I can’t criticize this year’s list, several of which have direct bearing on Sohum. There are some other stories which maybe should have been in the top 10, but I don’t know which stories could have been replaced.
My suggestions would include:
1. The Reggae War settlement – despite extensive coverage throughout the now two-year-old battle (although some would argue it began years before that), when the settlement came it didn’t go out in the media with so much as a wimper. You would have expected the papers to have trumpeted the settlement with a detailed list of the provisions. Bob reported it on his blog when it happened, but I never saw any follow-up by anybody in the media about the details until recently when the payments came due unpaid. Mostly the terms trickled out through rumors and anonymous postings on this blog, and I’m still not sure I know all of them. People keep asking me to comment on the settlement, what it means, and whether it’s fair. But I’ve never seen enough of it to make any reasonable assessment.
2. The overturning of Measure T – Passed by a healthy majority (which did not include me), Humboldt County’s effort to prohibit extra-county corporate campaign donations and perhaps establish a precedent against what has been termed “corporate personhood” was defeated in court with what some have argued was a lackluster effort at defending the law from the county legal team. What’s interesting is that the county went through several elections before anybody filed a challenge. In this instance the republican aspect of the political system triumphed over the democratic, for better or worse, and local campaign finance reform folk are back at the drawing board.
3. The political near-stalement in Eureka continues – despite a very blue electorate, the City of Eureka continues to elect Republicans, while tossing in an occassional progressive to maintain that constant 3 to 2 conservative majority. “Stalemate” is probably not the best word because one side does retain a distinct advantage, and it’s not unreasonable to interpret the results in two city council elections thus far as a cautious mandate for some version of the Marina Center proposal. The question is whether it is a mandate for Home Depot or another big box. Oddly enough, the one progressive candidate who expressed any support for the Marina Center Proposal, George Clark, was defeated handily. Sectarian politics on the left may also be a factor, as the progressive candidates in Eureka have refused assistance from Local Solutions, which has had great success elsewhere (constituting a very important part of the prevailing coalition down here in the Second District). A couple of years ago there was a serious falling out between certain very dynamic individuals, and some of the original group split off to engage their own efforts on behalf of local progressive causes. The groups haven’t yet found a way to get along at arm’s reach in order to pool resources and opportunities. Other factors are also at play, including Frank Jager’s popularity notwithstanding politics. Personally however, I believe it’s time for a summit of Eureka progressives, and a peace accord.
4. The backlash against diesel – Maybe a story with more local implications rather than countywide, but recent events and overwhelming concerns about the future have brought the issue to the forefront and it is an issue getting serious attention from both community and agency. The subject is touched upon in the NCJ’s list in the “pot backlash” story, but I think the story stands out on its own.
5. Gallegos defeats – Several of Paul Gallegos’ cases have gone sour, including the Pacific Lumber case and the case against the EPD officers around the Cheri Moore killing. It led to several angry editorials suggesting that the lawsuits were a waste of time and that resources are being diverted away from basic prosecution needs to support a political agenda. I do view this as an oversimplification. Everybody loves a winner, and if he had prevailed on those cases Gallegos would not be under fire for the “diversion” of resources, at least not from the mainstream of Humboldt County politics. We’ll have to wait until 2010 to see how the policies play out politically, and maybe someone can put together some empirical rather than purely anecdotal evidence one way or another as to whether the more mundane prosecutions are getting adequate and competent attention.
6. General Plan Update – It was a major issue in the Second District election this year. But it can be saved as a “top 10 story” until next year when, hopefully, it will be completed.
Any other stories to suggest?
219 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 21, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Chris Crawford
I agree that the Measure T defeat, and continuing string of Gallegos defeats should have made the NCJ list. Otherwise their list was pretty good. The Reggae intrigue seems to appeal mostly to those in SoHum.
December 21, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Eric Kirk
That begs the question Chris – which two stories would come out to accommodate them?
December 21, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Mr. Greenjeans
Why does there only have to be ten stories? And what would be the stories if there were only seven or five? Maybe the list should be long enough to get to the point where a person would say “that story or this story should not be on the list.” Eric’s list is just as important as the NCJ’s list. So that’s 16 stories.
Did you know that it is suppose to rain as far out as they can predict?
December 21, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Jane Fish
The Mateel settlement should now be entered as a part of the judgment against Dimmick that happened in court earlier this month. It should be public record finally. The reporting on the entire topic in my opinion was poorly handled. Serious journalists had too much work on their hands to sit through twenty days of courtroom drama or their bosses were unwilling to cover the story accurately and fully. It is a shame. Now Southern Humboldt history once again has the opportunity to be distorted over time by those able and willing to take advantage of the situation.
December 21, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Eric Kirk
Did you know that it is suppose to rain as far out as they can predict?
40 days and 40 nights?
December 21, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Anonymous
Your delicately worded comment re: Clifs win … “prevailing coalition down here in the Second District” is interesting in that the Local Solutions candidate lost the popular vote by a huge margin. Clif may have won the election but most of the voters are very much against what he (and local solutions) stands for. You are seeming to suggest some kind of a mandate, this is so far from the truth as to be absurd. There will be no coalition tween north and south until Cobb goes back to Texas and the north quits trying to eliminate our rural lifestyle by forcing their minority drafted general plan and code enforcement down our throats.
December 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Eric Kirk
lost the popular vote by a huge margin
Wow! So who won the popular vote?
December 21, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Anonymous
With respect to land use which seems to be the principal issue of the election. The positions held by Estelle (reasoned and moderate) and Johanna (least restrictive) clearly have the mandate of the voters. Together, their position, won the popular vote.
I do not intend to be a sore loser, Clif legitmately won the election with his 35% (or so) of the vote in what amounted to a perfect storm of unforseeable events. However neither he nor you should let that make you think winning gives you or your draconian land use plans the support of the voters. The overwhelming majority profoundly disagree with your local solutions plan. If a mandate exists it is for a moderate approach. Clif would do well to remember this.
December 21, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Eric Kirk
And how can you be certain that the land use issues were the basis for Estelle’s votes. I know plenty of Estelle voters who are controlled growth advocates. They voted for her for other reasons.
Sorry, whether Clif has a mandate is up for debate. But you don’t get to claim a mandate when you lose.
December 21, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Hank Sims
It the collective wisdom of the ages — the fruit of the collective experience of history’s great list-makers, starting with God. (Unless you hold with the Mel Brooks version.)
Hey, I don’t make the rules! I just enforce them mercilessly.
December 21, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Anonymous
I don’t remember the exact post (I will try to find it) but you, yourself stated here (or the old version) that the principal and overriding issue of the election was land use and the general plan. I agreed then and still agree now. There were and are other concerns and reasons that people voted for each of the candidates (including Clif) but land use trumped them.
If you believe that Clif and Cobb and their most restrictive general plan truly have the the support and mandate of the voters lets put the one issue to a vote or at least a scientific poll. For an issue this devisive and important that is what the Supes should probably be doing anyway- if their egos weren’t so big (even those who agree with me). In any event I claim no mandate, I acknoledge my candidate lost, neither of which gives your extremist position any more support than Clif received – around a third.
December 21, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Eric Kirk
I don’t remember the exact post (I will try to find it) but you, yourself stated here (or the old version) that the principal and overriding issue of the election was land use and the general plan. I agreed then and still agree now. There were and are other concerns and reasons that people voted for each of the candidates (including Clif) but land use trumped them.
I agree that it was an important issue. In fact, I think I said it in this post.
But I’ve since spoken to a number of Estelle’s voters who support an A-/B+ version of the general plan update. They voted for Estelle for other reasons, including loyalty and the perception that she is more liberal than Clif. Your presumption is that they voted for her because she is more conservative. That may account for some of her votes, but probably not the majority.
December 21, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Anonymous
My best recolection is that your post said it was “overriding” issue, I could be wrong.
Certainly there are other issues but to suggest that land use was anything but “overriding” is disingenuous.
Your attempt to frame the issue as concervative vs liberal is at best illinformed, which you are certainly not. Many of us in the hills are liberal by any definition and in fact it is that very liberalism that led us to the hills in the first place. Estelle while she is certainly diverse and very multifacited, she is not conservative by any reasonable definition nor is her (and many others) openmindedness with respect to lifestyle choices a conservative perspective.
In terms of liberal vs conservative it is Clif who ran in Fortuna as a moderate. Wait until the redneck rancher crowd sees just what they actually got when they voted for the “nice apple farmer guy” (which by the way I think he is).
Anyway, what about the vote/poll? Interested to find out what the people really think about rural vs urban lifestyle? Who knows maybe there really is a mandate, lets find out.
December 21, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Not A Native
I’d suggest Arcata’s inviting the White House drug office to consult about their laws and passing regulations for 215 dispensaries and house grows.
December 21, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Eric Kirk
My best recolection is that your post said it was “overriding” issue, I could be wrong.
Certainly there are other issues but to suggest that land use was anything but “overriding” is disingenuous.
I may very well have used the word, but I don’t necessarily think it applies. The Fortuna voters made the difference, and it’s not the first thing on their minds. Down here it may have been “overriding” second only, unfortunately, to the reggae war issues. In Fortuna, the overriding issue may have been the big box.
Your attempt to frame the issue as concervative vs liberal is at best illinformed, which you are certainly not. Many of us in the hills are liberal by any definition and in fact it is that very liberalism that led us to the hills in the first place. Estelle while she is certainly diverse and very multifacited, she is not conservative by any reasonable definition nor is her (and many others) openmindedness with respect to lifestyle choices a conservative perspective.
I beg to differ. The balancing of property rights with community issues goes to the core of the difference between conservative and liberal philosophies. That’s not to suggest that you and others who voted for the same reasons you did aren’t liberal on a slew of issue. In this particular instance you are in agreement with conservatives, which is why they are reaching out to you. I’m not even saying that’s a bad thing in principle. But I do believe we are in a situation now where we do have to fairly strictly control rural development based upon a number of ecological and social issues. It is the classic liberal/conservative paradigm.
Clif is a moderate, but on land use issues, particularly with regard to big box development proposals in Fortuna, and with particular irony, the marijuana decriminalization issue, Clif found himself to Estelle’s left. Ironically, he also found himself to her left with regard to the proposition 98/99 in June, probably due to the same dynamics we’ve been discussing. The only issue I can remember where she came out to the left of Clif was on the issue of placing the coroner’s office under the auspices of law enforcement. I’m certain there are others, but they didn’t come out during the campaigns.
I would have been fine with Estelle in office, but I think her inability to respond to the marijuana question was largely in the interest of maintaining a fragile coalition which was essential to her chances. As I said in my letter, the pressure to compromise would have increased after she was elected, not decreased. Clif can actually afford to be himself because his popularity in Fortuna had more to do with his community service and family popularity than his political positions. We’ll find out soon enough how well he holds up to pressures.
December 21, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Anonymous
Thanks NAN, exactly the perspective we continue to get from Arcata. If you don’t agree with the urban green perspective we are not interested in hearing from you. Unfortunately there are many of us who are quite progressive but also believe we can make our own choices about where and how to live. Equally unfortunate is your desire to force your regulations upon us just as Bush has tried to do to us all. Didn’t work out too well for him either.
December 21, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Anonymous
…”his popularity in Fortuna had more to do with his community service and family popularity than his political positions”. Thanks, you have made my point exactly, wait until the rednecks find out just what they got.
I respectfully disagree that the basic concept of a rural lifestyle is conservative though I acknoledge that the conservatives are currently alligned with us and I am happy for their support. It was not long ago that the concervatives were the one who wanted to “rid the hills of us liberals”. It is a lifestyle choice under attack not a party platform. In the same sense it is an issue of personal freedom to choose (sound familiar) not sexuality but where and how we raise our families. Many of us feel that we have no choice, as someone said we would make shitty neighbors in a urban setting, we simply do not belong.
Further, I am grossly unconvinced that a couple dozen houses represents any huge impact on the environment. We would all be better served by devising incentives to encourage conservation in alternative sanitation, water collection, energy, and many more instead of fighting about who should live where.
December 21, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Eric Kirk
Thanks, you have made my point exactly, wait until the rednecks find out just what they got.
They know what they’ve got. They’ve known him all his life.
I respectfully disagree that the basic concept of a rural lifestyle is conservative
I didn’t say that. I said that the property rights as overriding broader community interests is conservative.
Further, I am grossly unconvinced that a couple dozen houses represents any huge impact on the environment.
