Rose has all of the youtube installments in order over on her blog.
Recent Comments
 | suzy blah blah on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Eric Kirk on March against Monsanto this… |
 | "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
 | moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | That Other Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Cookie on March against Monsanto this… |
 | bolithio on March against Monsanto this… |
| Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 17, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Rose
Thanks, but I swiped ‘em from http://www.johncosborn.com/?p=1141 John Osborn. He also has the HCDCC Endorsement meeting vids.
April 18, 2010 at 11:51 am
Eric Kirk
Thanks Rose. I don’t know that I want to sit through the endorsement meeting. Was it interesting to dedicate the time?
April 18, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Reporta
Eh, the HCDCC presentations basically give a summary of what each candidate is all about. If you watch any of them, I would recommend the DAs and Virginia Bass.
April 18, 2010 at 4:08 pm
ED Denson
Fascinating to listen to and watch, recommended. I must say that both Paul Hagen and Jackson Allison said at various times that they considered as violent crimes some crime or another which does not actually involve violence. What they mean I suppose is that they would push those cases as if they were as serious as violent crimes. But I’m disturbed by the idea that someone wanting to be elected as DA would “consider” a crime as something which it is not because of their personal feelings about the crime. (The crime at least for Hagen was meth sales, which he thinks is violent because meth use can cause violence by the user). Rhetorically that’s fine, but in terms of prosecution decisions it is not.
When it came to the 215 discussion, Ms. Jackson, who generally made an excellent presentation overall, mistated the law by saying that medical marijuana on a commercial scale is illegal. It is not, at least for people who are members of collectives. Now there was no follow up questioning to get to finer points of what she believes the law is, so perhaps she was glossing over nuances as there was a need for speed in this debate due to the rigorous time keeping. But those interested in the question who get a chance might like to ask how she feels about clubs, and those who grow for them.
Ms. Bryson made a strong presentation for medical marijuana rights, and said that the judges to easily grant search warrants for marijuana cases, and that Paul Gallegos was prosecuting innocent medical patients. Judges do sign some warrants which, in my opinion, they should not; and Paul Gallegos is prosecuting innocent medical patients. Question is: would the other candidates do a better job, and I was not hearing anyone but Ms. Bryson speak in a way that convinced me they might. She is a bit abrupt at times, and I do not think Ms. Bryson can win this race but if it goes to a run-off between her and Paul Gallegos I would have to really reconsider my support for Paul Gallegos because of this issue. As we say in court until and unless that runoff comes, now that I’ve heard the candidates speak, I believe I’ll be backing Paul Gallegos.
April 18, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Eric Kirk
Paul G. also stated that he opposes revisions of the three strikes law, which surprised me. I believe it’s essential that the law be revised so that the third strike must be a violent felony. Actually, I’d prefer that the law was eliminated altogether, but again. Paul’s statement took me by surprise.
Kathleen Bryson was the only candidate to personally attend the legalization economy forum and one of only two candidates who sent anybody to represent the candidate at the forum. She does seem to be the strongest candidate on your issue Ed. I note that at least one Garberville business has her sign up (the shoe people in the office EPIC used to occupy next to the freeway).
I was happy with Paul Hagen’s unconditional opposition to school zero tolerance policies, which is a serious civil liberties issue.
I haven’t listened to the whole thing yet and I was getting ready for bed when I listened to the first few installments. I may have more to say when I’m finished.
April 18, 2010 at 8:19 pm
ED Denson
Eric, I agree that 3 strikes should be eliminated. There are already “enhancements” to sentencing based on prior prison terms which add many years to some sentences, even if 3 strikes were gone, so it is just an invitation for cruelty and injustice.
Ms. Bryson is the strongest candidate on medical marijuana, and has done surprisingly well so far in fund raising, with contributions coming from many people apparently. She also, properly, upbraided Paul G. for having his new deputy DA’s get trial experience by pushing weak misdemeanors to trial rather than dismissing or settling them. He did not deny it, but if it goes on it is hardly just to impose the burden of a trial on people just so the deputy DA can get training, and is a policy which should be discontinued. Just a thought: what if one of these defendants wins the misdemeanor trial then sues the DA for the expense?
