All weekend strange and irresponsible posts have popped up on the local blogosphere, including a couple of attempted posts here – which by all accounts greatly exaggerated the incident. The Times Standard has it covered, and I’ll let the people involved speak for themselves.
Already the thread below the article has veered off into the politics of it. I’m sure the thread here won’t be any better. How you look at the event is probably going to be colored by your politics.
For what it’s worth, what Mark has described of his own behavior is extremely inappropriate and he did right to apologize. Beyond that, I have no idea about the chairmanship issue, or whether it was appropriate to replace him. But right or wrong on the politics, you have to keep your cool.
As to how they should move forward, I’ll leave that to the Supervisors involved.
Sohum Parlance II 
250 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 26, 2013 at 10:12 am
Anonymous
Eric, Thank you for creating a post on the issue. It’s nice to see that at least someone on the far left has the personal integrity to address an issue that is uncomplimentary to one of their own. It’s too bad that Hank Simms and the Northcoast Journal put politics before their journalistic responsibility to the community. Regardless of where the comments go you have showed good character. Well Done.
November 26, 2013 at 11:36 am
Joe Blow
Eric says: “But right or wrong on the politics, you have to keep your cool.” -WHY?
November 26, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Christopher Holmquist
I see some little guy isn’t happy that his small minority of a political group isn’t in power. Have fun enjoying your good ol boy vs progressive fight forever
November 26, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Jane
It is rather disheartening to see the Times-Standard stoop to Fox style sensationalism in this issue. We’ve seen Estelle and Bohn move beyond the boundaries of professionalism in matters which effect the whole county and everyone in it for a long time.. The mere idea of Bohn giving up a sound-bite about professionalism I find rather absurd. Yet here they are devoting a lengthy piece on the topic with “blow” by “blow” political opportunities give to the very conservative wings of Del Norte and the County Supervisors just for special effects. Just goes to show never let the political dogs have a mole hill because the only way they can stay in power is to make a mountain out of it.
The real story is that we now have Virginia Bass in that position representing the county. Why isn’t that up for debate? If Eureka doesn’t change things up this next election Humboldt is going to slide further into the red. Shamelessly while wearing the color blue.
November 26, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Liberal Jon
I think Richard Marks* has a good post on this as he mentions his laudable work with the Humboldt Domestic Violence Services. I don’t know if any good can come from an incident or an inappropriately hearty slap on the back. Of course there is a so many political overtones possible. I don’t think it’s appropriate to say “nothing to see here” and I also don’t think this sounds like something that is going to have any ripples past a week or two of interest. We’ll see.
If there can be any good, it might be a thought or two about the significant problem of domestic violence. It sounds like the HDVS is an important group and one worth supporting if you have the time or money.
* http://samoasoftball.blogspot.com/2013/11/just-little-life-reminders-about.html
One thing I do know, however unfair the political slight might have been to Supervisor Lovelace, it cannot and will not be an issue going forward.
November 26, 2013 at 12:40 pm
just middle class
Just think of the comments here if Rex or Ryan did the thumping!
November 26, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Anonymous
If it came across as too hard?
Here’s a thought. When you are frustrated and/or angry with someone, the best way to avoid hitting them “too hard” is to refrain from hitting them in the first place.
November 26, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Anonymous
LibJon,
While domestic violence is a critically important issue, this incident was more along the lines of workplace violence, not domestic violence.
November 26, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Just Watchin
A reference to domestic violence? Are you kidding me ??
November 26, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Anonymous
I wonder if the North Coast Journal or the Lost Coast Outpost will cover this story? I’m pretty sure if the story was that an angry and frustrated Rex Bohn had come storming up behind an unsuspecting Mark Lovelace and “sarcastically” slapped him on the back hard enough to send him stumbling 3 or 4 steps forward, and then Bohn rationalized it by saying that it was just a “good-old-boy” backslap, this would be getting lots of attention from both the NCJ and LoCO, with Bohn on the receiving end of plenty of outrage and ridicule. It will be interesting to see whether they just ignore the incident altogether, or if not, what kind of spin they try to put on it.
November 26, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Fred Mangels
Not written at the local level, but what the writer points out is true as comments here have shown. What if the other side did the same thing? Compare, for example, Glass vs. Arkley and now Bass vs Lovelace:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=4799
November 26, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, basically the progressives would be saying it’s a big deal and the conservatives would be downplaying it.
Stop the presses!
November 26, 2013 at 2:54 pm
GetHelp
Hey Supervisor Mark/Jane/Lovelace:
Listen Janemark, this time you’re not going to be able to divert attention away from what you did. You should man-up and give a real apology to Supervisor Bass and Bohn and vow to get some real anger management.
If any Supervisor smacked you so hard that it caused a shoulder injury, you would be calling it what it was…physical abuse. Get some help.
November 26, 2013 at 3:08 pm
Joe Blow
I guess what he needed to do to make his point unequivocal was punch the both of them right in the nose, metaphorically speaking, that is. Then we wouldn’t be having all the BS speculation. But then, that would require voting into office real men and real women – a virtual impossibility.
November 26, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Anonymous
“an inappropriately hearty slap on the back”
Nice try, but it doesn’t sound like it was just “inappropriately hearty.” It sounds like he was lashing out in anger and frustration, not exhibiting cheerful exuberance.
I hope Mark is more honest with himself about his anger issues than the way he comes off in the Times-Standard article.
He could clearly benefit from some anger management counseling…unless he’s in denial, in which case it probably wouldn’t do him very much good.
November 26, 2013 at 3:18 pm
Joe Blow
I gotta say, Fred’s article really lays bare the hypocrisy. These wannabe politicos are absolutely, without a doubt, shameless.
November 26, 2013 at 3:28 pm
Anonymous
Schoolyard bickering, and everybody knows it. The real story really is the reason they want him out of chair. All eyes are on new construction on heretofore undeveloped land. That’s what matters, not a hefty dose of sarcasm with an equally hefty pat on the back.
November 26, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Anonymous
I find Jane’s comments most disheartening, willing to excuse Mark’s behavior, decrying Rex’s professionalism, and moaning about Bass “in that position representing the county. Why isn’t that up for debate?”.
It is up for debate, Jane. There is an election next November, and Judy Hodgeson and the NCJ have been in attack mode ever since the duly elected majority went in a direction not favored by them. Sounds like Jane’s doing the same thing, all the while excusing Lovelace’s inexcusable behavior.
And at 3:46pm November 26th, not a peep from either the LoCo or NCJ. At least Eric posted about it.
November 26, 2013 at 4:03 pm
Anonymous
Basically, he had an embarrassing little temper tantrum while representing the county at a public event, which would be bad enough, but as it turns out he actually hurt someone in the process. All because he didn’t get another term as co-chair of this group? Ridiculous.