Unfortunately, it’s far from a couple dozen houses anymore. It may be that the “lifestyle” simply can’t be sustained by the local ecology on the scale on which we’ve been pushing it. That is what some of the science is telling us. Obviously we can’t deprive people of existing homes, or shouldn’t anyway. But this community has made many demands of the community 45 minutes to our north when many down here have accused them of being shortsighted and stuck in their ways. Now we’re facing the probability that aspects of our lifestyle may not be sustainable, and we don’t want to hear about it. It seems we’re not all so different after all.
December 21, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Anonymous
Eric, I respect both your right to a different opinion and your ability to phrase issues in a light consistant with your perspective. That is your profession and you are good at it. In the end we should both bend to the will of an informed majority. I will support putting the issue to the voters, we should give the true facts to the people that will have to live with the outcome and let them decide. A single issue referendum without diversion.
December 21, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Anonymous
BTW, this comment moderation thing is irritating. My comments have been neither crude, anti-semitic nor otherwise profane. I see no reason for perpetual moderation and will refrain from comment for awhile in silent protest.
December 21, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Eric Kirk
Oh, don’t brush me off. I’m not just playing word games here. I’ve lived the lifestyle. My parents have owned properties on two subdivisions in Mendocino County, and I’ve lived on both for extended periods of time, and for the first year of life in Sohum I lived in the Benbow subdivision. I understand the lifestyle, and I understand why people opt for it. But if we want rivers with life in them, we’re going to have to make some alterations, and the fact is that the lifestyle on a grand scale is no longer sustainable. We’re spreading out, we’re having an impact, and it’s not pretty. That’s the bottom line. It doesn’t fit in well with the vision so many people had when moving here, but environmentalists have long known that human presence has a great potential to create imbalances, and there’s only so much we can do to mitigate it.
As for turning the question over to a vote, well, would that be strictly Sohum or countywide? Because while the lifestyles here might be more impacted than the cluster lifestyles, the impact on the rivers and other aspects of the ecology affect everyone. And actually, the lifestyles here wouldn’t be all that impacted, except that maybe roads are eventually going to have to be brought up to certain standards. We simply can’t afford to expand the lifestyle by converting more open land to this usage. The planet does not have infinite capacity to accommodate anything we want to do. Unfortunately, this whole dynamic reminds me that the people who realize that are always too few. The fight for sustainable ecology is always a rearguard battle.
December 21, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Eric Kirk
BTW, this comment moderation thing is irritating. My comments have been neither crude, anti-semitic nor otherwise profane. I see no reason for perpetual moderation and will refrain from comment for awhile in silent protest.
I’m sorry about that. The way the moderation is supposed to work is that your first post gets moderated and the others go through once you’ve had your fist post approved. I don’t know why it isn’t always working. Maybe if you provided some sort of name and email address it would work, I don’t know. Try a name and if you want, a made up email address and let’s see what happens.
December 21, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Anonymous
No doubt you understand the attraction to the rural lifestyle. The issue is that you would rather take away that option from others without even an attempt at less drastic measures. You speak of the living rivers but fail to consider the possibility of offering an incentive for homeowners, new and old to install tanks with sufficient storage to see them throughthe summer. Lets establish a program to help our neighbors eliminate sediment from their roads. If we were all to fight together we could force the County to offer revised guidelines for non water based sewage systems. No, instead you and Cobb and the Arcata urbans would prefer to shoot first just in case or perhaps you just assume you are smarter than the rest of us. You say “the people who realize that are always too few”, who elected you the that elite class who knows better than the than those of who have lived and raised our families in the hills. All this and you (figuerativly) have not even tried a little to find a compromise or any alternative at all. You (still figueratively) are simply right and there is no room to listen to anyone else. I believe it has become much more about winning than about what is right or fair.
As far as a vote, your right, those of us in the rural areas are more affected than those in the cities (which is an excellent argument as to why your friends in Arcata should stay out of it) but nonetheless we live in a County and for better or for worse we sink or swim together. There is ne reasonable method I know of to separate the two. So I guess, you get Arcata and our otherwise green allies and I will get Fortuna and our conservative compatriots. In the end it is only right that the people decide, it is far too important to leave to the idiots at Planning. It is probably moot, you (still yet figuerativly) have won your elections now you may subject us to your will which we will ignore until your code enforcers come with their guns and then who knows, that and the legal battle that will cost us all millions which I personally cannot afford but will have been left no choice.
December 21, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Anonymous
I forgot in my rage to try a name, so in moderation I sit. This system sucks.
December 21, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Eric Kirk
No doubt you understand the attraction to the rural lifestyle. The issue is that you would rather take away that option from others without even an attempt at less drastic measures.
What is so drastic about a moratorium on further subdivisions until we can perfect your “less drastic” measures? The point is that we have already gone overboard. It wasn’t apparent at first. We have the data now.
So I guess, you get Arcata and our otherwise green allies and I will get Fortuna and our conservative compatriots. In the end it is only right that the people decide, it is far too important to leave to the idiots at Planning.
Well, if the issue was overriding, then “I” have already won Fortuna where Clif took an outright majority. Anyway, I’d object to turning over the general plan update to an electoral campaign. There are far too many issues which would get caught up in all sorts of special interest fights. If you believe the planning department is made up of idiots you need to push for their firing, because the planning department is precisely mandated to plan.
I believe it has become much more about winning than about what is right or fair.
It’s not about winning, and it’s not altogether about what’s “right and fair.” It’s about what the local ecology can sustain. That is the core issue, and it’s absent from about 90 percent of the discussion. It’s all about “I want mine.” Human nature I suppose. But some of the back-to-the-land visionaries had in mind something deeper.
December 21, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Anonymous
“What is so drastic about a moratorium on further subdivisions”, were this a true statement probably not much depending on the details. Of course we both know that is not at all what is being implemented. What we are faced with is effectivly an elimination not of subdivisions but any and all building permits. Forget the Arcata/Cobb spin and propaganda, the effect of the rules is NO permits period. Read the proposed plan if you haven’t.
If we have truly “gone overboard” all the more reson to work together to find solutions none of which is being proposed.
I have conceded you the election but not the issue. If you put the issue to a vote in Fortuna (and likely even Arcata) without personalities the people will support choices and alternatives. We will probably never know but we all know it intuitivly.
If it has not become all about winning, why is no one even attempting to find solutions like storage and such. There are proven viable solutions to most of the environmental issues if you are willing to look. It appears you (just as figuerativly as before) would rather simply win. That is the easy route, working together to find equitable and workable solutions is much harder but infinately better and more rewarding. Solutions are better than problems. Together we find solutions, alone problems. (I made that up, not bad, huh)
Eric, it’s late, at least for those of us who have to get up early and work in the hills. I have enjoyed the discussion. I will think about your comments as I hope you will mine. My most sincere wishes to you and your family for a happy and healthy holiday season.
December 21, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Eric Kirk
Sure thing. Good night.
December 22, 2008 at 12:16 am
Kym
Anonoymous and Eric, thank you both for such well thought and informative comments. I’m still trying to figure out exactly where I stand on this issue and you two have posted thoughtfully. I expect I’ll be back searching for this thread to help me sort my thinking out.
December 22, 2008 at 6:39 am
Ballast
“They know what they’ve got. They’ve known him all his life.”
Clif Clendenen has been registered decline-to-state since 1981. When approached about politics in past years he has been evasive and uninterested. The guy needed a job and lucked out, but there is no mandate. Those who have known Clif for decades have to wonder what’s up with you, Eric?
Eureka is 60% Democratic. The Democratic Party will continue to make endorsements and Democratic candidates will continue to win elections. I wouldn’t want to use 2nd District politics as the template for anything. You guys can’t find the middle of anything.
December 22, 2008 at 7:54 am
Mr. Greenjeans
As Kym said I too thank both of you for a thoughtful discussion. While I am leaning with Anonymous I understand Eric’s point of view and agree with him almost completely. How does that work?
December 22, 2008 at 8:25 am
OnandOnymous
Agree totally with Anonymous-in-moderation that the codes need to change to actively support water wise homes (storage, greywater, waterless toilets before water wasting septics).
Agree pretty much with Eric that further growth and subdivision are questionable until we get that underway.
The plight of the South Fork and the Mattole is due to population and agriculture (legal and illegal, some big vineyard, orchards and farms take a bunch of water too) diversions on top of environmental changes from past logging and past and current roads.
It’s important to remember that the County let all this growth and diversion happen as much as folks in sohum took advantage of the county’s lack of planning and permitting supervision. The county wants to crack down now, so we have to fight for sensible remediation, including an amnesty process for homes already built, in exchange for our doing the right thing wih our water and roads. They bear responsibillity for enabling mitigation after the fact, not just cracking a whip now. Otherwise we’re ALL going to get visits from code enforcement.
Eric raises a good point (in rather strangled syntax), that this community has frequently fought the county’s entrenched interests in the cause of the environment. It was easy to point the fingers, index and middle, at Palco or others. But we have reached an ecological limit as defined by the health of the watersheds–and isn’t that what we came here for, to live in a healthy environment? Our lifestyle is now a problem due to sheer numbers. It is an odd parallel, like the “old” Palco and the past-Maxxam Palco; when the cut was smaller, the harms were less blatantly obvious, and when the cut increased, so did our demand for and our watchdogging of, regulation.
Our numbers–and the fact that folks are now building McMansions with olympic pools without permit or planning (yes, olympic pools), not little homesteads–are a cumulative and increasing impact. Maybe once we get widespread water mitigations underway, we can prove there is rooms for more. But the harm is obvious right now. We have met the enemy and he is us.
Anonymous says let’s establish a program–great, who’s we? How will it work? Organizing by watershed would be a great idea, but who’s going to do the work? The county sure won’t.
December 22, 2008 at 8:36 am
anonymous
I was surprised the Code story in the NCJ was depicted as a sohum story. Yee Haw isn’t sohum at all, but they represent another big story no one talks about –the county’s lack of affordable housing and the fact the the County isn’t enforcing it *current* General plan in regards to workforce and very low income housing. Someone said at the supes last week that one persons’ substandard housing is another person’s affordable housing. Increasing density on single parcels in simple or unorthodox structures is a means of providing affordable housing, and the country tried to ruin Charles Garth for doing so at Yee Haw.
December 22, 2008 at 9:52 am
longwind
Really good discussion. We saw the same drift, toward portraying the people from all over the county (city and country alike) who descended on the Supes in April as a SoHum mob, in Loretta Nickolaus’s screwball response to the Task Force. It’s especially odd coming from the NCJ, since the year-end code story summary was written by Heidi Walters, who had herself written the Yee Haw cover story a month earlier that showed us in SoHum we had a general problem.
I don’t think Heidi’s in league with Beelzebub (is she, Hank?). I suppose pressures of compaction squeezed the county juice out of an easy to caricature issue. But the victims of the Planning Dept in Titlow Hill still show up to chew out the Supes every time code enforcement comes up. Yee Haw is always in the audience if not at the podium, and urbanites (though sometimes it’s the usual gadflys) always throw in their two cents of anecdote and disdain for the comprehensive failure of our planning and permitting processes.
Seems pretty clear the conversation will continue. The Task Force did a great job of arguing for several new committees to take on the specific areas of challenge, including rural remediation of ecological footprints, legalization of parcels that may be targeted by bored raiders at any time, and creation of a county ombudsman to help people with departments still fuzzy about their laws and responsibilities. These reforms were recognized to be as essential as reforming code enforcement itself. They’re all part of the same comprehensive failure to make reality-based plans for our future.
Bullying isn’t planning, and isn’t civil. All over the county, we have a lot to learn.
December 22, 2008 at 10:37 am
Anonymous
I guess I’m just dense. It seems there are reasonable answers/alternatives for all of the legitimate environmental concerns. Water storage, alternative septic, ect… If we limit all new subdivision to those that the community really wants, then why shouldn’t we allow homes on existing parcels? Overwhelmingly these parcels are 160’s and bigger, hardly sprawl. With logical and well reasoned codes there is no real reason to screw those who bought their land and haven’t yet built or to allow others into our dream. Sure, some houses will be big, some modest, but that is more or less the way it’s always been, who cares so long as the environmental issues are resolved and we are not talking rampant subdivision. It’s interesting that Eric and the Arcata crowd regularly skirt references to existing parcels with a comment about subdivision, but their proposed general plan clearly will stop ALL rural homes. I am always suspicous when the truth is avoided with a canned pitch that fails to adress the issue. This is about real peoples lives and futures, we need to have totally honest discourse and leave the political posturing and double speak to Arcata (if even there).
