comparison to 2008′s Amendment 48. While “personhood” is still a threat, particularly in the long-run, I’m hopeful that enough Colorado voters understand its moral and practical evils to vote against it, time and again.

Once again, I want to give a heartfelt thanks to everyone who pledged to support our hugely revised policy paper on it: The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception. That paper was viewed 3,000 times in HTML format, and downloaded 500 times as a PDF and 100 times as in e-book format.

Unfortunately, Stephen Bailey did not prevail in his race against Jared Polis, but I’m so glad that he ran. And Amendment 63 — for health care choice — looks like it will be defeated by a narrow margin. The rest of Colorado’s election results — including the dead-heat in the Senate race between Ken Buck and Michael Bennet — can be found on 9 News.

Free Speech Versus Colorado Law

 Posted by on 27 October 2010 at 2:00 pm  Activism, Colorado, Free Speech
Oct 272010
 

Robert Frommer of the Institute for Justice published an excellent op-ed in the Denver Post today about the incomprehensible morass of Colorado’s campaign finance laws. It begins:

In America, the only thing you should need to speak out is an opinion. But this election season, groups of concerned citizens around the country are finding out that they need more than just their opinions; they also need a lawyer.

But even that isn’t enough, as Clear the Bench Colorado discovered. Go read the whole op-ed for the details. Although I’m sadly familiar with Colorado’s campaign finance laws, this case flabbergasts me. It’s non-objective law at its finest.

I’ll have more to say on my own experience with campaign finance laws tomorrow.

Reminder: Stephen Bailey Interview

 Posted by on 27 October 2010 at 7:00 am  Colorado, Politics
Oct 272010
 

In case you didn’t have a chance to watch it yet, I wanted to remind you of my interview with Stephen Bailey, Republican candidate for US House of Representatives for Colorado’s Second District. I interviewed him on September 23rd about his principles and prospects. For more information about Stephen Bailey, visit his web site: www.StephenBaileyForCongress.com. If you can assist his campaign by donating your time or money, please do so!

Here’s the high-definition version of the main interview on YouTube, split into three parts:

Interview with Stephen Bailey, Part One

Interview with Stephen Bailey, Part Two

Interview with Stephen Bailey, Part Three

There’s also bonus footage of Stephen Bailey with his wife Reiko:

I’ve also made an audio-only version. You can listen now:


35:01 minutes

Or download it:

For more information about Stephen Bailey’s views — and to contribute to his campaign — please visit his web site: www.StephenBaileyForCongress.com.

 

[Crossposted from Politics without God.]

Much to my dismay and disgust, Colorado’s two Republican candidates for Senate, Jane Norton and Ken Buck, have endorsed Colorado’s 2010 “personhood” amendment, a.k.a Amendment 62. That proposed amendment would grant full legal rights to zygotes from the moment of fertilization.

As Ari Armstrong and I explained in our soon-to-be-updated 2008 policy paper — Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person — this “personhood for zygotes” amendment would have dire legal consequences if passed and enforced. It would require abortions to be punished as first-degree murders, except perhaps to save the woman’s life. It would ban any form of birth control that might sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus — including the birth control pill. And it would ban viable forms in vitro fertilization because the process usually creates more fertilized eggs than can be safely implanted in the womb. In short, the measure poses a grave threat to the life, liberty, health, and happiness of the women and men of Colorado.

Many Republicans in Colorado seem to be evading the plain meaning of the amendment. As Ari Armstrong explains, they claim to support it, while denying that it’s anything more than a symbolic gesture. So where do the Ken Buck and Jane Norton stand?

Ari Armstrong has discussed Jane Norton’s anti-abortion views here. She’s in favor of Amendment 62, because she believes that “life begins at conception.” Of course, when “life” begins is not relevant: my pancreas is alive — and human. The question is when rights begin — and that happens at birth. Moreover, Norton would allow abortions in cases of rape and incest, even though such abortions would violate the supposed rights of the zygote or fetus just as much as any other abortion.

Even more than Norton, Ken Buck seems to endorse “personhood for zygotes” wholeheartedly. Via the Colorado Independent, we find Buck’s basic statement of his views:

QUESTION: How do you feel about abortion? Are you for abortion, against abortion, are you for it? In what instances would you allow for abortion?

BUCK: I am pro-life, and I’ll answer the next question. I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape or incest. I believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it’s truly life of the mother.

To me, you can’t say you’re pro-life and say — if there is, and it’s a very rare situation where one life would have to cease for the other life to exist. But in that very rare situation, we may have to take the life of the child to save the life of the mother.

In that rare situation, I am in favor of that exception. But other than that I have no exceptions in my position.

So if the life of a pregnant woman is merely in peril, as opposed to facing certain death, then Ken Buck would deny her an abortion, until perhaps too late. Or if the pregnant woman’s health would be permanently ruined, such that she’d be disabled for life, Ken Buck would deny her an abortion.

Ken Buck seeks to force women to sacrifice their lives, their health, their dreams, their values to a tiny clump of cells without any human qualities except DNA.

That’s not “pro-life” … it’s frightfully anti-life. And if it’s not opposed on moral grounds, people like Ken Buck will eventually have their way.