My feeling is that Ms. Bryson is an unknown person who is in a race with 3 people who are known. Paul G has won 3 (?) elections and clearly has a large base of support. Paul H. has some name amongst the insiders (ie attorneys and others who are involved in courts and the like) which will give him a base, and Ms. Jackson is fairly well known and has a base of supporters. It is difficult to see Ms. Bryson winning in this field of candidates because so much of the vote is already tied up. My guess is that if Paul G. does not win in June there will be a run-off. That runoff will most likely be Paul G vs. Ms. Jackson. Paul H’s participation draws votes from Paul G, I would think with Ms. Bryson being of indeterminable but probably not large effect. But if she keeps hammering him on medical marijuana and training deputies by doing trials that they are going to lose, she could change the calculus.
April 18, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Eric Kirk
I’ve made it through six of the youtubes now, and I do want to respond to the tendency of all of the candidates to broaden the concept of a “violent crime.” The refrain is, “I see ….. as a violent crime, because it ruins lives, yada, yada, yada.”
I know what they’re trying to say. They’re trying to distinguish between victimless crimes and those with severe consequences. But that doesn’t make a crime violent. It makes it serious. Serious is not necessarily violent, though violent is certainly always serious. There may be nonviolent crimes which are more serious than many violent crimes, and may hurt people and ruin lives. But that doesn’t make them violent.
We have a language, and we have words. You need not stretch the English language to make your point. You have violent crimes. You have nonviolent crimes. You have serious crimes. You have victimless crimes.
It’s like Fox News calling suicide bombers “homicide bombers” for whatever moral reason. But the words don’t convey the idea, since there are many homicide bombers who do not take their own lives in the act.
Just saying.
April 19, 2010 at 8:01 am
Brer Fox
The point of the “homicice” bombers label is to put the emphasis where it belongs, on the innocent victims [of homicide] not on the killer, whether the killer survives or not, the victims are dead.
April 19, 2010 at 11:01 am
Eric Kirk
Yes Brer. I know that’s the point. But for a news organization claiming objectivity it’s lame, and it fails to use the language to distinguish the suicide bomber from any other bomber who kills. Tim McVeigh was a homicide bomber. He was not a suicide bomber.
April 21, 2010 at 2:12 pm
ED Denson
I was at a gathering of marijuana afficiandos and one prominent person was passing out Bryson materials, so she may be on to something if she continues her attack on Gallegos’ marijuana prosecutions, at least at this end of the county. I still feel that Gallegos is likely to win, but I haven’t had anyone come up to me and say “We’ve really got to back Paul (Gallegos) in this race.” His support may be more the devil we know than fervent.
April 21, 2010 at 7:48 pm
The Real Story
I appreciate Ed’s willingness to state his opinion with his name attached. I am not willing to be so open. My comments can be viewed in that light.
It is a fact that legitimate medical marijuana patients make up a small percentage of users in CA and that the percentage of the product grown that supplies this legit market is infinitesimal compared to the overall production. Using this tiny element to justify a choice for DA suggests that you have other motives.
From a political standpoint, it is obvious that growers are going to protect their financial interests. You too?
April 22, 2010 at 8:11 pm
ED Denson
It is a fact that legitimate medical marijuana patients make up a small percentage of users in CA and that the percentage of the product grown that supplies this legit market is infinitesimal compared to the overall production
Is this a “fact” or is it a supposition? If it is a fact, upon what information is it based?
April 22, 2010 at 8:12 pm
ED Denson
I’ll learn HTML about italics someday
April 22, 2010 at 8:20 pm
The Real Story
Thanks Ed, you answered my question.
April 23, 2010 at 3:02 pm
ED Denson
You’re welcome, Real Story. Here goes another attempt at italics in HTML.