December 22, 2008 at 10:53 am
Eric Kirk
The existing parcel issue is up to discussion obviously, which is why we talk about A-/B+. You’re treating each of the three options like they are solid plan proposals in stone.
The water storage may be a feasible mitigation, depending on a lot of factors to be considered. But with human presence, there’s a whole broad range of issues which compound when the population increases as quickly as it has, and while it may not look like the sprawl with which we often associate the word, the spreading out of people every 160 acres rather than 1 acre or less may be a detriment ecologically, not a mitigation. That’s the whole point. We have the issue of dirt roads with dramatically increased traffic and the resulting silt runoff. We have the proliferation of all terrain vehicles with the younger generations of homesteaders. We have the dead cars and appliances. We have ancient and inadequate septic systems. We have the increased shooting or otherwise killing or adverse impacts on wildlife, including imbalances when animals opt for gardens and garbage over their intended food chain functioning. We have the sound, ground, and water pollution of diesel generators. The risk of fires and the ability to put them out. We have a host of other issues.
And maybe we can come up with some solutions as a community, although this community in particular contains numerous individuals of many political stripes who don’t like to be told what to do, not even as a suggestion.
A moratorium on further subdivisions. Adequate discussion about further development on existing subdivisions with a focus on potential impact, maybe even on a locale by locale basis. We set up voluntary mitigation systems and revisit the moratorium in 5 years or so. I really don’t think it’s too much to ask.
December 22, 2008 at 11:26 am
Anonymous
Here we go with more of the B+A- stuff again when anyone who reads the proposed plan clearly knows that there will be no rural building period. An example of the wackyness of the proposal can be found in the resource lands section where it calls for an increase in dry weather testing of water and a requirement to provide 450 gallons per day (up from the current 300) AND a requirement to provide storage for 40,000 gallons of storage so that you don’t use the water they just required you to prove you had. As an incentive for providing storage you should not have to prove any summer water and maybe should be precluded from using what you do have, not visa-versa. This is just as absurd as Ann Lindsays report letting us know that all of us living in the hills are a bunch of fatties and it is so much healthier to live in the city. I couldn’t even make this stuff up.
Im sure that not allowing families to live in the hills (and thereby learning to be in touch with the land) is going to keep kids off their quads. Be serious. Sediment is a legitimate concern, we need to educate and assist road owners not destitute them or distroy their families dreams. I’m sure that someone who bought their land hoping and saving to build and has that door slammed shut is going to spend a lot of time and money fixing old logging roads dumping silt. Maybe a homeowner living on the land might be more so prone. Think about it.
“Adequate discussion about further development on existing subdivisions”, this is not what is being proposed. Were it discussion more of us would be supportive. What is happening is anything but discussion, it is the Arcata crowd shoving their decisions down our throats. Cobb and Local Solutions have elected themselves God and going to decide what is best for us. No thank you, I will take our conservative friends over a false idol any day. This is why HumCPR has thousands of people from a broad spectrum supporting them. This is why we must all get up off our asses and make our own decisions lest they be made for us and without our consultation.
December 22, 2008 at 11:32 am
Eric Kirk
Here we go with more of the B+A- stuff again when anyone who reads the proposed plan clearly knows that there will be no rural building period.
Again, this reflects a serious misunderstanding of the process. There is no “plan” as such. These are general frameworks and the final plan update probably won’t look like any of them. And more discussion of all of the proposed frameworks is precisely what is in the works.
As for kids in the hills “learning to be in touch with the land,” well, that’s a whole different topic.
December 22, 2008 at 12:48 pm
longwind
Not so, Eric. All three of the plans, even Plan C, presuppose that the county can and will do what by law it can’t, which is to declare rural Homestead Act parcels closed to homesteading. Elder enviros will remember that the Hearst Corporation 10 years ago proved that they could threaten to subdivde San Simeon’s grounds by recourse to patent parcels, and the state lost every argument in court, and ended up paying serious blackmail as well to stave it off. You can’t defeat patent parcels–you can only make exploiting them so expensive and tedious to claw through county resistance that only the wealthy and patient (and fat and pre-diabetic?) will be able to afford to build in the hills. That’s as good as it gets, and it’s aburd to call that protection of anything but privilege.
This is exactly what ‘coastal’ protection has achieved for the Mendo coast, as any motorist can see. That’s the ‘protection’ heading for our hills if we don’t agree on a sane policy first.
Anonymous, you rock.
December 22, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Anonymous
Thanks Longwind, back at ya.
I think that Eric and even many of his Local Solutions friends(excepting Cobb who only cares about Cobb) really believe that they know best what is good for us. They are blinded in their good intentions to the effects of the TPZ moritorium, code enforcement, and the radical nature of the proposed general plan and cannot see why we have a profound distrust for the planning leadership or why any ordinance that gives them descretion about anything is wholely unacceptable. They believe that we should trust the staff to make the right and fair decisions for our families dispite the counties involvement in sending guys with guns into the hills to enforce codes, dispite a senior planner (Hoffweber) stating proudly at a public meeting that he was going to have our homes torn down, dispite that the new plan was prepared largely without our input, dispite that Girard told a public group that he “does not believe that people should be living in the rural parts of the county”, and dispite Eric’s protestations to the contrary that the new plan will have provisions that effectivly prohibit building on existing legal parcels in those same rural areas. Well we do not have rose colored glasses on and we can see what they are up to. Enough with the Arcata urban greens interfering in the rural areas. HumCPR is right, the sky is falling and it is the urbans pissing on us and our lifestyle. If they want a say, fine, move out of town, walk in our shoes, try to get a permit for anything then they will be in a position to have legitamate input, meanwhile stay home.
As I said last night, we are talking about a couple dozen houses a year, lets take our time, work together, find solutions without creating worse problems.
December 22, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Anonymous
The good thing about unsustainable societies is that they can’t sustain.
December 23, 2008 at 2:36 am
Anonymous
Eric’s call for a “peace summit” doesn’t ring true. There is no “peace” where Cobb is concerned, either he calls the shots or he does his best to undermine you, a la the Clark campaign.
We don’t need his “help” in undermining the constitutionality of any further ballot initiatives on campaign finance reform or GMOs or anything else, thank you very much. His illegal ineptitude has already cost local taxpayers well over $100k. We will write a contribution limit ourselves, and pass it without any further interference from the Democracy Unlimited cultists.
December 23, 2008 at 8:33 am
Eric Kirk
Actually, what I’ve been “calling for” is participation in the general plan process instead of screaming from without.
December 23, 2008 at 8:57 am
Anonymous
Oh, so that’s what “Personally however, I believe it’s time for a summit of Eureka progressives, and a peace accord” means.
December 23, 2008 at 9:00 am
Eric Kirk
Oh, with regard to Eureka city politics and the division which has probably kept progressives from winning two elections, absolutely. I thought we were discussing the general plan. Sorry.
December 23, 2008 at 9:08 am
Anonymous
Eric, every time I make a point for your consideration lately, you seem to have a hard time considering it, usually responding with some sort of befuddlement over process or some sort of tangent. Feeling all right there, old chap? Staying away from that aluminum and other early-onset Alzheimer’s causing elements?
December 23, 2008 at 9:09 am
Anonymous
And my comments are still being sucked into the WordPress black hole for hours on end. Totally lame!
December 23, 2008 at 10:12 am
Eric Kirk
Eric, every time I make a point for your consideration lately, you seem to have a hard time considering it, usually responding with some sort of befuddlement over process or some sort of tangent. Feeling all right there, old chap? Staying away from that aluminum and other early-onset Alzheimer’s causing elements?
Well, it’s hard to know to whom I’m talking to when you don’t even include a name. If I knew you were referring to the Eureka City politics issue, I would have responded accordingly. But the last 20 posts or so are on the general plan, and I have no way of telling between “anonymous” and “anonymous,” because for whatever reason the blog system assigns the same blue design to all anonymous posters.
December 23, 2008 at 10:59 am
Anonymous
And still no response on the control-freak cult trying to stage a hostile takeover of local politics in Eureka/Humboldt Bay…you’re only proving my point, Eric.
December 23, 2008 at 11:20 am
Anonymous
And still no response on the control-freak cult trying to stage a hostile takeover of local politics in Eureka/Humboldt Bay…you’re only proving my point, Eric.
Did you ask Eric to comment on Arkley and his gang? I don’t remember.
December 23, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Anonymous
Eric, Up till now I thought you were a pretty honest guy who just thought he was a little better or smarter than the rest of us. Your comment “Well, it’s hard to know to whom I’m talking to when you don’t even include a name.” is a bunch of BS, you know exactly who each of us are or at least our address. WordPress provides this to you along with a bunch of other personal data. Are you sure you want to stick with the idea that you can’t tell us apart?
December 23, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Anonymous
See, a “peace treaty” implies we have assaulted them, when we haven’t. It’s been this unremitting war of Cobb and DUHC to stage a hostile takeover of the local left that has been the source of conflict. There’s no compromise with these control freaks. They just need to stop their attack and withdraw.
December 23, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Eric Kirk
Eric, Up till now I thought you were a pretty honest guy who just thought he was a little better or smarter than the rest of us. Your comment “Well, it’s hard to know to whom I’m talking to when you don’t even include a name.” is a bunch of BS, you know exactly who each of us are or at least our address. WordPress provides this to you along with a bunch of other personal data. Are you sure you want to stick with the idea that you can’t tell us apart?
I could probably tell you apart if I looked each of you up, but in the flow of conversation I don’t generally do that. In this case Cob and talking-rather-than-fighting were issues flowing from the ongoing discussion, so I thought we were discussing the general plan.
I’m truly sorry if you were insulted. From the bottom of my heart.
December 23, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Anonymous
Cobb needs to stop his attacks and his takeover power tripping. That’s the key point Eric refuses to touch here.
December 23, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Eric Kirk
Oh, well, no he doesn’t.
Anything else?
December 23, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Anonymous
You still won’t respond, Eric. You say there needs to be a peace treaty among Eureka-area progressives, but you won’t describe any of the terms of such a treaty, which makes it smell an awful lot like bullshit to me.
Face it, there is no treaty, and there’s not going to be. Either Cobb will succeed in purging the larger local left the way he has done to Democracy Unlimited, Currency Project, HumIBA, Green Party, Local Solutions PAC, etc. etc. or he will fail, and we will successfully resist and move forward without his control mechanism straightjacketing our progress.
December 23, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m not going to dictate terms. I find Mr. Cobb to be an effective leader, and an honorable man. From what I have heard on both sides, the squabble within Local Solutions which led to the break-off had little to do with him.
As to discussions, we’ve had two elections now in which progressives probably should have come out much better. Eureka progressives can continue to operate at half throttle and continue to lose with an electorate which would otherwise favor you, or you can sit down and talk. You don’t have to be buddies. Just find a way to work together. And if you’re too mad at David Cobb, or Richard Salzman, or somebody else, for some imagined or real transgression to put the community first, then maybe you should just step back and let the grown-ups handle it.
December 23, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Not A Native
I was at the recent talk by Derrick Jensen. It also attended by David Cobb who spoke up repeatedly.
Someone remarked to me they had issues with Mr. Cobb and I replied that it would be better if they could focus more on what they have in common with him.
They reminded me that when liberals convene a firing squad, they form a circle to ensure all transgressors are punished.
December 23, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Anonymous
You said it, NAN. Cobb kept butting in. He just doesn’t know when to stop peddling himself and his nest of front groups, the chief reason why the Times-Standard axed him from his weekly columnist perch.
I also heard about a recent DUHC pancake breakfast where a local philanthropist and advocate for the homeless was repeatedly insulted by Cobb just for being a supporter of the ACLU — even though the man told Cobb he actually voted in favor of Measure T just for the purpose of having the case heard in court.
He just isn’t tolerant, and his positions shift like desert sands to suit his latest power play. He was the very Measure T fanatic who first said he would oppose campaign contribution limits like the one Allen and Crawford backed, with Kaitlin and Meserve backing Cobb’s play. Now Cobb and Meserve show up before the Supervisors pretending to back contribution limits all of the sudden? After the legal debacles these people are responsible for, does anyone in their right mind want them writing our campaign finance law?
This is about fraudulent fundraising and inadequate legal intellect combined with an intolerant quest to exclude everyone who isn’t a true believer. If Eric wants to drink the Measure T koolaid just because of the Clif campaign, go right ahead, but the rest of us aren’t interested in being affiliated with such corrupt and inept hack like David Cobb. Both Atkins and Glass won without Cobb’s interference (if you’ll remember, it was precisely the Loco PAC-run candidates who LOST in ’06 in Eureka) and we can win on sensible campaign reform that doesn’t involve any purity tests administered by the DUHCs.
December 23, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Ballast
Eureka is 60% Democrat, but most of them are not progressives by any stretch of the imagination. They will not follow David Cobb. The candidates who declined to accept sponsorship from LS did so because they know Eureka well. You can fool the voters in Eureka, but they will vote for the person they think best for the job, even when it is the lesser of the evils. Eureka can elect both Atkins and Jager by wide margins. What do you and Cobb care about Eureka politics, anyway?
December 23, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Nick Bravo
If a true revolution ever comes to Humboldt county Cobb and his merry band of sewer rats will be among the first to be dealt with in a trully revolutionary manner.
Many revolutionaries don’t want blood spilled not because they are ethical but because they are cowards.
December 23, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Nick Bravo
What do holy books say about those who proclaim PEACE when their is no peace? They are considered blind souls lost in darkness.
December 23, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Anonymous
Even Nick has Cobb’s number.
See House of Saddam last night? He always said he wanted “peace” too.
December 24, 2008 at 12:47 am
Eric Kirk
You know, with all the posts on all the blogs taking shots at David, I have yet to see even one specific accusation. It’s always vague generalities, misreadings of the Texas bar website, and hyperbole.
Meanwhile, I accidentally deleted one of the anti-Cobb posts. It’s the one where you say you’re disgusted with my “grown up” comment. Feel free to post it again. This imac of my wife’s hits buttens when I simply pass the cursor over it. I don’t know why.
December 24, 2008 at 5:39 am
Nick Bravo
back in 2006 I attempted to attend a DUCH mtg where david cobb proceeded to literally berate me as mentally ill and DEMAND that I be barred from the mtg. David Cobb is a man of poor character and deserves no respect, should he cross me again I will gleefully express my contempt by spitting in his face.
December 24, 2008 at 6:36 am
Anonymous
Eric, Can you honestly find any legitimate purpose to the 25 shell fundraising organizations that David has started which all consist of the same three people, all using the other organizations as a reference and for cross justifacation for their existance and all asking for more money. Their solicitations never show and budget, spending history or board of directors, there are no public meetings and any questions about the truth is met with spin, condesention and then an attack. They are shams, they do nothing but prey on peoples sympathy and fear as a way to subsidize the Cobb/Kaitlin corruption machine. Let’s see a full audit and accounting of all their shells and schemes then we will know the truth, but Kaitlin/Cobb will never allow that. Perhaps if enough of us send complaints to the Attorney General, the franchise tax board, Grand Jury, and the like we will get an investigation and some truth telling.
December 24, 2008 at 7:19 am
mresquan
Yes Nick,I’m sure David will readily head to Phoenix just for the chance to cross paths with you.And so you know,there is one other Cobb hater who has repeatedly expressed that you are mentally ill.
December 24, 2008 at 8:32 am
Mr. Greenjeans
Mr. Bravo I would say you should reach out but I won’t go there.
December 24, 2008 at 8:50 am
mresquan
Hmmm….well I have looked into it,but still can’t figure out why all of my comments have to await moderation.
December 24, 2008 at 9:09 am
Anonymous
David an anarchist, like Darryl Cherney. They want to take it all down and start over.
December 24, 2008 at 9:12 am
Anonymous
2 1/2 hours in moderation. The spirits tell me another “accidental” deletion in in the future. The censure here is almost achieving Heraldian levels. A sure fire way to achieve a truce is to hide the facts and ban legitamate discussion.
December 24, 2008 at 9:24 am
Anonymous
Nothing specific, you say?
About how Cobb berates and abuses people in his meetings?
About how he has led the purge of all non-DUHC members from so many local organizations?
About how he shamelessly promoted his front groups and his profit-making schemes in his Times-Standard columns until even they got sick of him and got rid of his columns?
About how his control freak Loco Solutions PAC only led to defeat in Eureka elections for every candidate they “ran” in 2006?
These are all facts, Eric. You just don’t want to hear them.
December 24, 2008 at 9:34 am
Anonymous
He was the very Measure T fanatic who first said he would oppose campaign contribution limits like the one Allen and Crawford backed, with Kaitlin and Meserve backing Cobb’s play. Now Cobb and Meserve show up before the Supervisors pretending to back contribution limits all of the sudden? After the legal debacles these people are responsible for, does anyone in their right mind want them writing our campaign finance law?
No specific accusation, Eric?
December 24, 2008 at 11:01 am
Anonymous
Hours go by and comments aren’t posted. Not much parlay going on here, just gagged speech.
December 24, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Nick Bravo
mr. greenjeans, I did reach out. I believed the lie that humboldt was full of open minded, kind hearted people…yet when I presented my ideas I was treated like filth. Many people disregarded me out of hand, and wouldn’t even give me the respect that they claimed was everones right.
Oh and I just LUV how so many people insinuated that I had somekind of sexual inuendo when I simply tried to make friends with them. You wanna know my biggest sex crime against jello wrestler harmony groves? It was walking up to her after a a class we both were in and having the AUDACITY of ASKING HER OUT FOR COFFEE! Yeah, goes to show what a sick perverted freak I am. Everyone knows that “coffee” is code for really kinky mysoginistic sex in which the woman is tied down and the man bites her throat like a horny vampire and feeds. COFFEE? My gawd I would’ve got a better response had I slapped her across the face (the way one of her last BF’s did), man she does know how to pick them doesn’t she.
It sickens me how so many people especially women are so desperate for a daddy figure (bringing us back to COBB and pathetic little boys like him) to lead them. They want to shut out the world, close their mind s to the world and get orgasms while daddy whispers in their ears “obey! obey! obey!”. Who’s the bigger vampire? one that wants your blood or ones like David Cobb, Bob Ornelas, and a host of others who want to consume your very freedoms and souls.
Oh but that doesn’t matter to most of you. Most of you (mrgreenjeans, mresquan, heraldo) are so busy shutting out the facts of reality from your minds and focusing on trivial crap that you don’t even see the vampires drooling over your throbbing jugular vein, hell you don’t want to see it because you have such low self-esteem all you want to do is curl up and whimper while david cobb and others savage your helpless naked bodies, mind, and souls.
Tis true, I am a vampire of sorts. Tis true I have a soul (unlike david cobb, etc). Tis true I did what I could in 2004 nd 2005 to slay the foul beasts and keep people like harmony groves from becoming one of them. But what can one Angel (tv reference) do against an army of the living dead (DUHC, the arcata city council, the humboldt county supervisor board)?
I held back, I sabotaged myself, my own guilt over who and what I am was exploited. There’s a Gnostic saying that goes along the lines of that which is in you can either destroy you or save you. I let it destroy me because I let people like David cobb, bob ornelas, kevin hoover, make me feel guilty when they themselves were gleefully and greedily slurping the blood of nubile debutantes.
I will no longer allow others to demand I feed from rats while they themselves are feasting on human blood (metaphor).
December 24, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Ballast
Metaphorically, Nick seems to have it about right.
December 25, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Anonymous
Hilarious that Eric can continue to block comments from appearing here for days on end, and then refuse to respond to them. Not much “parlance” going on here, might as well be speaking to a time-delayed brick wall.
December 25, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Nick Bravo
*bump*
December 25, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Anonymous
It’s no use Nick, those of us without accounts live in a hell realm where our comments are either deleted outright or never posted until days later when no one will notice them.
Discussion on this blog is officially dead.
December 26, 2008 at 3:24 am
Anonymous
Sohum, the land where no one speaks…
December 26, 2008 at 10:05 am
Anonymous
Well said, 7:51. We are all anonymous in Eric’s moderation hell.
December 26, 2008 at 10:16 am
Eric Kirk
Anymous 3:24 – Should I apologize for having a life? You can get around the blocking very simply actually. Just open up an account. Takes all of two minutes.
December 26, 2008 at 10:18 am
Eric Kirk
Anonymous 6:38 – if you ever participate in a campaign in which they are involved you will very much appreciate what they offer.
December 26, 2008 at 10:30 am
Anonymous
I do not want to win a campaign based on a sham, on lies, spin, and a total lack of ethics and integrity. Without hesitation I would rather lose. Cobb and local solutions care only about winning, power, and money. Eric, you would be best served by getting away from them before you are corrupted beyond salvage.
December 26, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Anonymous
Like flawed legal advice from people who are not and never have been certified to practice law in California?
Measure M, the GMO ordinance, got its flawed legal advice from David Cobb too, or have you forgotten that little tidbit? It would have passed if it weren’t for the flagrantly anti-constitutional violation of due process, a flawed section of language specifically approved by David Cobb and not reviewed by any real lawyers until after the fact. Don’t believe me? Just ask Martha Devine, who didn’t know what kind of untrustworthy cretin she had gotten herself involved with until it was too late. Oh, and she quit working with the Green Party too, or haven’t you heard, now that David Cobb’s crew rules it with impunity?
This doesn’t even go into Measure T, again submitted without review by any real CA lawyers, with so many constitutional flaws that even Eric Kirk himself came out against it.
There’s two campaigns right off the bat where “what they offer” was entirely negative in 2004 and 2006. Shall we delve into the Loco Solutions meddling in the Nan Abrams campaign of ’06, their failure to re-elect Dave Meserve in ’06, their backing of three “Christian left” candidates for NoHum High School District, all of whom lost in ’05?
These are facts Eric, no matter how you might prefer to plug up your ears. Maybe you all happened to agree on Clif, heck I would have voted for Clif if I lived in SoHum, but one successful campaign cannot erase all the negative effects of David Cobb’s bullying of the local left in NoHum.
December 26, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Nick Bravo
I have to agree with anonymous in regards to comment moderation. This place is sterile and of little conversational or intellectual value, a carticature of what it could trully be. Course I am no stranger to the two-faced nature of sohum politics in which the liberals, greens, libertarians, an others preach openmindedness but the second somebody says something they disagree with they immediately take drastic measures to shut down the dissenting voice.
Sohum politics is just like phoenix politics, small minded fear driven people desperate for power and control. The labels change, the faces change, but the animalistic groupthink continues. The tribe is protected from outside forces in the name of culture, religion, politics, etc. A blind eye is turned to corruption and while teh mouth denounces the social violence and oppression the hands are under the table gesturing for more strings to pull and more money for the wallet.
The visage of david cobb and others like him loom large over the shredded bodies of his victims, and while he stands over them with bloody knife in hand and his feet and hands soaked with blood he yammers on about what a fine outstanding citizen he is. Meanwhile the masses stand there slack jawed nodding stupidly all the while ignoring the dead stares of their sons and daughters freshly slaughtered by Cobbs socially belligerent ideaologies.
December 26, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Nick Bravo
might makes right makes the world blind, deaf, and dumb.
December 26, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Anonymous
You forget to mention that David Cobb migrated to the Eye after getting axed by the Times-Standard, quite a step down, to say the least.
In this week’s issue he peddles the HumIBA project…and what a coincidence, that’s just one more group which operates out of the DUHC house, with closed meetings in the private residence of David & Kaitlin and closed books under their “facilitation” while they rake in the bucks.
Does Cobb even know what shame means?
December 26, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Eric Kirk
What amazes me is that your hatred for David borders on the obsessive. He’s just one person. You’d think he deliberately ran over your cat or something.
December 26, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Nick Bravo
I find it amusing that serious topics on eric’s channel are few and far between and discussion of the serious topics are kept at a minimum.
Also, with steve gone eric can perpetuate his own closed minded views about religion.
December 26, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Eric Kirk
I do not want to win a campaign based on a sham, on lies, spin, and a total lack of ethics and integrity. Without hesitation I would rather lose. Cobb and local solutions care only about winning, power, and money. Eric, you would be best served by getting away from them before you are corrupted beyond salvage.
It’s too late. The ring of power. We wanttsssss ittttt! My precious!
December 26, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Eric Kirk
Also, with steve gone eric can perpetuate his own closed minded views about religion.
Yes! With Stephen out of the way, nothing can stop me. My precious! We likes Baggins! Hehehehehehe!
December 26, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Nick Bravo
Childish insults do not garner you respect counselor.
December 26, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Nick Bravo
Eric, have you been drinking?
December 26, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Anonymous
Nick, Because you are still posting comments which are apparently appearing unedited, I’m confused as to your complaint. Eric isn’t only allowing statements he agrees with as you are still posting. And again, there must be some “conversational or intellectual value” that you find desirable or you wouldn’t still be posting.
Anonymous commenters can open an account with completely fictitious info. Several people post on my blog that I have no idea who they are (though from comments they are obviously local and know me) but they use the same made up name every time so they don’t get moderated after the first post from the same computer. All the anons here could do the same. They would still protect their real identity and yet avoid the troublesome moderation process.
December 26, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Nick Bravo
People ridicule the values they do not understand.
December 26, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Nick Bravo
ridicule as a tool of spiritual growth.
December 26, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Nick Bravo
I believe anonymous comments should be allowed without moderation. Of course I also believe that people (anonymous or not) should be able to engage in rational, polite conversation. Disagreement is acceptable and makes for great discussion. However, many people feel the need to curse and scream hatred they are showing their immaturrity and lack of a good upbringing. I believe people should be allowed to hold themselves accountable and not depend on a nanny state style of being goverened.
One thing I get from this is that I am working towards understanding the seemingly at times insane beliefs that the majority of Sohum residents hold to. Yet, I am seeing it is not sohum that perplexes me, it is human nature that does. So many have a penchant for control, domination, rage, cruelty and taking great pleasure from such behavior.
Also from a spiritual perspective, I am using this environment as a tool for spiritual growth. I personally feel the need to save people, even from themselves, even if they do not want to be saved. This quality could be considered socialist and is something I am seeking to understand within myself and others. Ultimately transforming this quality into something more beneficial thus not feeling guilt for not saving those who do not want to be saved. Messiah complex? Maybe. Then again, anyone can be a Christ.
December 26, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Nick Bravo
Anything and anyone can be used a tool for spiritual growth and transformation. All your stuff will decay to dust, including your physical body. All that is left is the soul and the universes promise that you too can become a divine being such as Christ, Buddha, Enoch, etc.
December 26, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Anonymous
Eric, it’s not “obsessive” to question how “just one person” or rather just one couple, the Cobb duo, can play puppetmaster to so many front groups out of their non-profit headquarters/pancake house/party HQ/residential home.
If Randy Gans or Leo Sears were pulling this kind of trip, using non-profits to perpetuate their political schemes, you’d be all over them, and rightfully so.
Fraud is a serious issue, Eric, and DUHC has fraudulently raised money off of “defending Measure T,” the very measure they didn’t give up a penny to defend. These are basic values that a lawyer like you should have some respect for the gravity of. Even Nick Bravo can see this, why does someone with your education level seem so incapable of doing the right thing?
December 26, 2008 at 10:57 pm
mresquan
“Fraud is a serious issue, Eric, and DUHC has fraudulently raised money off of “defending Measure T,” the very measure they didn’t give up a penny to defend.”
Got any evidence of that?But I am sure that you’ll take your claim to the right places.
December 27, 2008 at 9:02 am
Anonymous
Yup, we’re all waiting with baited breath to see if Judge Konkler thinks there’s a case to send to the Grand Jury here. After all, if something’s going on that Mark and Theo Therme don’t know about, then it must not exist!
December 27, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Nick Bravo
Ah yes, mresquan defender of the status quo. Move along everyone! Nothing to see here! You all need to go back to your homes, turn your televisions back on, and drink or smoke yourselves into oblivion.
AHEM! Seriously, we’re it republicans pulling the same stunts as cobb and co there’d be constant questions and investigations. But because Cobb has hijacked what it means to be Green (as have many other power hungry politicians) the liberals, progs, etc stick their heads in the sand and blather about bush and cheney. (Hell they’ll be blathering about bush/cheney 4 years into obamas presidency.) I digress, investigations need to be made, fortunately most Americans are far more intelligent than the people of sohum and can see Cobb for the crude, power hungry cretin he is.
December 27, 2008 at 7:13 pm
mresquan
Sorry Nick,I just asked for a specific example for the anonymous poster to post to back his claim that DUHC committed fraud,that’s all.The claim seems certain,so I just asked for the evidence which brought the poster to that conclusion.
December 27, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Eric Kirk
In two and a half years of blogging, I’ve read lots of attacking and whining about DUHC, but very little by way of specifics. They have too many organizations. They hold public pancake breakfasts (nobody ever reports on whether the pancakes are good). And he’s mean to you at meetings. That’s about it.
December 27, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Anonymous
Cobb is mean to a lot of people at meetings Eric, and they wind up not coming back. Take the Greens, for example. Over 1,000 of them are not coming back, they’ve split since Cobb seized control of the local party, the biggest, most rapid decline (25%) in the fortunes of any political party in the modern Humboldt history.
Isn’t this specific enough for you?
December 27, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Eric Kirk
I think it’s safe to say that the incessant infighting by everybody is responsible for the decline of participation in local green party politics. I don’t know what David’s role has been, but I stopped paying much attention to green party politics when they supported the Davis recall and when they accepted money from Blackwater in Pennsylvania. Those were final straws really in what has been a real disappointing quick rise and fall of the first progressive third party with any kind of potential in a long time. David’s “safe state strategy” was a decent attempt to save the party from counterproductive sectarianism, but unfortunately the party has degenerated into a real homogenistic affluent white political moral purism and a complete waste of time when there are very real day to day issues which most progressives want to address. The greens are on the decline because they have made themselves irrelevant. That’s not David’s fault.
December 27, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Anonymous
Cynthia McKinney spent more time attacking Nader than taking on the Democrats, following in Cobb’s footsteps. If sucking up to the Dems isn’t a path to sure destruction for any third party, I don’t know what is.
December 27, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Anonymous
Infighting, ha!
There’s no infighting in the Humboldt Green Party, Eric. David Cobb has already exterminated all opposition.
Meetings run very smoothly now — there’s just no energy, no new ideas and no thoughts expressed beyond the Democracy Unlimited cult’s ideology. Pure and sterile, that’s how DUHC likes their Green Party puppet. What a shame that thousands of their members don’t happen to feel welcome in such a stifling, authoritarian environ.
“They made it a desert, and called it peace.”
December 28, 2008 at 8:36 am
Anonymous
“Consensus-building”, they call it. Whatever, it sure ain’t democracy.
December 28, 2008 at 10:10 am
mresquan
So I guess I will have to ask again how DUHC committed any sort of fraud as a result on the courts taking away the will of voters in Measure T?
December 28, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Eric Kirk
Sorry, but someone posted some allegations at about 2:08 p.m. Without some kind of evidence to support them, they could very well be libelous. If you want to make those kinds of accusations, you must either give me some evidence to support the veracity of your allegations, or put your own name to the accusations. From what I could tell, you are speculating and the mere allegations would put those parties in the position of having to prove their innocence of what are essentially crimes.
This is one of the reasons I’m on semi-moderation right now. To post something like that from the cloak of anonymity with no factual support is profoundly irresponsible.
December 28, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Eric Kirk
I’ve received two additional anonymous posts which repeat serious allegations, provide no facts, and simply attack me for not allowing them a forum to libel people anonymously. As I said, provide some hard facts, or put a name to your words. I’m not asking for much.
December 28, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Nick Bravo
I sincerely hope someday you are able to see cobb and the DUHC through slear eyes rather than rose colored glasses.
December 28, 2008 at 8:47 pm
mresquan
Eric,I don’t see anything wrong with posting those comments.You and I both know they come from one poster and fetching the I.P.’s isn’t a likely problem.The poster obviously has his own reservations towards his own claims or else he’d gladly sign his posts under his name for any serious accusation in which he’d like the public to discuss.
December 28, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Eric Kirk
Mark, there was no substance to the posts. Just bare allegations of criminal activity. Sorry, but it’s way out of line. If they post supporting facts, I’ll let them through because it’s easier to dispute facts than bare accusations.
December 28, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Nick Bravo
Eric, are you on the payroll of David Cobb or anyone associated with Cobb or the DUHC?
Eric, have you been threatened by David Cobb, or Dave Meserve, or anyone associated with the DUHC crowd?
December 28, 2008 at 9:20 pm
mresquan
Well for some reason I don’t think you nor I will get to see those supporting facts.And perhaps the poster will choose to use his own medium to send his message to those who would be concerned.After all,if you can start a blog,I can start a blog,so can the anonymous poster making the claims and he wouldn’t have to worry about you censoring his message,and there are other mediums which one can use other than a blog as well.
December 28, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Anonymous
The Humboldt Green Party used to meet in public in three different parts of the county every month, before David Cobb took it over.
The Humboldt Green Party used to allow the public to attend their meetings without harassment, before David Cobb took it over.
The Humboldt Green Party used to posts its agendas, minutes, resolutions and press releases on its website for all to see, before David Cobb took it over.
The Humboldt Green Party used to have active local chapters performing community improvement projects, before David Cobb took it over.
The Humboldt Green Party used to support police review, before David Cobb took it over.
The Humboldt Green Party used to be represented on the state committee of the Green Party of California, before David Cobb took it over.
The Humboldt Green Party used to invite their members to fill long-empty seats (5 or 6 at present) on their central committee, before David Cobb took it over.
The Humboldt Green Party used to hold one General Assembly a year in Southern Humboldt to allow people like Eric to show up, before David Cobb took it over.
The Humboldt Green Party used to support Green Party members running for Arcata City Council, before David Cobb took it over.
The Humboldt Green Party used to allow for on-line discussion and the airing of different points of view, before David Cobb took it over.
The Humboldt Green Party used to raise its own money and sponsor its own events independently from Democracy Unlimited, before David Cobb took it over.
Hard enough facts for you? Or do the 1,100 plus members of the Humboldt Green Party (27%) who’ve voted with their feet, right out of the Green Party, since David Cobb took over not factual enough for you?…this is by far the largest and fastest decline of any county Green Party in the state in its ***1992-present history***, so don’t feed us this “it’s statewide” or “it’s national” trends b.s. arguments, they don’t work. The Green Party is in some trouble across the country too (and Cobb’s “help” to make this happen can also be broached), but nowhere in the entire country has it suffered between 2006 and 2008 like it has in Humboldt County.
David Cobb’s rule has been a disaster by these metrics. Registration numbers, transparency measures, accountable democratic procedures, all in marked decline. Cobb’s apologists like Konkler and Kirk are simply running out of excuses, hence the extensive censorship on display here today.
Don’t worry though, Rose, as the last bastion of free speech in the local blogs, will be getting a full report – so delete away you sad, sad man. Perhaps she’ll have to start a “Censored by Eric Kirk” posting to accompany the “Censored by Heraldo” section.
December 28, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Nick Bravo
Why start a new blog when you can use someone else’s. Eric, within any society there are certain underground forces and people who need to remain anonymous. The revealing of who they are could end in their untimely demise.
How many have to die or be destroyed in order for you to listen?
December 28, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Eric Kirk
That’s fine. But they don’t have a right to accuse people of crimes without providing facts, unless they’re willing to provide their own names. One part of the ethos of our system at its roots is the right to face your accuser.
December 28, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Eric Kirk
Anon 9:26 – whether those are hard facts, or just your view of events, is of no consequence to the discussion at hand. They don’t support the allegations of crime somebody has tried to post.
The Greens still meet down here. I’ve seen fliers and received notices to post.
December 28, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Anonymous
They address the ridiculous defense of Cobb’s misrule of the Humboldt Green Party you posted at 11:36 p.m. yesterday, Eric.
Show us these fliers and notices. There’s nothing on your blog in the last year on that.
December 28, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Anonymous
As you can see here on this roster for the Green Party’s state committee, the only regions of the state without representation are SD/Imperial, and the “Emerald” region, which has typically been someone from Humboldt, or from that SoHum/NorthMendo border region Eric claims to be such a big progressive activist in.
That’s right, Eric. David Cobb is doing such a bang-up job ruling the Humboldt Green Party with an iron fist that he can’t even find a single puppet to flack for him on the state committee of the GP of California.
The fact that most of these people don’t care for Cobb either might also be a contributing factor, of course, they’re always the first to read the latest massive decline in the number of Green Party members in Humboldt..
Who am I? I’m a fucking whistleblower, you jackass. So much for liberal lawyers protecting us from self-appointed elitists.
(and just to show that I’m not after these fine folks on the state committee, the phone numbers have been deleted from this roster, but the e-mails remain if you want to get in touch with any of these people)
Green Party of California
Coordinating Committee Roster
as of December 9 2008
COUNT NAME POSITION EMAIL
1 Matt Leslie AT LARGE mrl@greens.org
2 Linda Salas AT LARGE lalita1082002@yahoo.com
3 Adrienne Prince Central Coast
David Wass Central Coast – Alt david.wass@cox.net
4 Michael Borenstein Central Valley, At-Large thebor@jps.net
5 Robert Vizzard Central Valley, North thevizz@earthlink.net
6 Larry Mullen Central Valley, South larry_mullen@sbcglobal.net
7 Victoria Ashley East Bay ictronix01@yahoo.com
8 Paul Seger East Bay paul@deltagreens.org
Joe Feller East Bay – Alt (for Paul) solano@cagreens.org
Pamela Spevak East Bay – Alt prspevack@yahoo.com
Not Represented Emerald
9 Tim Morgan North Bay blkcloud@sonic.net
Chris Malan North Bay – 1st Alt cmalan@myoneearth.org
Mike Wyman North Bay – 2nd Alt mswyman@comcast.net
10 Gordon Ascencio Orange/Riverside/San B. gascensio@cagreens.org
Clark Casler Orange/Riverside/San B. – Alt noeastindia@sbcglobal.net
Not Represented San Diego / Imperial
11 Barry Hermanson San Francisco barry@hermanson.com
12 Jo Chamberlain Silicon Valley joc@pobox.com
Jim Stauffer Silicon Valley – Alt jims@greens.org
December 28, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Eric Kirk
Well I can’t attack or defend his role in the party because I really haven’t paid much attention. It’s all a tempest in a teapot to me.
But sometime during the presidential campaign I received, I think from Paul Encimer, a notice of a campaign event for Cynthia McKinney. I don’t remember when. There was also an event for the green local candidates, I think at the Mateel, sometime during the campaign season. I’m sure the search function will pick them up. There was also something awhile back about renewing the Sequoia County proposal, but I don’t know if it was in the past year. Oh, and there was the tour of that guy from alternative radio in Colorado who does the KMUD show on Monday mornings.
December 28, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Eric Kirk
And there was the event with the woman who is both Jewish and Iranian.
December 28, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Anonymous
The Sequoia Greens were going when the Green Party was still a healthy entity, around the Martha Devine and Greg Allen chairmanships between 03 and 06. They even had their own representative on the Greens’ central committee. Now, not a SINGLE ONE of them is from SoHum.
David Cobb’s puppet remainder of the Greens required all local Green Party chapters to be dissolved, and their assets seized. That included Sequoia.
That event with Antonia in Arcata? That Barsamian event? Co-sponsored by DUHC, hence my earlier point. They’re not an independent organization any more.
Wouldn’t it seem strange to you if all of the sudden every Democratic Central Committee member was a member of somebody’s private business, and every event they had was co-sponsored by that business? That’s what it’s like.
December 29, 2008 at 3:36 am
Nick Bravo
I find it highly ironic that the blogger most respectful of the right of free speech is a republican. Meanwhile the liberals talk free speech while silencing those who disagree with them.
Hats off to you Rose! Keep up the good work, and maybe add a “censored by Sohum Parlance” section in order to document erics shame.
December 29, 2008 at 8:48 am
Anonymous
Time to fire up your blog again Nick, show these fake friends of liberty how it’s really done.
December 29, 2008 at 9:01 am
mresquan
Actually,Nick and Charles,you both are just censoring yourself by not firing up your own blogs,so quit blaming Eric.He isn’t in control of blogger or WordPress,so the opportunity for you to get out your message via the same medium exists,you just simply opt to censor yourself.The fact that you risk not drawing readers of this blog over to your’s is no fault of Eric’s.
December 29, 2008 at 10:52 am
Anonymous
No liberty here, you accuse DUHC of any wrongdoing and you get banned from Eric’s “free speech” site.
December 29, 2008 at 11:20 am
mresquan
Well it is Eric’s site.He has the right to do whatever he wants with it.I’ll believe you that Eric is anti free speech when you prove that he personally prevented anyone from opening their own blog,or using their own medium.And Eric could simply just shut down his blog,forcing his critics to uncensor their own selves if they have a message they’d like to get out.
December 29, 2008 at 11:21 am
Anonymous
Somehow I doubt Charles has access to internal state Green Party documents, since he quit the party some time ago. There’s obviously someone from the inside who’s looking to expose Cobb’s role in the party’s declining fortunes.
What’s not clear is why Mark would give a damn in the first place, since he’s never been a Green himself.
December 29, 2008 at 11:27 am
mresquan
And I guess that one could accuse the Humboldt Sentinel of being anti-free speech as well,as I just took a gander over there and noticed that there are no articles posted detailing DUHC fraud in defending Measure T.Nick and anon,take your spiel there as you are more likely to receive a response as the editor of the site is as anti-DUHC as anyone.Or……just start your blog,and maybe for kicks name it something in relation to Eric’s censorship tactics.
December 29, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Anonymous
I’m sure you could leave a comment there and tell the world what you know, mresquan. The real test would be to see whether the Sentinel deletes your comment or not.
You’re not the only one who can use Google, Mark. There was a posting of theirs about Cobb that I found which would seem to verify the earlier point about kicking the public out of public Green Party meetings:
December 29, 2008 at 12:51 pm
mresquan
Well I am sure that some on that inside could say that Greg Allen’s tenure led to the decline.It’s a matter of opinion.One thing that David and DUHC in general do well at is reaching out to others,associated to the Green Party or not.Why would Eric or I,or any non-Green involved with him in any way care about internal Green Party issues involving Cobb when we seem to be able to work with David nicely?That’s something that the anti-DUHC secular crowd doesn’t get.The majority 0f the 61% who voted to re-elect Kaitlin couldn’t give a shit about internal Green Party issues,or even DUHC itself,but seemed to think that she was deserving of a vote based on more significant issues.
December 29, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Anonymous
mresquan’s lame attempts to justify his own meddling in the local Green Party (that he’s never been a member of) just don’t hold water. Greg Allen’s been out of the loop since June 2006, and the voter registration decline has been accelerating from February 2007 onwards. The Humboldt Green Party’s last period of growth was early 2006, as the statistics show — but of course, Mark Konkler isn’t interested in the stats, they only get in the way of his own preconceived pro-DUHC cult bias.
December 29, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Nick Bravo
I had recently commented to mresquan on the humboldt sentinel website, he never replied because he knew he couldn’t hide and lie like he can here. Mresquan and guys like him hide from truth and refuse to take part in meaningful dialog.
December 29, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Eric Kirk
You’re not the only one who can use Google, Mark. There was a posting of theirs about Cobb that I found which would seem to verify the earlier point about kicking the public out of public Green Party meetings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PDDNhndzio
Um. I’m not quite sure what that video is supposed to prove. But I guess I’ll take your word for it that something happened.
Is this what you’ve got???
December 30, 2008 at 1:46 am
Anonymous
So people should be kicked out of public meetings in the courthouse just because Cobb doesn’t like them?
Are these the kind of values you’ve got, Eric???
December 30, 2008 at 3:20 am
Nick Bravo
Good GAWD eric! did you even bother to watch? It was david cobb trying to intimidate a Green party member who was doing his job as a journalist.
David cobb does everything he can to manipulate the media. He’s turned the local green party into his own personal cult!
December 30, 2008 at 6:37 am
Ballast
From Merriam-Webster’s: “ANARCHY:
1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order”
Cobb has said personally in front of multiple witnesses that he is an anarchist. To me the remark is in the same vein as Cherney’s comments about the hospital to the effect that “we should tear it all down and start over”.
This kind of destructive, divisive, slash-and-burn politics can only hurt the people who live in Cobb’s laboratory (Humboldt County). Whether you pay him or take his “help” for free, or support one of his enterprises, you are supporting Cobb Incorporated.
I appreciate both Nick and Eric for being forthright and public with their identities. It’s always good to hear from people with strong opinions. Eric, you might want to seek a longer perspective from which to view Mr. Cobb.
December 30, 2008 at 8:36 am
mresquan
Nick,do you regularly make the jaunt from Phoenix to these Humboldt County Green Party meetings?If Charles was intimidated by that,he’ll be intimidated by anything.He asked him a question
“mresquan’s lame attempts to justify his own meddling in the local Green Party (that he’s never been a member of) just don’t hold water.”
Both you and Nick aren’t members of the local Green Party either.Nick doesn’t even live here,the same poster of that video once even produced a video celebrating Nick’s departure to Arizona,filming him as he got onto the bus.Sorry,I don’t meddle in Green Party pols…..I support the work of DUHC.And so what if I would choose to anyways,the central committee is a publicly elected seat,and the Greens,like ever other party don’t pay to hold their own elections.If you find the right to meddle in Green Party politics despite no longer affiliating with party,I have the same right despite never affiliating.I’m curious to know if Nick devotes as much time focusing on Green Party politics in Phoenix as he does here.
December 30, 2008 at 9:07 am
Bumpersticker
Democracy Unlimited is Neither.
December 30, 2008 at 9:27 am
Eric Kirk
So people should be kicked out of public meetings in the courthouse just because Cobb doesn’t like them?
It seemed to me that the camera bearer had a history with them and he or she (presumably “Charles” although I couldn’t make out the audible comments myself) walked into the room pointing a camera at them in full passive aggressive manner. Cobb asked a question which pertained to the camera bearer’s intentions and didn’t get an answer. Then he left the room.
Quite frankly, if someone walked into a meeting pointing a camera at me and refused to respond to my questions, I’d leave too, because I’d be creeped out.
December 30, 2008 at 9:31 am
Eric Kirk
Cobb has said personally in front of multiple witnesses that he is an anarchist. To me the remark is in the same vein as Cherney’s comments about the hospital to the effect that “we should tear it all down and start over”.
Anarchism is a broad philosophy of self-government, premised on the idea that human beings possess the rational capability of governing themselves without the need for formal hierarchy and structure. I considered myself an anarchist at one point in my life. It is not about tearing anything down, but about an alternative approach to keeping it all afloat. I believe the philosophy is erroneously premised on a wishful thinking view of human capacity, at least at this point in our evolution, but it’s not what you apparently think. You might want to read up on it a little bit before making comments like that. There are many variants and degrees of anarchism, and some people view it as a way of life rather than a political philosophy.
December 30, 2008 at 11:24 am
Ballast
Thanks for the condescending reply, counsellor, but I was forced to read up on the topic or anarchy a little when I obtained my degree in Political Science.
I offer Cobb’s own terminology, a respected dictionary definition of his self-description and a seemingly parallel remark from another well-known local activist.
Which definition do you think he meant?
1 a: absence of government?
b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority?
c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government?
2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order?
b: absence of order?
or as you say, did he mean he believes in “a broad philosophy of self-government, premised on the idea that human beings possess the rational capability of governing themselves without the need for formal hierarchy and structure”?
and which of these options make David so appealing? I certainly agree with you that the philosophy of anarchy is “erroneously premised” no matter how much lipstick you care to use on the pig.
December 30, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Anonymous
Lordy, I hope Eric doesn’t ever run for Supervisor once Clif gets towards retirement age.
Public officials get cameras and microphones pointed at them at public meetings, that’s what the Brown Act requires the freedom to do on behalf of the press specifically and the public in general.
If Cobb, or Kirk, are too chicken to handle some critical journalist documenting their public events, they should go hide away at home like the rest of the shut-ins.
December 30, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Eric Kirk
They don’t get cameras “pointed at them.” They are filmed to document a meeting, not as a weapon. That you can’t tell the difference reveals much. This particular incident, the camera holder has it on as he or she is walking into the room and is filming before any meeting is taking place, generally when people are relaxed and making small talk. The intention was to generate a negative reaction, and the camera person got what he or she wanted. Assuming the written account of Kaitlin’s questions (“you aren’t talking anymore Charles?”) is accurate, there is more going on here than simply the filming of a public meeting. And the reactions and expressions on the faces of the people also suggest that the camera holder has disrupted meetings in the past.
A real journalist would come in and explain why the meeting is being filmed, what is going to happen with the film, and what the the general intentions are. It wouldn’t involve a creepy and childish act of sitting there pointing a camera at people who are simply asking you what you’re doing.
Was the camera person going to air the meeting on Channel 3 news? Was it for a documentary? No. It was an action designed to generate discomfort and anger, and it accomplished just that.
December 30, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Anonymous
So unless it’s for some corporate media channel like NBC 3, it doesn’t count as media. How lovely to see Eric so supportive of alternative media.
And I’ve seen cops try to tell people not to film an event at the courthouse before, they were told in no uncertain terms that the event would be filmed regardless of how their feelings might get bruised, since it’s in public.
What a shame for Eric to get so butthurt on Cobb’s behalf, especially since those Green Party meetings have become so insignificant that no media, corporate or alternative or otherwise, even bother to go any more.
December 30, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Anonymous
This is a truly amazing statement from someone claiming to be an attorney.
Mr. Kirk should familiarize himself with public meeting law in this state. Anyone can show up to any public meeting and document it by video, audio, taking pictures, taking notes, etc. They are not required to be from a TV station or other institution gaining anyone’s approval. They are not required to show identification. They are not required to show their papers like some East German news service. They aren’t even required to say their name unless they’re making public comment.
What a chilling view of press freedom from a leader of the “Civil Liberties Monitoring Project” I guess civil liberties don’t include showing up at public meetings without Cobb’s permission, in Eric’s demented worldview.
December 30, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Eric Kirk
No, when you’re just bringing a camera to be an asshole you don’t count as the media. None of the alternative media would act that way, certainly not KMUD, Pacifica, or Free Speech Television.
And I didn’t say the camera person didn’t have a right to be there with a camera. I just said that he or she was acting like a child and so the meeting participants appropriately treated him/her as such. That clip says more about the camera holder than anybody else.
December 30, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Eric Kirk
What’s “truly amazing” is that presumably grown people are so profoundly lacking in reading comprehension.
December 30, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Anonymous
So KMUD should be kicked out of the Supervisors Chambers if they don’t report their name, affiliation and badge number to the nearest presiding authority every time they enter the room?
Eric, this is just crazy talk coming out of you. Seriously. Embarrassing.
December 30, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Eric Kirk
No. They should be kicked out if they passive aggressively harass people before the meeting has even started.
I just watched the video again with the volume turned up. It seems the camera person was Charles Douglas and at the conclusion of the exchange, he was welcomed. Maybe not cheerfully, but he was welcomed. Where is the rest of the meeting? What dark secrets were revealed?
I have nothing against Charles Douglas, but this was not a moment he should savor. It was pretty immature.
You get the last word anonymous.
December 30, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Eric Kirk
Oh, and if you want to debate a strawman, you don’t need my participation. There’s been nothing in any of my comments which suggests that anybody should have been kicked out of any meeting for any reason. I think you’re debating a point you’d rather be debating so you can avoid mine.
In other words, methinks the lady doth protest too much.
December 30, 2008 at 7:11 pm
anonymous
“There will be no coalition tween north and south until Cobb goes back to Texas and the north quits trying to eliminate our rural lifestyle by forcing their minority drafted general plan and code enforcement down our throats.”
the other anonymous needs to get a grip. I was at the public comment meetings in several communities back in 2000 when the Plannig Department began the General Plan–yes it has been going on that long–and all the people who came to those meetings (you can get records) were overwhelmingly in favor of limited growth. Repeatedly there was a wish to keep sprawl to a minimum. And I really believe that if we do not limit where development occurs, we will have increased sprawl, not an increase in the rural lifestyle.
and I hate code enforcement!! those are not synonomous (sp!) matters. If you want to live in a yurt in downtown Redway, I think the only considerations should be if you have a realistic plan for keeping your candles from starting a fire and a way to handle your sewage. If you want your cousin to live in his winnebago in your backyard, it shouldn’t be my business unless his Rock Band is a nuissance.
December 30, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Nick Bravo
As far as the past Eric (and others) I was filled with lust for power to a great degree and yet I made myself into a carticature of all those who lust for power. Those in power (ornelas, hauser, etc) found this offensive. As did their synchophants (hoover, sims, APD, etc). I played the fool and the trickster, I relished it in its absurdity. Do I have regrets? No, at times there are sharp stones and brambles upon ones path upward into becoming one with the universe….one, yet a seperate and divine individual.
You should read Memnoch the Devil, and then perhaps the works of Paramahansa Yogananda. True for me to list all the books that have ever influenced me would take hours, yet they themselves (as I am) are aspects of the divine. As are all people.
Do you know the difference between an god and a demon? The thickness of the veil over their understanding. I attempted to rend the veils of many in humboldt and elsewhere. But my failure was in that I did not first rend the veil lain over my own understanding.
You may ask what I want. What I want is to become a Christ, I want to know what it is like to walk on water, heal the sick, cast out demons. I want to have within myself gods compassion, wisdom, power, love, sense of justice, and all those qualities herein and then gods most nuanced quality….to hide in plain sight as just another mortal on earth. God is hiding in plain sight all around us, all we have to do is have the courageous persistence to rend the veil of our own ignorance.
December 30, 2008 at 9:30 pm
mresquan
“Mr. Kirk should familiarize himself with public meeting law in this state. Anyone can show up to any public meeting and document it by video, audio, taking pictures, taking notes, etc. They are not required to be from a TV station or other institution gaining anyone’s approval.”
Um….Uh….Huh……Um…,you forgot to film the meeting.I sure hope that telling you this isn’t a surprise to you.
December 30, 2008 at 9:33 pm
mresquan
“So KMUD should be kicked out of the Supervisors Chambers if they don’t report their name, affiliation and badge number to the nearest presiding authority every time they enter the room?”
I’ll add that you also forgot to film the part where you were asked to leave the meeting.But perhaps it’s hard to do so when David and Kaitlin have you tied up with a gun pointed to your head though I guess.I am sure that’s what happened.
December 31, 2008 at 2:51 am
Anonymous
Amazing how a discussion of Eric Kirk’s fake “peace treaty” between Eureka-area progressives, and how this really means surrendering to Cobb’s bullying tactics and maladaptive administrative style, has transformed into a debate over some obscure journalist’s camera technique.
December 31, 2008 at 5:55 am
Nick Bravo
Fake peace treaty as in “please Mr. Cobb! I’ll do whatever you say, just don’t hurt my family!”
How sad Mr. Kirk has not the cahones that his great grandson Captain James T Kirk will have so that he can hold onto his integrity and intellectual honesty long enough to tell corrupt politicians like Cobb to shove it where the sun doesn’t shine!
December 31, 2008 at 10:14 am
Rose
Wow. This is quite a thread.
I’m not sure what the comments you deleted were about, Eric, but i do know there are questions about money – for example, Cobb/Kaitlin/DUHC/and an assortment of front groups have extensive pleas for money all over the place, and some of it was very specifically asking for money to ‘fight for Measure T.’
Now, we all know that DUHC did not have to defend Measure T. the County did.
So how much did he/she raise with that ruse, and where is it, and is he/she (David Cobb and Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap) going to declare, pay taxes on, and are they going to DONATE it to the County?
I think they are obligated to do so.
How much is it? $50? $100,000?
There truly needs to be legislation to regulate the heretofore unregulated orgs. Right now they operate like rip-off boiler room stock operations, fleecing well meaning people out of their money by scamming them.
December 31, 2008 at 10:18 am
Rose
We need a local version of ‘Discover The Networks’ – noting who is who in the local groups, and noting how many of those groups are operated by one or two people, pretending to be different people, and pretending to be a larger group than they are. Not to mention a number of fronts allows them to ask for money 50 different ways, maybe getting multiple checks from people who think they are giving to distinctly different organizations.
December 31, 2008 at 10:27 am
Eric Kirk
The posts consisted of more than questions Rose. There were outright criminal accusations with nothing to support them. Time was I’d let it slide because anonymous posts are taken with a grain of salt, but they can still be very upsetting to the targets. Asking questions about where some money went is fine. Making assertions about where it went when you really don’t know is another matter.
Clearly, the anonymous poster who feels that Charles’ video is an indictment of David and Kaitlin suffers from a lack of judgment. I therefor trust conclusions about matters of importance even less.
December 31, 2008 at 10:27 am
mresquan
“There truly needs to be legislation to regulate the heretofore unregulated orgs”
Well when Patty Berg proposed something similar as a result of the Eureka Coalition For Jobs attacks,the right wingers here cried loudest.So good luck with that,but I do agree with you one hundred percent.And yes,they are obligated to report that info to the necessary bodies.
December 31, 2008 at 10:32 am
mresquan
And if Charles was at the meeting for the purpose of exposing illegal activities and bullying tactics,then why did he not film that stuff?Oh I forgot about the whole tied up with a gun to his head thing.
December 31, 2008 at 10:37 am
mresquan
And actually I am disappointed that Eric deleted the comments,and I hope that those comments find a way to make it over to your blog Rose.I saw some comments under your Censored By Heraldo post,but I hope that that those aren’t the comments being referred to,because they certainly don’t prove that any act of fraud was committed by DUHC.
December 31, 2008 at 11:40 am
Carol
As I understand it, money donated to a political candidate or to a P.A.C. (Politcal Action Committee) is not reported or disclosed if it is $99 or less.
Please clarify this if I am mistaken.
December 31, 2008 at 11:46 am
Eric Kirk
Not disclosed or reported in terms of the giver, but I’m pretty sure the organization itself has to keep track of and report any money it receives. And if so, I would assume that it’s been done in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
December 31, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Carol
I know with the HCDCC it can be a headache for the treasurer if people with good intentions say convert cash to a check. Federal Reporting laws have become more stringent this year.
December 31, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Rose
Well when Patty Berg proposed something similar as a result of the Eureka Coalition For Jobs attacks,the right wingers here cried loudest.So good luck with that,but I do agree with you one hundred percent.And yes,they are obligated to report that info to the necessary bodies.
Well, as one who had something to say about it – this is what I said – that both Berg and the TS were silent about and uninterested in the so-called “Alliance for Ethical Business.” But they were all agitated and upset and determined when they thought it was Arkley/”The Eureka Coalition for Jobs” they could get.
When it came to the “Alliance for Ethical Business” no questions were asked, no investigations were conducted, no outrage was expressed – and to this day no one knows who was behind it, really, where the money came from, how much money there was, or where it all went.
For that Berg should be castigated. It’s a sorry commentary on her political partisanship.
December 31, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Rose
To be clear – go after BOTH groups. Demand transparency and accountability. All that shit about campaign finance reform (measure T) and NOT A WORD ABOUT THE MOST EGREGIOUS violation of the spirit of campaign finance reform to EVER hit the north coast – it is inexcusable. period.
December 31, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Bob
This thread is talking me back to the early days of Humboldt blogging, when the clanging of trolls battleaxes rang through the night and flame-wars lit the sky. The trolls ruled whatever comment thread they entered, in part because the creatures live for attention (positive or negative) but mostly because they had nothing else better to do…
December 31, 2008 at 2:50 pm
mresquan
“To be clear – go after BOTH groups. Demand transparency and accountability.”
Well I’d say go after ALL group if it’s suits you……….DUHC,Baykeepers,HumCPR,Humboldt Business Council,Local Solutions.But it’ll be a tough fight wrangling with Constitutional intent,as some of these orgs may be Constitutionally defined as people.
December 31, 2008 at 3:25 pm
humboldturtle
Is this the New Year bash?
December 31, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Anonymous
Yes Bob, we should all be just like you simpering liberal kiss-asses at the North Coast Journal, who pretend pornography is new and edgy if you throw a pot leaf on top of it, and who pretend there is nothing ever ever ever to investigate regarding Measure T, Democracy Unlimited, the post-2006 Humboldt Green Party and Cobb’s fucking up of all three.
December 31, 2008 at 6:02 pm
mresquan
Well maybe the Humboldt Sentinel is where you ought to send info from your investigating.But then again,that publication hasn’t published much incriminating stuff to satisfy what you may be looking for.Now I’ll become an ass kisser for the Journal and ask how they were pretending that pornography is new and edgy?
December 31, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Bob
Ah yes, that familiar sound of trolls emerging from beneath their bridges for some bashing. We knew you’d love this week’s cover. Pornography indeed… Get those torches out, they’re getting ready to burn some witches.
December 31, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Anonymous
I’m pro 215, pro legalization, etc and I have to agree, the Journal isn’t doing anything some Heavy Metal type softcore mag didn’t do a long time ago. They do have to explain as well why they ran that puff piece about Cobb in 2004, then never followed it up with what a complete mess Cobb’s campaign and results were that year.
December 31, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Anonymous
You know what Bob? I wasn’t offended in the least. I was BORED. That should concern you, since controversy sells papers, and tedium kills them.
January 1, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Anonymous
Mark, what life experience made you such a defender of the status quo liberal bullshit machine?
January 1, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Anonymous
Puhleeze.
Naked boobies with weed, cool!
Is the Journal’s target audience now 14-year-old boys, or what?
January 1, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Eric Kirk
This thread hasn’t been on the main page for days, but it keeps on ticking. What were we talking about again?
January 1, 2009 at 4:20 pm
mresquan
“Mark, what life experience made you such a defender of the status quo liberal bullshit machine?”
Well if you identify yourself as a liberal and have issues with those who consider themselves the same and have evidence to document fraudulent activities,yet you seem to lack the desire to distribute it to a media source or through another mean.You aren’t helping your cause by failing to do so.Provide with that documentation and perhaps that information would prevent me from defending your defined”status quo”.
January 1, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Ballast
“What were we talking about again?”
It doesn’t matter any more, just keep going.
January 1, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Anonymous
Maybe we’re bored with your usual posts Eric, and we found your frank admission of some debate among Eureka-area progressives (as to whether we should keep letting Cobb fuck things up) as a refreshing turn towards relevance.
January 1, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Eric Kirk
Maybe. Or maybe you’re just obsessed in your hatred of David.
January 2, 2009 at 12:39 am
Anonymous
You’ve still never explained how we’re supposed to accept some “peace treaty” that lets him order everyone around.
January 2, 2009 at 6:00 am
Nick Bravo
“Maybe. Or maybe you’re just obsessed in your hatred of David.”
Nothing wrong with good men hating evil men.
January 2, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Anonymous
It’s amazing how much Eric can perform this cognitive dissonance and pretend the rest of us don’t notice.
Face it Eric, there is no peace treaty, and there isn’t going to be. Either Cobb will dominate, or we will successfully resist. There is no middle ground.
January 2, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Eric Kirk
Your post just reminds me of the Life of Brian.
It doesn’t matter. Like I said, either the grown ups of the progressive community will talk or they’ll continue to lose elections in a city where they should win hands down. I saw this in San Francisco. It’s happening here.
If you don’t think you can be constructive in the talks, then by all means stay out of the way and “resist.”
January 2, 2009 at 2:08 pm
mresquan
Eric, now I look back and see that Eureka actually voted more progressive than I gave credit for before.The passing of the anti recruitment act by a large majority,and Linda Atkins’s win were nice surprises.And although she ran against someone progressive,Kaitlin handily was re-elected.(Local Solutions did very well).It gives lefties in the city some hope going into the 2010 elections.
January 2, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Anonymous
“It doesn’t matter. Like I said, either the grown ups of the progressive community…” Grown ups? I guess the rest of us lowly morons should bow down to the superior intellect, maturity, and knoledge of of the great Kirk and Cobb. Eric, as long as you are making all my decisions for me since I am apparently incapible of intellegent and independent thought, how about paying my kids tuition? Mortgage? That kind of smug superiority is exactly what is wrong with the progressive leadership around here. How about a little humility, consider the situations and positions of others before you shove your shit down our throats.
January 2, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Eric Kirk
Hey, I’m just asking the two factions to talk. You’re the one pushing a line.
January 2, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Anonymous
a) There are more than two factions, and they are not equally at fault for the present lack of cooperation. Example? Ask George Clark sometime about how Cobb ordered his faction to refuse any help to his campaign because Clark had “undesirable” people involved in his election effort. Is this the move of a principled adult, or an immature control freak?
b) Mresquan totally misapplies credit to Loco Solutions PAC, which had nothing to do with the Measure F & J campaigns and nothing to do with the Linda Atkins campaign (and for that matter, nothing to do with the Larry Glass campaign). Granted, Loco PAC was involved in conspiracy theorist Kaitlin’s re-election, which her supporters should start to really enjoy as their water bills triple in the new year (while she’s too busy flying to New Mexico to even appear in person at Water Board meetings).
c) Being constructive in talks starts with admitting what the facts are.
January 2, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Eric Kirk
Ask George Clark sometime about how Cobb ordered his faction to refuse any help to his campaign because Clark had “undesirable” people involved in his election effort.
I guess I’ll have to, because this is very different from what I’ve heard in other circles, which is that the Eureka campaigns explicitly refused help from Local Solutions in this last election and in the election two years ago. Moreover, the sectarianism discussed had little to do with David C., but more to do with personality conflicts within Local Solutions at the time which led to a split.
And by the way, this is a summary based on conversations with people on both sides of that split. They point fingers, but the problems were brewing long before Kaitlin or David were involved.
January 2, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Anonymous
Eric, You are not “just asking the two factions to talk”. Talking in this context is a two way process, it involves give and take. Implicit in a “truce” making process is compromise, and we can start with land use. Whoops, I can tell your glazing over already, as soon as we start on a real issue you are the grown-ups and we are the children, thats why there is and will be no “truce”. A truce requires two willing partners.
January 2, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Anonymous
As sad as it might seem, this appears to be a breakthrough, counselor.
Thank you for at least agreeing to talk to Clark yourself; I think you’ll find he’s a very polite, thoughtful man who was unprepared for the kind of factional in-fighting Cobb’s cult was unfortunately engaged in during his campaign.
I believe that once you hear from him what I did, the shades will start to fall from your vision as they did not so long ago from mine.
You might want to talk to Martha Devine as well, she’s as well respected as activists come from Arcata, and she’s got Cobb’s number down cold as to his ruinous “advice” on Measure M and on his anti-grassroots domination of the Humboldt Green Party. Ditto for Greg Allen, Xandra Manns, David Giarrizzo and other former leaders who’ve been turned off from Green Party involvement by David Cobb’s bullying.
January 2, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Anonymous
I’d also thank Eric for bringing up Measure T in the first place; namely the way it so hugely blew up in David Cobb’s face. That’s certainly not a Top 10 story the Democracy Unlimited worshipers want to admit to. It also validates everything Greg and Chris had to say on the subject from Day One.
January 3, 2009 at 10:32 am
mresquan
How did T blow up in Cobb’s face? It passed with a large enough of a majority,and when Stephen Davies decided to make it a campaign issue,it actually blew up in his face.And actually,the candidates who abided by T won.Linda did,Terra did,Clif did,and of course Kaitlin did.George and Steven both did not and they got sacked by a large margin.So if your claim is that it blew up on it’s proponents,then why did they do well in the last election?Do you think that Steven’s opposition to the voter approved measure helped him?
January 3, 2009 at 10:33 am
Ballast
Cobb is a mad scientist, a mad political scientist, Humboldt his laboratory and Kaitlin his creation. He wants credit for Clif, too, but that will only hurt Clif in 2012. Cobb, pariah?
January 3, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Anonymous
MrKonkler spins so much bullshit in such a short time, it’s a wonder he doesn’t work at the manure factory.
Frank Jager sure didn’t support Measure T, does that mean he should have lost? Ditto for Barbara Hecathorn, Jimmy Smith, Susan Ornelas, every winning candidate in Fortuna, every winning candidate in Rio Dell, shall I go on? Your theory is total spin and without substance.
Oh, and George Clark even signed that silly pledge to abide by Measure T even if it was struck down. Your attacks against him have nothing to do with Measure T and everything to do with his (otherwise) lack of subservience to Cobb’s disgusting little cult.
And yes Ballast, these DUHC-puppets at Loco Solutions shouldn’t get too comfy. Both Tera and Cliff “won” with a minority of the votes, situations that aren’t likely to be replicated in 2012. Cobb ain’t popular in the McKinleyville and Fortuna environs, a point both of them would be well to remember if they wish to keep their seats.
January 3, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Eric Kirk
Do you realize we’re over 200 posts on this goofy thread now? I realize I contributed to it, but it’s getting to be like those Reggae threads. Nothing’s going to be resolved.
I mean, carry on if you really want to, but I’m probably done with it until something new comes up in the news.
January 3, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Eric Kirk
And look how tame the last Reggae thread turned out to be! Eventually we grow up it seems.
January 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Anonymous
A real, substantive point has come up here Eric, namely Mark Konkler, on behalf of his DUHC masters, attacking George Clark for failing to support Measure T — when, in fact, he DID support Measure T, and his only opponent DIDN’T.
Doesn’t that beg the question of what the DUHCs really have against Clark?
And in case you didn’t notice Eric, I actually was complimenting you for coming around on this very issue. There’s a crack in the wall of silence now, I just hope the winter weather seeps in now and does the rest of the work for me.
January 3, 2009 at 2:11 pm
mresquan
George supported T,but didn’t bide by it during the election.Interesting,I apparently am accused of attacking him,yet walked door to door for him,for reasons other than his T stance.So what is the substantial point that has come up?Did you put any effort into getting him elected?DUHC has not a thing against George and vice versa.As a matter of fact I met George and walked to houses with him during a project put forth by DUHC members about concerns of the community.Nice way to try to spin things though in an attempt to further divide.Funny,it’s the same thing you enjoy accusing others of doing.
January 3, 2009 at 2:47 pm
mresquan
“but didn’t bide by it during the election.”
Well he did sign the pledge,but the fundraising methods used did raise a few eyebrows.
January 3, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Ballast
“Do you realize we’re over 200 posts on this goofy thread now?”
YAHOO! Happy New Year!
January 3, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Anonymous
“the candidates who abided by T won.Linda did,Terra did,Clif did,and of course Kaitlin did.George and Steven both did not”
Not only does he ignore the proof debunking this ridiculous claim, listed above, now mresquan makes up complete lies about Clark, who didn’t accept any corporate funding.
January 4, 2009 at 1:50 am
Anonymous
Face it, Konkler is a run-away bus of distortion for DUHC. Might as well ask Ari Fleischer for some damning admission about the Bush admin.
January 4, 2009 at 10:10 am
mresquan
I never once said that he accepted any corporate funding.If I am wrong,please prove it,but well,one could consider Siegfield or whatever,Properties to be a corporation.,correct?But one would be correct to say that he didn’t accept funding from any out of county corps.Pretty funny shit coming from anon,who himself didn’t do one damn thing to get George elected,and instead sat at his computer and whined about everything Cobb and Kaitlin and couldn’t get off his ass to make a difference.Care to debunk that claim?At least I can say that despite my one objection to some fundraising George did,I did spend some time going door to door explaining why there were so many other reasons for voters to elect him into office.
January 4, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Anonymous
“the candidates who abided by T won.”
You still can’t back up this statement with any real facts mresquan, and you never will. You backstab Clark just like you backstab almost every non-DUHC campaign you’ve involved yourself in for the last three years. It’s become a pattern with you.
January 5, 2009 at 11:08 am
Anonymous
Is it true that all comments with the word C-O-B-B in them are getting auto-moderated now?
January 6, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Ballast
Cobb? Why would anyone diss David Cobb?
January 7, 2009 at 12:19 am
Anonymous
Hobart’s death. That’s not on the list.
His kid is getting the gallery auctioned off from under him, evidently.
January 7, 2009 at 6:27 am
Nick Bravo
Ballast, I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic. Have you not read the thread??
Cobb is humboldts version of Jim Jones. How will you and others feel when they realize they have been instrumental in cobbs rule and the destruction of the Green party?
January 7, 2009 at 6:27 am
Nick Bravo
cobb
January 7, 2009 at 6:32 am
Nick Bravo
Nope, the word cobb is still allowable and will probably be so in the future now that Eric’s censorship trick has been revealed. I encourage ALL of you who have had moderated comments to repost those messages one word at a time untill we discover ALL of eric’s censored words.
THEN, post those words with dashes. Speech must be free! that includes words in the english language.
This is a Grassroots movement folks! Don’t be shy! Crawl out of your environmentally freindly adobe huts and start posting! We can free those words that Eric is holding against their will at an undisclosed location!
Eric will be brought to justice and the free speech will be freed!!!!
January 7, 2009 at 6:58 am
Ballast
“Ballast, I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic. Have you not read the thread??”
Rest easy, Nick. I was just testing 11:08’s theory. IMHO Cobb is divisive and self-serving, a sort of “mad (political) scientist” who belongs someplace else.