 

Once again, the religious right is launching a massive assault on reproductive rights in Colorado — and in other states too — by demanding for full legal rights for fertilized eggs. Ari Armstrong and I are asking for your help to fund an updated policy paper explaining the moral and practical evils of Colorado’s new “personhood” amendment.

In 2008, the theocrats of the religious right gathered the requisite signatures to put a “personhood” amendment on Colorado’s ballot. Known as Amendment 48, this proposed amendment to the state constitution sought to define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the Colorado constitution. Amendment 48 was defeated resoundingly with 73% against and 27% in favor.

Unfortunately, the crusade for “personhood” did not perish with Amendment 48. Instead, the crusaders went national, expanding the activity of Personhood USA to over 30 states. They’re back in Colorado for the 2010 election with Amendment 62, a slightly modified version of Amendment 48.

Colorado’s Amendment 62 would grant full legal rights to zygotes from the moment of fertilization. It proposes:

An amendment to the Colorado Constitution applying the term ‘person’ as used in those provisions of the Colorado Constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law, to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

If passed and enforced, the measure would require abortions to be punished as first-degree murders, except perhaps to save the woman’s life. It would ban any form of birth control that might sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus — including the birth control pill. And it would ban viable forms in vitro fertilization because the process usually creates more fertilized eggs than can be safely implanted in the womb. The measure poses a grave threat to the life, liberty, health, and happiness of the women and men of Colorado.

In 2008, the Coalition for Secular Government published a policy paper by Ari Armstrong and myself entitled Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person. We devoted countless volunteer hours to write, publish, and promote the paper. We’re proud of the results of that work: our paper offered the only substantive moral critique of the proposed amendment and a detailed analysis of its effects.

Now Ari Armstrong and I need to update that policy paper for 2010′s Amendment 62. We want the new paper to reflect the changes in the language of the amendment, as well as better address the arguments made in favor of “personhood.” We’d like to discuss the worse political climate in Colorado, plus the spread of the “personhood” movement to other states. And once again, we’d like to promote the new paper via media releases, op-eds, and letters to the editor.

That work will be substantial: Ari and I expect the project to require two solid weeks of work from each of us. And we have other pressing demands on our time.

So we’re asking you to contribute to the update of that policy paper by pledging your money in exchange for our work. We want to raise $2000 in pledges for the new policy paper — by August 3rd at noon. In return, we promise to deliver the revised paper by August 31st, then promote it until the November election. If we raise less than that $2000 in pledges, we’ll still revise the paper, but we’ll scale back our efforts accordingly. If we raise more than that $2000 in pledges, we’ll collect just $2000, pro-rating each pledge accordingly. Your pledge won’t be due until we release the updated paper. That’s because you’re not pledging for effort but for results. If we don’t release the paper for some reason, then you’ll owe nothing.

If you want to stop the theocrats in Colorado and other states … if you want to preserve our rights to abortion, birth control, and in vitro fertilization … if you want to protect the health and lives of American women — please pledge using the form below.

In the “Question or Comment” field, we’d love to hear why you’re supporting our fight against the “personhood” movement. If you have questions or arguments that you’d like to see addressed in the updated policy paper, please include those too.

[It's too late to pledge! Go read the paper!]

Most of all, thank you for your support!

Questions and Answers about Pledging

How much should I pledge?

That’s entirely up to you. You should pledge whatever amount our efforts are worth to you, in light of your resources. Any pledge is welcome.

How can I know what positions and arguments policy paper will contain?

I’d recommend that you read the original version of the paper: Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person. We’re proud of that work: we stand by all the claims and arguments in it. In addition, you can read CSG’s summary of and publications on Amendment 48, as well our recent blog posts on Amendment 62.

Will anyone know that I’ve pledged?

Your name, e-mail, pledge amount, and comment will not be published or otherwise shared with anyone outside CSG unless required by law.

What if I change my mind after I pledge?

If you wish to increase your pledge, you can always pledge more. Just submit another pledge to be added to your existing pledges. If you make a mistake in your pledge, you can e-mail me at diana@dianahsieh.com before August 3rd. If you want to back out of your pledge… well, I won’t have any legal way of enforcing this contract, but if you welch on your bill, you’re a schmuck!

When will I find out whether you’ve gathered enough pledges for the full revision?

The pledge drive ends at noon on August 3rd. Sometime that day, I’ll e-mail everyone who pledged with the results, as well as post an announcement to Politics without God.

How do I pay?

You’ll be able to pay via PayPal, or you can send a check or money order. I prefer PayPal, but paper methods are fine too. (I will collect the pledges, then split those funds evenly with Ari Armstrong.)

Will my pledge be tax-deductible?

No. The Coalition for Secular Government is a non-profit corporation in Colorado, but the paperwork required by the federal government for tax-exemption is simply too burdensome.

What if I’m not satisfied with the policy paper?

If the policy paper doesn’t offer the value you expected, then we will void your pledge and refund any money paid. All that you have to do is e-mail me explaining why you’re dissatisfied.

Why are you doing this?

Ari Armstrong and I have devoted much time and effort to battling the religious right, but we have many demands on our time. We want to make sure that others value the work that we’re doing, and we want to be fairly paid for that work.

What do I do if I have some other question?

Please e-mail me at diana@dianahsieh.com. I’ll update these questions to clarify as needed.

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha