Rose is suggesting it may be an “official” blog of some sort, but it’s been opened by Michael Evanson, who is a Gallegos supporter and not formally associated with the office. Thanks to Rose, however, for bringing it to my attention.
Recent Comments
 | That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | Eric Kirk on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| Eric Kirk on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | suzy blah blah on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| suzy blah blah on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | Narration on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| suzy blah blah on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 10, 2010 at 10:25 am
Reporta
Michael Evanson is with the campaign handling all the web site stuff
June 10, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Hank Sims
Every rose has its thorn.
(h/t J.S.)
June 10, 2010 at 8:58 pm
anonomous says
richard saltsman ran gallegos’ campaign, and was the main “anon” hitman behind the scenes against gallegos’ opponents. he also is working with michael evanson on this pretty new blog that he thinks is going to make people believe that gallegos hasnt bungled any violent felony cases.
June 11, 2010 at 6:26 am
michaelevenson
With only a week or so residency in the blog world, I find that there seem to be very few inhabitants. However, it is certainly a public service to post news and views that can be retrieved by anyone at any time – like a modern liberty tree.
Could someone educate me on the value of anonymity?
If we take it as true that townhall meetings are the closest remnant we have of true democracy, and that the exercise of free speech (respectful of everyone’s right to free speech, and especially, free from intimidation) is a meaningful contribution to the greater good, how does that square with anonymous comments or fictitious names?
June 11, 2010 at 7:28 am
Eric Kirk
Michael – I expect traffic will pick up on your blog as we move into the campaign. Heraldo is the big kid on the block in Humboldt County, and quite a few people post there and I suspect many, many more show up to read it. I get anywhere from 500 to 3000 visits a day depending on the news. If you put something of significance on your blog, word will get around.
As for anonymity, well, it means you can say something without social or economic consequences. Sometimes that may be a good thing. During the Reggae Wars I would get telephone calls at 10:00 at night complaining about something someone posted, or even visits to my office. Every once in a while it happens with some other topic. I’ve had threats of boycotting my practice, not just for what I’ve said, but for what I’ve “allowed” someone else to say. I can understand the value of anonymity.
On the other hand, it’s also used as a cloak for irresponsible purposes, such as libel or otherwise unsociable behavior – spreading rumors, being an asshole, etc. I think the prevailing ethos should be that you only say on the Internet what you’d be willing to say to a person’s face, but obviously plenty of people feel otherwise.
Just so you know, under the current law you cannot be held liable for defamation for what people post on your blog. You can only be liable for what you yourself say. But I still believe that we are morally bound to remove that which we know is a falsehood. The law is not clear, or was not clear the last I looked, on whether you could be forced to cough up the IP addresses for defamatory posts. You could be forced to provide IP’s for illegal threats however. To my knowledge, no local blog has been hit with such a subpoena.
June 11, 2010 at 8:32 am
anonymous
evenson said:Could someone educate me on the value of anonymity?
hey ask your blog partner richard saltzman….he’s the king. he’ll even write letters to the editor and sign someone else’ name to them without their permission.
June 11, 2010 at 8:44 am
Anon
Mr.Evanson, do you really believe that working closely for the Gallegos campaign with richard saltzman, who has the rep of being THE nastiest political dirty trickster in HC, is going to make your blog a legit source of info??
Your name is now inextricably tied to saltzman, that’s all people need to know when wondering what to do with any info coming from you.
June 11, 2010 at 9:16 am
Eric Kirk
Well, there you have it. A rather ironic post from “anonymous” and an inadvertently profound answer from “Anon.”
June 12, 2010 at 9:04 am
Anti Idiot
This Blog owner is obscenely possessed with Politics .
June 12, 2010 at 9:31 am
Anonymous
Here’s postitive proof that Teen Challege is just another name for crack – heads & are actually are grown up tweakers . This article was taken from THe TIMES – STANDARD . 23 is a really young age for ” Teen Challenge ” . Most are tweakers in their 50′s and 60′s .
The third defendant in the case, Sara Jean Gibson, 23, was arraigned on Wednesday and pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, which was a violation of her parole. Gibson was in the car with
Advertisement
Judge Joyce Hinrichs ruled to release Gibson into the Teen Challenge Program for drug rehabilitation, in which she is to remain for six months before being sentenced in December. Fogleman and Meyers are due in court for arraignment on June 22.
June 14, 2010 at 11:21 am
Not A Native
OK Eric, you supported Hagen with the opinion he was a “good” person, blah, blah, blah. Now who’s your candidate?
And who do you think that good person will support? My guess is he won’t publically endorse anyone, but will conduct a whispering campaign backing Jackson.
June 14, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Eric Kirk
NAN – already said somewhere in these threads. I’ll be voting for Paul Gallegos.
I do think I said more than “blah, blah, blah.” But isn’t “good person” a qualification along with blah, blah, blah?
June 14, 2010 at 12:44 pm
the reasonable anonymous
A little translation may be in order.
In Blogtrollistan, “Blah, blah, blah” means “I can’t refute your points or I don’t want to take the time to respond to them, but I still want to register my disagreement with those points in a very immature way.”
Sadly, I’m pretty sure you’ve used the same phrase a number of times in the past, Eric. I probably have, too. But it’s a stupid, immature way to respond, no matter who is using it.
“Etc., etc., etc.” would also be a non-response, but at least it’s a little childish.
Glad you’ll be supporting Gallegos, Eric. If it were Hagen vs. Jackson, I certainly would have supported Hagen. Jackson is a menace.
June 14, 2010 at 12:45 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Sorry, that should have read: “…but at least it’s a little *less* childish.”
June 14, 2010 at 1:05 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Hey, if they practiced “mountaintop removal,” those pesky Taliban dudes wouldn’t have anyplace to hide, right?
June 14, 2010 at 1:06 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Oops, wrong thread!
June 14, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Not A Native
OK Eric, but you didn’t respond with what you expect Hagen to do. What is your prediction of his actions? After all, you said he’s qualified as “a good person”. So he should do “good”, right? What would you say a “good person” would do in his circumstances?
And no, I don’t think that citing a “good person” as qualification has any validity at all. Saying someone is a “good person” IS the epitome of blah blah. Everyone is a “good person” according to someone somewhere. Its just meaningless distraction for not having specific abilities and accomplishments to cite. And it erroneously implies possession of some kind of “moral” fitness that is way beyond what anyone else can actually know about the person’s behavior or intent.
June 14, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Eric Kirk
Oh, I didn’t realize you were asking me what I think Hagen will do. I thought you were saying that I would support Jackson in whispers. I’m not very good at whispering.
I don’t know what Hagen will do. Probably stay out of it. Whispers and all.
June 14, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Anonymous
Thank you all for your comments on the value of anonymity.
June 16, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Not A Native
Well Eric, according to the Arcata Eye, Hagen is expected to support Jackson because he and Jackson have similar personal grudges and animosity toward Gallegos. I think Hagen will whisper his support for Jackson, because that’s the kind of guy he is.
But you Eric, support Gallegos. Shouldn’t Hagen, designated by you as a “good person”, be making good decisions and be supporting Gallegos, as you do. Or was Hagen a good person as a candidate but has now become a bad person? If the title of “good person” doesn’t predict what a candidate will do, then what does it mean, politically.