I mean seriously, if you’re a grown man and you find yourself angrily slapping a colleague over not getting some co-chairman position, it’s time to either get some serious therapy, or get out of politics. Or maybe both.
November 26, 2013 at 4:20 pm
Anonymous
.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_24602563/frustrations-between-humbolt-county-supervisors-boil-over-lovelace
Just a good ol’ boy,
Never meanin’ no harm…
November 26, 2013 at 4:48 pm
Anonymous
“Schoolyard bickering, and everybody knows it.”
Only one person in this situation demonstrated childish behavior. That person is Mark Lovelace.
November 26, 2013 at 5:21 pm
Anonymous
The real story really is the reason they want him out of chair.
Yeah, with such maturity and professionalism, it’s hard to imagine why anyone wouldn’t want him in a leadership position.
November 26, 2013 at 5:49 pm
LoCO Guest
Mark Lovelace did not injure Virgina Bass’ shoulder. She said it was an old injury.
‘She said Lovelace’s slap on the back aggravated an existing shoulder injury, but said she didn’t feel it was intentional.’
November 26, 2013 at 6:21 pm
Anonymous
“Mark Lovelace did not injure Virgina Bass’ shoulder. She said it was an old injury.”
The bottom line is he lost his temper, lashed out physically at his colleague, and as a result of that, he hurt her. If your point is that if she hadn’t had the existing injury, she wouldn’t have been hurt (or at least not hurt as much), I guess that’s a point you can make. But it doesn’t make his behavior any less objectionable
Yes, when you strike someone in anger and frustration, one of the risks you’re taking is that you might hurt someone by aggravate an existing injury. You could also cause an accident, or prompt retaliation and/or escalation, or any number of other undesirable though possibly unintended outcomes.
And when you come up from behind someone and without warning you slap them so hard on the back that they stumble 3-4 steps forward, it’s not much of a defense to say “well, but she was already injured anyway.”
It’s just lucky she didn’t fall and hit her head or something like that.
November 27, 2013 at 12:27 am
Liberal Jon
JW and An 1.11: A – good point. Just a little background. Richard posted on it, I was amplifying his point. To use a TOA clone’s phrase I definitely am not trying to use domestic violence as a political football. It is a difficult position and topic for both him and me. I think I can speak for Mr. Marks when I say he and I both like both individuals, even if Richard and I (and Mark and Virginia) come from VERY different political places. More on the latter much later. We have all Winter, Spring and early Summer for that.
The only reason I brought it up is that at a Democratic work party a week or two ago he had brought up his work with the organization and mentioned the great work it does and it’s need for volunteers and/or board members. Like I said, I was trying to somehow have something positive come of this story.
November 27, 2013 at 12:50 am
Liberal Jon
Fred, just for the record the Independent link, links to a libertarian organization*, which is neither here nor there. Just the 411. I was confused at first with the Independent of the UK which at least used to be a slightly left of center (not Guardian left) newspaper.
Again, you might fail to see this,but the conservative and libertarian parallels on this issue are pretty clear. Listen to right-wing radio for a while and you will hear the exact refrain of your linked article. The only difference is they usually say “imagine if Bush (or insert conservative legislator) would have done_____, how the lame-stream media would have covered it.” It’s just another example of right-wing (yes, Libertarians are right wing) victimization. If you have a problem with the media, I’m wondering where your precious imaginary free market is? Start a media, make some money off it and please stop your whining.
Because for one, many of the left (including my whining self – hypocrisy noted) consider the “main stream media” pretty conservative as their dependence on advertising demands.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent_Institute
The Independent Institute is an American libertarian[2] think tank based in Oakland, California, that states its mission is “to boldly advance peaceful, prosperous, and free societies, grounded in a commitment to human worth and dignity.”[3]
November 27, 2013 at 6:48 am
Fred Mangels
I’m well aware of the Independent Institute’s politics. Perhaps it’s because of those politics it’s able to look at the left vs. right, us vs. them squabble from outside of the fray.
I don’t recall ever reading a conservative or liberal commentator saying both sides point fingers based solely on partisan concerns. It takes someone outside of the conflict to see it objectively.
November 27, 2013 at 7:33 am
Liberal Jon
I wasn’t and other’s might not have been either, that’s why I made the point.
The thing is Fred thinking you are outside the conflict is an illusion. You are there in the partisan milieu too, despite your denial. Your vote for Republican John Fullerton is but one example. Can you name a single good liberal libertarian Democrat on the national stage? How many libertarian(ish) candidates can you name that are also staunch conservatives on most issues (outside of foreign policy, religious conservatism, I just forgot the third, seriously, Rick Perry moment)
Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Romney’s VP, are all examples of prominent legislators with one foot in the conservative (base) movement and perhaps less purely a libertarian – but still strongly libertarian stripes. Libertarians and liberals do share interests – don’t get me wrong. Just on the biggest issue the economy and whether or not government spending should be 20% of the GNP like China or Mexico (and us) or more like 50% of the spending (like Germany). On that issue, which is the heart of both conservatism, Libertarianism, (and Republicans btw), on that issue, you are conservative. And that issue is largely why (but there are many others) you and I will disagree more than we will agree.
“I don’t recall ever reading a conservative or liberal commentator saying both sides point fingers based solely on partisan concerns.” This sentence does not make sense grammatically to me. What are you trying to say here? Thom Hartmann and I for example will call out both Obama and Bush on matters of the Patriot Act – no partisanship needed there. I would clearly still vote for Obama, but he is wrong on many things including excessive surveillance and the use of drones. But to really fix things like that Fred, you and I and other’s like us are going to have to work together to fix things issue by issue. Of course that is never going to happen, but I’m open to it.
November 27, 2013 at 8:15 am
Fred Mangels
our vote for Republican John Fullerton is but one example.
Not at all. I wrote earlier when that race started up that if Olivier had some issues to bring up that I agreed with I might vote for her. Of course, she didn’t have any issues since she was drafted by the HCDCC as a paper candidate.
I’ll admit the HCDCC endorsement made it a big minus for her in my book, if only because they try to turn non- partisan races into partisan ones. That deserves rebuke. But Fullerton knew the issues and tried to bring some to the table, something Olivier couldn’t do. On both those counts Fullerton deserved the vote.
You are correct that at least some Republicans have a libertarian appeal. I’m not sure I can think of one current Democrat in office that has libertarian appeal, although a few like the past Senator Mike Gravel and the late George McGovern have earned some kudos from libertarians after they left office.
Not only do some- if not a large number- of Republicans at least give lip service to less government, the Democrats generally give their lip service to the opposite.
What you can’t seem to understand in your simple mind is why one might support Republicans on some issues and Democrats on others. With you it seems to be just Rep vs. Dem and that’s it. Issues don’t matter, just as the didn’t matter to you in the Eureka School Board race.
But to really fix things like that Fred, you and I and other’s like us are going to have to work together to fix things issue by issue.
Seems to me issues have little, if anything, to do with your line of thinking.
November 27, 2013 at 8:59 am
liberal jon
“Seems to me issues have little, if anything, to do with your line of thinking.”
Wrong. I am just a little more upfront in admitting my biases. “Simple mind” and the idea that issues are not important to me are your own constructions. But I do try to keep the conversation and life as simple as possible.
There has been one election since I’ve begun conversing with you. Your vote – 1 for 1 conservative Republican. That’s all I’m saying. That vote is a demonstration of your priorities and like you admitted you’re vote was partially based on a rebuke to partisan politics. Which is of course not at all partisan – because, apparently you say so. (sarcasm in previous sentence) BTW, saying so does count for something. Matthew Owen says he is a Democrat for example. That counts for something.* It’s just that, like you say, issues and policies are important. Issues like teachers getting living wages and no further fractionalization or privatization of our school system.
* not with me though.
November 27, 2013 at 9:00 am
Anonymous
Interestingly, there is a lot less discretion in what will happen about Mark’s inappropriate physical contact with Bass than one might think. I wasn’t there so I don’t know if it was a shove, hit, thump, push, or overzealous pat on the back. Besides it doesn’t really matter. By all accounts including Mark’s it was inappropriate and certainly unwanted physical contact between two County employees. Guess what, though to be fair I haven’t actually looked them up, the County unquestionably has rules about these kinds of things. I’m also sure that one of them REQUIRES a report to be taken and a process started to review what happened and sort out an appropriate resolution. I’m also sure that there must be a REQUIREMENT to report any incident to the applicable law enforcement authority. Even if Mark, Rex, and Virginia wanted to sweep the whole thing under the rug, they CAN’T. As the county’s “Bosses” they cannot afford to set an example of failing to follow proper procedure, particularly one where there are very credible witnesses, very public disclosure, and an admission on some level of guilt and responsibility. Not only could they never again look a victimized county employee in the face but they could also open the County to possible litigation from other victims. I don’t see how they really have a choice but to follow their own rules.
November 27, 2013 at 9:02 am
Anonymous
Interestingly, there is a lot less discretion in what will happen about Mark’s inappropriate physical contact with Bass than one might think. I wasn’t there so I don’t know if it was a shove, hit, thump, push, or overzealous pat on the back. Besides it doesn’t really matter. By all accounts including Mark’s it was inappropriate and certainly unwanted physical contact between two County employees. Guess what, though to be fair I haven’t actually looked them up, the County unquestionably has rules about these kinds of things. I’m also sure that one of them REQUIRES a report to be taken and a process started to review what happened and sort out an appropriate resolution. I’m also sure that there must be a REQUIREMENT to report any incident to the applicable law enforcement authority. Even if Mark, Rex, and Virginia wanted to sweep the whole thing under the rug, they CAN’T. As the county’s “Bosses” they cannot afford to set an example of failing to follow proper procedure, particularly one where there are very credible witnesses, very public disclosure, and an admission on some level of guilt and responsibility. Not only could they never again look a victimized county employee in the face but they could also open the County to possible litigation from other victims. I don’t see how they really have a choice but to follow their own rules.
Sorry I this post duplicates. I tried once and it disappeared.
November 27, 2013 at 9:48 am
Joe Blow
What’s the first thing Blowhard Jon does to prejudice the conversation when he enters the fray? He attacks the credibility of the person with an accusation, usually of bias by association. Example: “Fred, just for the record the Independent link, links to a libertarian organization*, which is neither here nor there.” Then he goes on and on in his next prolonged comments defending his personal attack to turn the conversation AWAY from that of issues and facts. A clear demonstration contravening his statement that is important to him, “here and there.”
In the end Fred gets the point and says to him: “Seems to me issues have little, if anything, to do with your line of thinking.” To which he hypocritically replies with all the gall of a pig: “Wrong. I am just a little more upfront in admitting my biases. “Simple mind” and the idea that issues are not important to me are your own constructions. But I do try to keep the conversation and life as simple as possible.”
That last statement is a perfect example, in lieu of the proceeding lengthy comments, the perfect example of a wanton, corrupt, and I would also observe, by definition, amoral, hypocritical way of thinking. The sickness is that he actually believes what he says, because he keeps shamelessly acting on it. Take note, Janelle Egger.
This is only one classic example of why I say the “system” is broken – and why so-called “rules” are meaningless.
November 27, 2013 at 10:07 am
Anonymous
I copied the following from another blog but it seems to offer some additional information and a totally new interview with Supervisor Mike Sullivan from Del Norte:
“The Times-Standard did an article on the CSAC incident. As I mentioned in my previous post, I wanted to get information from an independent observer. I talked with Mike Sullivan yesterday. He said the article represented his views fairly.
What was not in the article is what I will include in this post. According to Del Norte Supervisor Mike Sullivan, the incident occurred at a meeting of the Coastal County Regional Association. This is not an official committee of CSAC. The atmosphere is very informal. Supervisor Lovelace co-chaired this committee for many years and co-chaired it with another Supervisor from Ventura County.
At the end of the agenda, the item regarding co-chairs came up. They asked for people interested, said Sullivan. “Supervisor Bass expressed interest only if Mark was not opposed to this idea. Mark did not say anything. So, I made the motion to appoint Virginia as co-chair. Again, Supervisor Lovelace did not say anything.”
“In hindsight, if he wanted to continue, he should have spoken up.” Sullivan then described the incident to me as reported in the T-S. Supervisor Bohn and Bass had their backs, Sullivan saw Mark walk and make a beeline and “it was a hard hit with open palm” and Supervisor Bass took 3 steps forward.
“In Del Norte, we have some pretty difficult decisons to make but I have never seen another Supervisor strike another Supervisor. I may be old-fashioned but I think that is shocking, especially a man striking a woman.”
Sullivan said Virginia did not fall to the ground and there was no cursing. I had a comment sent to me that I did not publish that included these exaggerated facts.
Even though I have supported both Rex and Virginia, and Virginia is a friend, I kept my previous post and comments free of opinions. Supervisor Sullivan is a neutral party.
Apologizing to Virginia in a newspaper article or email does not make this kind of behavior okay. This kind of behavior is embarrassing publicly for Humboldt County, spinning the incident by some does not change what happened. I find the HCDCC silence on this very telling. There was no planned coup of the seat. Mark you may represent the third district but you are accountable to all of the citizens of Humboldt County.
Can the public damage to Humboldt’s image be undone? As Rex said, the rest is between you and Virginia to handle.”
Leaving aside the author’s commentary, Sullivan would seem to be disputing Lovelace’s version of the events leading to Mark’s “altercation with Bass. Lovelace and Bass seem inclined to downplay the event which is not at all surprising given that unless Lovelace is removed or resigns they will have to work together in the future. Sullivan, the only independent observer seems to think this is a very big deal.
I’m curious what the law says about violence, in any amount or degree, between elected officials?
November 27, 2013 at 10:08 am
Not A Native
Everyone makes misjudgements, Mark making one isn’t a surprise to anyone whos impartial. To me, the only lingering issue here is whether Mark’s apologies are sincere and its credible that he won’t repeat offend. First, that’s up to Virginia and Rex and second to the public. My comparison would be to another recent case of bad judgement, Dan Johnson. In that incident, he refused to sincerely apologize and that will have consequences for him politically. Mark will have some ‘splaining’ to do for awhile, so far it looks like he’s contrite…
November 27, 2013 at 10:21 am
Anonymous
Unsurprisingly I disagree with NAN. Mark’s so called apologies are all reminiscent of Johnsons. Filled with “if I did this” and “it’s because of…”. Mark is a far better wordsmith than the marginally literate Johnson but their approach is identical. It was insufficient and grossly insincere in both cases.
November 27, 2013 at 10:23 am
Anonymous
Further, to compare plagiarism, as bad as Johnsons was, to physical abuse in any degree is disgusting.
November 27, 2013 at 10:32 am
Fred Mangels
Your vote – 1 for 1 conservative Republican.
On issues the supposed “conservative Republicanism” had nothing to do with it. Not even the HDCCC could come up with any votes he might have made that they would have opposed. He often voted with the majority, and sometimes against, such as in the closing of Jefferson School which he voted against.
About the only issue I found the Olivier supporters point to where Fullerton differed was giving the teachers a large raise, and I didn’t hear that from her. I heard it from her supporters, among them Eric Kirk.
You’re still breaking that race down to Republican vs. Democrat, despite not being able to come up with any particular differences between the candidates on actual issues.
November 27, 2013 at 10:36 am
Fred Mangels
Oh, and I wouldn’t necessarily consider someone who supported the state wide sales tax increase last time around a “conservative” Republican. Fullerton publicly supported that increase, which was no real surprise to me.
November 27, 2013 at 10:38 am
Narration
Anonymous, your posts would be more credible and appropriate to follow if you would choose an identifier so we can understand what posts come from the same person – as for many of us, it doesn’t have to be your name.
November 27, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Anonymous
Still zero coverage of this incident in the North Coast Journal or the Lost Coast Outpost. Does anyone here believe that would be the case if the perpetrator had been any of the other 4 supervisors, rather than Lovelace?
November 27, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Anonymous
The quote in Anon 10:07’s comment comes from John Chiv’s blog:
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-times-standard-article-on-csac.html
November 27, 2013 at 12:46 pm
liberal jon
A 1216… You may be more right than wrong in my guestimation on the NCJ. I don’t think LoCO would have any problem doing a story on it. I think their lack of story is more probably driven by what other outlets reported first (ie whose story it is). I’ve read Hank mention something like that before. My fading memory of what he wrote.
So yes, NCJ left of center may not be quite as quick to write up something which may or may not be a legitimate story, LoCO, they will write just about anything as long as it gets eyeballs. My 2 cents. (or 0 cents I guess, right JB? (worthless?) – JB – you have some points there, I’m busy today, taking tomorrow off and don’t want to bother these nice people on a food fight. Since you have a libjon = Machivelli thread open already, I’ll just respond there. It seems more appropriate.)
JB and all – have a happy thanksgiving or solemn day of mourning for our all but lost continent(s) of native civilizations as you choose. One of the things I’m grateful for is Sohum and it’s contributors – every one of you mostly human beings behind all the digital letters. Including and especially FQ, sbb, JB, and TOA for the many and extended conversations and EK for the forum. (and Cookie!)
November 27, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Anonymous
Hopefully this will end any claims of professionalism and journalistic integrity from both the Journal and the Simms/Cleary LOCO blog. They really should be embarrassed. The Journal is already forcing paycuts and laying off staff due to so many advertisers dropping the Journal. Somehow I don’t think further ethical lapses are going to help.
November 27, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Joe Blow
Whoopi! Jon gave us all the right to live. Almighty God LIVES!
November 27, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Anonymous
Come on now, LibJon, you can’t seriously think that the LoCO wouldn’t get plenty of “eyeballs,” and plenty of clicks, on a story like this. And the idea that maybe LoCO hasn’t run a story simply because the Times-Standard got there first? Huh? Most of the news stories on LoCO are stories that at least one other local media outlet is also covering — sometimes several, often including both the Times-Standard and the NCJ. But somehow in this one case, that’s what’s holding LoCO back? Not very plausible.
Whatever the excuses, the bottom line is the same: Here we have a sitting supervisor who behaved, as Eric put, in an “extremely inappropriate” way, and yet there has been no coverage of it on Sims and Cleary’s LoCO, nothing from Hodgson’s NCJ, and nothing from Hoover and Durham at the Mad River Union. Which, you’ve got to admit, amounts to a cozy little redoubt of non-accountability for Supervisor Lovelace.
In the end it probably won’t make much of a difference — as long as Lovelace can keep his anger under control and his hands to himself for the balance of his time in office, I doubt this incident will really hurt him politically. But he should still get some Anger Management counseling, clearly he needs it. The signs were there, even before this incident made that that need unmistakable.
November 27, 2013 at 3:12 pm
Anonymous
The Journal is already forcing paycuts and laying off staff due to so many advertisers dropping the Journal.
If so, maybe they can just head over to the LoCO, it sounds like they’re hiring:
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2013/nov/27/lost-coast-outpost-hiring/
November 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Anonymous
This is not news. This is arkley shoves glass baloney. This is monica lewinsky tripe. This is bullshit, and everybody knows it. Shame on anybody making a mountain out of this molehill. The reason is beyond obvious. Shame on eric for even posting this as a topic, piling bullshit onto bullshit. The real news is real political decision making that affects everybody. The real news is that more natural resources are going to forever be consumed because of real estate zealots in a mad grab for virgin land profits. The real news is that all the problems of urban America are going to spread into Humboldt county that much faster because of tabloid politics like this., The real news is a slew of supervisors who changed their party rank to get votes. The real news is a bunch of supervisors sponsored by developers ousting the most popular among their ranks for profit. Real news is disappearing frighteningly fast.
November 27, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Anonymous
Mark,
A little Tough Love from a constituent:
I’m glad that you apologized to Virginia and Rex. But you still owe an apology to those who pay your salary, in other words, the public.
You didn’t just embarrass yourself, Mark, as a representative of the county, you embarrassed the county. And you put at risk your ability to work effectively with your colleagues, which is obviously a crucial part of your job.
To put it bluntly, we the public don’t send you to a conference to act like a spoiled child and pitch a tantrum when you don’t get your way on something, we expect you to maintain a professional demeanor and engage civilly, at least when officially representing us at events.
This is basic stuff, I am sure you are already aware of this, and thus you also must be well aware that you have let the public down in this instance.
So I’d like to see a clear, unequivocal, unqualified apology to county residents, and a clear commitment to avoid engaging in this sort of behavior in the future.
November 27, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Anonymous
internet politics and the dumbing down of America…who’da thunk, right? Who’da coined the popularity of “who’da thunk”? Who’da done anything but what was put right in front of them as a yes/no thing to do? who has the cohones to do call bullshit for what it is? December next week…three days of rain since SPRING, muthafuckaz. Dumb stupid muthafuckaz looking at an LCD screen instead of the sky above them.
November 27, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Liberal Jon
A 257: Mad River Union had a great article (by Daniel Mintz) on the cost of the new Harbor Commission-owned pulp mill. A true and despicable narrative of private profit and public externalities is barely touched. That would be a great story. WHERES LOCO WHERE IS THE NCJ, WHERE IS THE TS? (shouting done sarcastically) To me this (too-hearty back slap) isn’t a story. For example, it was before my time, but I could really have cared less about the Glass/Arkley kerfuffle. I think politicians and people should be allowed to be human. I don’t think a scream should have doomed Howard Dean. I don’t think a bad debate should have dropped Obama in the polls, this kind a stuff drives me nuts.
If this proves to you that indeed the NCJ and the LoCO are a cesspool of liberal elites, whatever. It’s wrong, but we are not going to be able to agree on this – both of us thinking we are more objective than the other. Thing is, I’m being more objective. (that was a joke) (But it IS true.)
Wrote this before reading A326 he/she gets it too.
A 502. Please. “And you put at risk your ability to work effectively with your colleagues, which is obviously a crucial part of your job.” This is clearly not an issue. Having been to most of the GPU meetings, the one time they did work together to come up with their own language as a group, not some pre-packaged language, the resulting “Principle” was quickly changed for some unknown reason (and a well known excuse).
Yeah, no. On the critical issues, this conservative BOS has not been about working together. “We voted the four of you in, now do your job” could be their motto.
(want another example – keep your eyes on the Bass/Bohn Thursday am meetings on our homeless problems. Supervisor Bass spoke about it on KINS last week – I think Rob Arkley will be proud.)
November 27, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Anonymous
“To me this (too-hearty back slap) isn’t a story.” I think politicians and people should be allowed to be human.
“Hearty?” Bullshit. A better word would be “nasty.” Or perhaps “creepy.” Or if there was some word that encompassed both, that would be ideal.
A “hearty” backslap is a warm, cheerful gesture intended to show camraderie.
Lovelace’s self-described “sarcastic, good-old-boy backslap” was an aggressive, ill-mannered gesture, intended to show anger and contempt. That much is clear, even from his own account.
Lovelace needs to learn that when he’s angry, at a minimum he needs to keep his hands to himself. Expecting him to comply with this most basic level of civility hardly amounts to denying his ability to “be human”. Far from it. It’s merely asking him to treat other humans with at least this most fundamental level of respect. That is certainly not too much to ask from our elected officials. Can’t meet even that low threshold of civility when you don’t get your way? Then find another line of work.
November 27, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Anonymous
Great. Now instead of just embarrassing Democrats as “Democratic Jon,” he’s put moved on to embarrassing liberals in general as “Liberal Jon.”
November 27, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Anonymous
And here I was thinking that nonviolence was something liberals valued.
November 27, 2013 at 7:30 pm
Anonymous
“I think politicians and people should be allowed to be human.”
Sure. But an elected official should be able to act like a grown-up human, not a petulant child.
November 27, 2013 at 7:36 pm
Anonymous
NCJ finally posted a story, if you can call it that. No original reporting, just a link to the Times-Standard story and a squishy-soft summary.
November 27, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Anonymous
Pretty amazing to see these disgusting attempts to minimize, excuse, and justify Lovelace’s disgraceful misbehavior, and to gloss over his obviously serious anger-management and impulse-control issues.
I’m pretty sure that if some angry constituent had came up behind Lovelace and gave him a “hearty” slap that was hard enough to send him pitching forward 3 or 4 steps, hard enough to aggravate an old injury, the perpetrator would have been cuffed, jailed, charged, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. At the very least, they’d be looking at a few years of probation, a couple hundred hours of community service, and some compulsory Anger Management classes.
November 27, 2013 at 10:24 pm
Joe Blow
“Sure. But an elected official should be able to act like a grown-up human, not a petulant child.” According to who’s effeminate worthless opinion?
November 28, 2013 at 9:18 am
Anonymous
Another beautiful cloudless day in Humboldt, working in my tshirt since morning. Wasn’t this a rainforest? A great thing for the future of this county would be to develop new subdivisions in rural areas. That would do wonders for the future of our environment. We need leadership that pushes new development, especially where only the natural earth thrives instead. And think of all the money involved!
November 28, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Liberal Jon
I was just thinking about this very thing A918 another beautiful day in paradise (for humans – not sure how the sequoia sempervirens feel about it). Here is HumCPR and KMUD fan Tom Grover to buttress your point. ( I honestly just found this, as I honestly was just thinking the same thing.)
http://www.redwoodtimes.com/garbervillenews/ci_24309259/supes-approve-guiding-principles-gpu-completion-target-now
“SoHum resident Tom Grover pointed out that housing problems exist in rural areas as well as in town, and he questioned the term “discourage sprawl.” The concept of “urban sprawl” was developed during the post-World War II building boom, Grover said, “when millions of houses were being built in the forest,” a situation that he said does not exist today.”
On something completely different … I never ever see Matthew Owen below the fold. Do people out there (Eric?) think that he never ever comments, or is he doing it anonymously? If I was him, I might be pretty pissed off with this news and might take to the comment sections to add a point or two. For his own sake, I hope he doesn’t because I think the internal conflict would not be a good thing given how much he “HATES ANONYMOUS BLOGGERS”. Admittedly this is a case of me concern trolling – but still it’s a question I have, especially when there are this many anonymous posters on a subject he might have an opinion on.
November 28, 2013 at 12:43 pm
suzy blah blah
-just posted –some nice holiday reading material on: Name, Identity, Martial law, Color of Law, the constitution, Equality, Property Rights, Civil Power, Military Dictatorship, the Supreme Court, Criminal Procedure, the Magna Charta, etc
http://forestqueen2020.wordpress.com/statement/
November 28, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Just Watchin
Suzy……was there a point somewhere in FQs post? Anyone with enough time to read it needs to get a hobby, and probably therapy.
November 28, 2013 at 2:23 pm
suzy blah blah
-yes JW, several points. To get started you may want to try out the fact that —all BAR members are foreign agents of the Vatican
November 28, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Anonymous
Nice strawman LJon, declaring Matt Owen MUST be commenting here anonymously and then railing against for it.
You need to step away from the monitor and try and gain a bit of perspective,
November 28, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Anonymous
Don’t be fooled by sbb and FQ’s attempt to pull the wool over your eyes — the Vatican is just another front for the Illuminati!
C’mon people, open up your eyes and see the fnords that are right there in front of you!
November 28, 2013 at 4:00 pm
moviedad
“…agents of the Vatican?” Seriously? Now that’s some conspiratorial BS if ever there was some. And it goes all the way back to the Nativist’s attack on the Irish. So basically the whole “Vatican” fear in America was born in Xenophobia against any and all immigrants. And damn those “Papists” The hated ones were giving support to the union organizers during the turn of the century. The accepted ones, were the bishops saying mass for the factory owners in Manhattan.
This is what I personally admire about the Catholic Church. We have some priests dressed in ermine, hanging out with corrupt politicians, and we have priests living in mud-huts supporting “liberation-theology” in Latin America. I find it interesting that throughout the sexual-abuse scandals, the priests in question have time and time again turned out to be the most rigid, conservative and anti-progressive clerics in the whole of the American Catholic Church. I am personally encouraged by Pope Francis. His firing of the head of the Curia in Rome shows that he means business, and he wants to get the church back in the business of speaking for the poor and oppressed.
I believe there are lots of policies and practices of the wealthy-rulers of the commercial world that would shock most of us, but blathering on about Vatican/Free-Mason/Illuminati forces actually doing anything, is just nonsense, and I file it in the same drawer as “Devils Triangle, Atlantis” and “Ancient Aliens.”
You don’t have to look to secret societies and ancient forces to find crimes against humanity; all you need to do is pick up a “Forbes” magazine.
November 28, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Joe Blow
moviedad, maybe you should take an extended trip around Latin and South America to appreciate the deprivation caused and created by the Catholic church from it’s inception into those lands and peoples. I doubt you’d be crass enough to run off this nonsense defending it.
November 28, 2013 at 5:07 pm
Just Watchin
Suzy…..the only BARs that interest me are the ones that serve alcohol….
November 28, 2013 at 6:19 pm
Anonymous
Are you farking kidding me LibJon? You attack Matthew Owen because you suspect he is posting anonymously here in blogland and he hates anonymous bloggers?
Step away from the keyboard friend. Not everyone is obsessed as you (or me for that matter, but I post maybe twice a week as opposed to your multiple posts per hour).
November 28, 2013 at 7:30 pm
queenoftheforrest
moviedad,
Knowledge is neutral. It is not the knowledge that is positive or negative, it is the use of it.
Cleverness without wisdom is one of the most destructive forces you can experience, and cleverness without love is the most destructive of all.
Do you really think i would be commenting and posting and sharing documents/instruments/Affidavits, in now-time, because i don’t have love for the people around me?
i find your post insulting, demeaning, and for the most part a lie.
What’s your point moviedad? What’s your idea? Bring something of merit or value to the table, or (fill in blank).
I MEAN, who in here cares about your opinion of a mother flucking, father raping, child molesting Pope?
Wake the flock up!
November 28, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Joe Blow
The root cause of all the “crimes against humanity” entrench squarely on and with organized religion – all religions. They are all manifest corrupt and lawless. Their judgement is already fix and rendered on this earth.
November 28, 2013 at 8:14 pm
Ecobolius
Has anybody been paying attention to the board of supervisors meetings? The developers in the audience and the gang of four have been brutal to Mark Lovelace.
I don’t know how he has held onto his temper this long.
November 28, 2013 at 8:20 pm
Anonymous
Anonymous @ 3:52,
Ditto of my 7-30. You have nothing nice to say, and nothing, no experience too share that can aid our ailing society. So, why again are you here?
November 28, 2013 at 8:30 pm
suzy blah blah
-this guy has something nice to say to all the police:
November 28, 2013 at 8:55 pm
Anonymous
Ecobolius: “I don’t know how he has held onto his temper this long.”
No kidding. It’s a wonder that he was able to restrain himself from hitting girls as long as he did.
Seriously? Is that really the argument you want to make?
The inability to control your temper to the extent that you physically shove, punch, or slap someone is a like a disease and it needs to be appropriately dealt with in an individualized and appropriate way. I don’t have the skills to evaluate what is appropriate in his instance but I certainly know that it’s not helping anyone to suggest that physically accosting a woman in this way is acceptable for any reason whatsoever. Never, ever. Get a grip jerk.
November 28, 2013 at 11:55 pm
Anonymous
Didn’t he also hit Rex? Why isn’t anyone concerned about that? Maybe nobody likes Rex!
November 29, 2013 at 5:53 am
Liberal Jon
“Nice strawman LJon, declaring Matt Owen MUST be commenting here anonymously and then railing against for it.” I never said must capitalized or not. I was just noticing the huge number of pale blue anons in this thread and had the thought and posted the thought.
and this…
“You attack Matthew Owen because you suspect he is posting anonymously here in blogland and he hates anonymous bloggers?”
That’s not an unfair point, I was thinking about this. The reason I did was because it was on my mind. In Matthew’s column two anonymous posters, Jim and Harlan were exchanging outing each other, so anonymity related to MO was on my mind.
As I thought more about this before posting (yes! thought. I know, right? With what I write?) I thought about the Chet Albin Facebook page. Chet, like Matt is a recent Democratic conversion (2012 for Chet). Instead of feeling comfortable in his own skin and discussing his seemingly contradictory D status and his conservative “likes” (reeeaaal conservative, not Bill Nelson conservative) he had to delete his facebook page.
That’s my concern. There is no political discussion from Matthew or Richard Marks either for that matter in the comment zone. (Yes, they are both prolific on their own platform, but, believe me that is much easier than being challenged in the comment zone outside your own turf*) I add Richard because he will be part of the Bass for Supervisor team two. Yes, I am in opposition of that team and thus biased.
And yes I do note where I took a thread based on a too-hearty old boy back slap. But when so many anons come on here with such deep knowledge of Supervisor Lovelace’s [inner struggle with anger-management] (thought of other’s put into brackets to denote that I don’t agree with it) – one starts to wonder who these anons are. I think that is a fair and natural question to ask.
Especially since winning politics from the right in HumCo means saying you are something which you are not – or hiding.**
*competition metaphor
November 29, 2013 at 7:16 am
A Thinking Liberal
You are in opposition of that team? Do you ever think before making statements? You don’t even know who will be running against her but you don’t care as long as he/she is a Democrat.
You represent everything that is wrong with our political system. It is not just that you are uninformed but you don’t care a twit about anything except electing any fool who is a Democrat.
November 29, 2013 at 9:15 am
Forest Queen
Thanks suzy for the encouragement –mentioning when an older Affidavit is posted on forestqueen2020. I thought that those who can see and will hear would appreciate actual docs. that i’ve used and am using, and/or used in pretend ‘court.’ It ain’t no secret, or i wouldn’t be so ready to put them into the public offering.
It ain’t okay what Mark Lovelace did –it’s flat out not acceptable on any level. Mark can apologize from now until, well, forever.
“Off with his head!” Duh.
It ain’t okay what Mendo’s D.A. did/does in FN changing the people’s fact from “Dismissed” to FICTION – (i) plead guilty and was TAXED (labeled fine/penalty etc.). There’s not a thing correct about it.
But then why should we expect anything else from criminals and thieves?
November 29, 2013 at 10:34 am
Liberal Jon
“You are in opposition of that team?” I am in opposition to that team, a Democratic one btw, because they will be trying to re-elect Supervisor Bass. Supervisor Bass has proven that on one of the most significant matters in the purview of a County Supervisor (I mean alone – subjects like being anti GMO or pro-choice or against homelessness are can be better addressed at different levels of government)… on those matters of significance, she has proven to be a staunch supporter of what moving backwards in terms of county land use policy. Instead of “protecting natural resources” or “protecting agriculture and timberland for the long term” Supervisor Bass has voted to add language like “honoring landowners” which is for some reason important when describing the principles contained in our county’s general plan.
So no, this …. “electing any fool who is a Democrat” is not true, in fact, it is the opposite of true, whatever you want to call it, and you are missing the point entirely. Supervisor Bass is no fool, nor are Richard or Matthew. They are all good people AND they are all Democrats, and I will be supporting whoever will run against Supervisor Bass – even from the right because at least we can defeat a conservative candidate in four years if it comes to that.
Also, for the record, I will be saying that as much as I can, because as soon as the Democrats decide to endorse Supervisor Bass – which they may, I will be restricted by our HCDCC by-laws to be mum. So it’s very important to be very clear now about why I will be voting against Supervisor Bass in June and November if necessary.
And, btw, I’m hoping for, but have no knowledge of a viable opponent from her left. Eric – anyone – who is willing and who has the sort of resume that could win should start thinking about it. PLEASE!
November 29, 2013 at 10:46 am
Anonymous
“I will be supporting whoever will run against Supervisor Bass – even from the right because at least we can defeat a conservative candidate in four years if it comes to that.”
So if Chet Albin runs against Virginia Bass, your vote will be for Chet Albin?
November 29, 2013 at 10:51 am
Anonymous
“a too-hearty old boy back slap”
So men who take out their anger on women by hitting them, should just avoid being “too hearty” in doing so?
And you call yourself a liberal? Disgusting.
November 29, 2013 at 11:19 am
Anonymous
heart·y
1.(of a person or their behavior) loudly vigorous and cheerful.
“a hearty and boisterous character”
There’s nothing “cheerful” about hitting a colleague in anger and frustration, which is clearly what Lovelace did, even by his own admission. It was an aggressive, violent gesture, not a warm, jovial one. In other words exactly the opposite of so-called “liberal” Jon’s disgusting attempt at spin-doctoring.
It’s not just that he hit her “too hard.” It’s that he shouldn’t have hit her in the first place. It was childish, unprofessional, and, yes, violent. He should be ashamed of himself, and “liberal” Jon should be equally ashamed of himself for attempting to justify and minimize the offense.
November 29, 2013 at 11:24 am
suzy blah blah
-i would love to steal the pope’s hat!
November 29, 2013 at 12:24 pm
moviedad
Yeah, yeah; not a fan of the church’s history. Not a fan of my government’s history either. But things and people progress through time. As to FQ, JB & SBB; I’m not here to hijack Erik’s thread.
And you three are total weirdos. The fact that you remain anonymous all these years while constantly posting hate, and acting like you have some authority, what a joke! Why don’t you guys come out of the closet, or just shut up.
November 29, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Liberal Jon
I am not a witness. I do have to note that the most vocal witnesses do not share a political viewpoint with Supervisor Lovelace. Here one of the most descriptive sentences from the TS reporting of what actually occurred…
“Lovelace apparently felt frustrated and slighted at the appointment, and approached Bass and 1st District Supervisor Rex Bohn after the meeting, giving them what he described as a “perhaps an exaggerated, good-old-boy slap on the back.””
and this “Reached Monday, Bass described the contact as “an extremely exaggerated slap on the back.””
I got hearty from “good ole boy” I think they may not be equivalent, but close, no?
I have always prefaced “hearty” with either “too” or “inappropriate”. Both connoting the idea that this is not a positive thing. I also first addressed this issue by linking to Richard Marks’ blog post on domestic violence indicating that violence, especially toward women is NOT OK. Whether or not this action can be understood as “hitting” which would be a violent act.
Also, someone brought this up – this also involves Supervisor Bohn too? The first quote seems to suggest this. Did he not slap both on the back? I think this is important and your narrative omits this basic point. I think his intent is changed if you focus on him slapping one woman on the back vs a slapping both people on the back at the same time.
This “so-called “liberal” Jon’s disgusting attempt at spin-doctoring.” and this ..”Jon should be equally ashamed of himself for attempting to justify and minimize the offense”. Really, disgusting, ashamed? Aren’t we taking this a little too far? and btw – it would be really nice to know who you are to understand your political persuasion too, because please be honest, there are quite clear political overtones and ambitions here. Yes?
And on the topic of spinning – “hit” also is not what happened by anyone’s account, at least according to the TS article. Hitting a man or woman would not be appropriate, and as I said, even in the Glass, Arkley case, it’s just something I’m not as interested in. (except if anyone hit Supervisor Bass or any woman – that IS different for reasons Richard Mark’s article brings up)
It’s a distraction, an event that is churned and judged and dissected for either partisan side. In both cases I cry foul. Let’s make this about policy – examples – homelessness, whether teachers should get living wages, land use, etc.
“So if Chet Albin runs against Virginia Bass, your vote will be for Chet Albin?” I might. Especially if he runs being proud of the “likes” he had on Facebook, being conservative, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, yes – because honesty and frankness count. From a tactical (or is it strategic) point of view even though I might not be as happy with some of the County’s policies over 4 years, I would consider that a staunch conservative would be eminently beatable in 2018. And I am in this for policies and direction over the long term, not this or that individual election.
So, again if the choice is between “hit” and “inappropriately hearty” according to accounts by all but the Del Norte Supervisor including Supervisor Bass, Bohn and Lovelace, I think my characterization would be closer to the mark. And no, I’m not ashamed for saying so.
And here is Virgina’s quote ”I’m certain it was nothing malicious,” she said. “It’s not good behavior, but I don’t think it was intentional.” Hitting Virginia would have been malicious and I would be with you in condemning that.
November 29, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Joe Blow
See what I mean about lies and false accusations – a physical slap in the face. I don’t think moviedad would appreciate me identifying myself to him. I might point out, scum like this guy called Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, to just name three, who were way ahead of their time, “weirdos” too. Just goes to show everyone the only thing this guy can do is focus on the individual rather on the issues – issues he so disingenuously raised. Where’s the “hate.” Show it or shut up yourself. The fact is, “we” don’t need your permission to live, think or believe, let alone post on Internet blogs – Eric’s unknown rules aside. Your post shows what you are.
November 29, 2013 at 12:48 pm
suzy blah blah
-Mdad, defender of sadistic perverts, is a good example of the blind, unquestioning, insensitive nature of the typical unthinking mass minded dolt.
November 29, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Anonymous
hit
1.
a. To come into contact with forcefully; strike:
b. To reach with or as if with a blow:
2.
a. To cause to come into contact:
b. To deal a blow to.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hit
Yes, Lovelace hit Bass and Bohn. And not in a friendly, “hearty” way, but out of anger and frustration. We both know this, Lovelace’s own words make that crystal clear. All your longwinded, desperate spin doctoring doesn’t change the facts, nor does it change the plain meaning of words like “hearty” and “hit.”
Yes, your attempt to minimize, justify, and excuse Lovelace’s inexcusable behavior is disgusting, and yes, you should be ashamed. No wonder responsible Democrats don’t want you associating your comments with the Democratic party.
November 29, 2013 at 2:25 pm
Anonymous
“Malicious” means “characterized by malice”
“Malice” means “the intention or desire to do evil”
No, I don’t think he intended or desired to “do evil.” Nobody’s saying that.
But I agree with both Eric Kirk, and Mike Sullivan, that it was “extremely inappropriate” behavior. All the more so for a public official.
If you’re upset that Lovelace’s extremely inappropriate behavior is distracting from other issues, your beef should be with Lovelace. He’s the one who embarrassed himself, first with his ridiculous behavior, and second with his weasely pseudo-apology.
November 29, 2013 at 5:23 pm
Just Watchin
Liberturd jon….why don’ t you post all of your bullshit on your own blog?
November 29, 2013 at 5:48 pm
Liberal Jon
JW. I’m afraid of not having you around to keep me in check, duh!
November 30, 2013 at 6:45 am
Liberal Jon
A127. If we use your words – carefully selected to say this.
“Supervisor Lovelace inappropriately hit Supervisor Bass.”
or
“Supervisor Lovelace maliciously hit Supervisor Bass.”
Using your preferred words, that’s a fact right? Why doesn’t the T-S print that?
Why? Because it isn’t true. Technically it is, but words have meaning when written together (ie context) that they may not on their own.
What about this sentence.
“Supervisor Lovelace slapped both Supervisor Bass and Supervisor Bohn on the back in a method he meant to convey his disapproval in a sarcastic manner. By all accounts, including his own, it was done with too much force, and inappropriately.”
Imagine yourself as an unbiased reader of the TS who wants to find out what happened. Which of the three sentences would be the most appropriate?
This ” No wonder responsible Democrats don’t want you associating your comments with the Democratic party.” Is just fun.
November 30, 2013 at 6:53 am
Liberal Jon
Sorry, malicious was not an option – just noticed that – only choice of two sentences.
November 30, 2013 at 6:56 am
Liberal Jon
But, since you are a dictionary guy/gal, this is what Google comes up with for malicious – harm not evil, there is a big difference and I think your narrative needs to emphasize that Supervisor Lovelace intended harm.
“characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.” = Google
November 30, 2013 at 9:35 am
Anon
From today’s Times-Standard:
http://www.times-standard.com/guest_opinion/ci_24628829/good-old-boy-slap-back-no
November 30, 2013 at 10:01 am
Eric Kirk
That is quite the op-ed!
November 30, 2013 at 10:43 am
Anonymous
From a reading of the referenced County Policy in today’s Times Standard article it would certainly appear that the County is required to conduct an investigation and file any applicable charges. If Bass did indeed have her existing shoulder injury reinjured or exacerbated by Lovelace’s shove (or whatever it was) then I think he could be subject to criminal prosecution. Even Mark admitted the incident was no accident and I’m pretty sure if you intentionally do something that causes injury to someone it’s called battery. The fact that he didn’t intend to hurt her doesn’t matter, his act was intentional and any reasonable person (or Judge) would find that if you sneak up behind someone and push, shove, or hit them that your action could reasonably inflict injury.
Does Bass have to file the charges or does the County?
November 30, 2013 at 11:27 am
Janelle Egger
It is a well written op-ed. Her analogy ignores one type of case that comes up now and then; I wonder her approach as prosecutor when a victim becomes so desperate that s/he fights back, which to be successful often means it is premeditated.
I think a better analogy is bullying, “The term bullying is typically used to refer to behavior that occurs between school-aged kids. However, adults can be repeatedly aggressive and use power over each other, too. Adults in the workplace have a number of different laws that apply to them that do not apply to kids.”
Here is the definition, as it applies to kids:
“In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive and include:
An Imbalance of Power: Kids who bully use their power—such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, or popularity—to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people.
Repetition: Bullying behaviors happen more than once or have the potential to happen more than once.
Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose.”
“Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.”
http://www.stopbullying.gov/what-is-bullying/index.html
November 30, 2013 at 11:55 am
suzy blah blah
-bullying is premeditated. As well as being repetitive. To me this looks like a different sort of behavioral problem. I think this is more like an act of passion that occurred due to Lovelace’s anger, jealousy, and frustration. If he can’t control his emotions, what else can’t he manage?
November 30, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Anonymous
Not bad. unfortunately that wording implies that perhaps there is some proper amount of force and some appropriate way in which one can “convey disapproval” to one’s colleagues by striking them. There is not.
Again, it’s basic Anger Management 101: Just because you are upset with someone, you do not get to express that by striking them. No hitting, no shoving, no slapping — not even on the back.
The fact that Lovelave’s “apology” indicated that he believes that it’s just a matter of how hard you hit the person as you sarcastically “convey your disapproval,” and on what part of their body you strike them as you do so, demonstrates that he is very much in need of some kind of basic Anger Management training.
I can guarantee you that no domestic violence counselor, or workplace violence expert, or anger management trainer/counselor, is going to endorse there being some special exception where an “exaggerated, sarcastic good-old-boy backslap” becomes an acceptable way of “conveying your disapproval” to a spouse or a colleague — and that’s true regardless of exactly how forceful the blow was. The fact that it was apparently quite forceful (enough to send her stumbling forward several steps, and enough to exacerbate her shoulder injury, enough that she described the blow as an “extremely exaggerated” one) does make it worse, but despite the impression Lovelace seemed to be trying for in his “apology” even if it had been somewhat less forceful, that still wouldn’t have made it O.K.
It was inappropriate, unprofessional, and unacceptable, regardless of exactly how hard the blow was, and notwithstanding his lame, attempted-ass-covering, dogwhistling-to-his-base “good-old-boy” excuse.
Hopefully his e-mailed apology to Bass was less self-justifying, qualified, and excuse-laden than what appeared in the paper. Either way, it’s Bass’s prerogative to accept his apology, and it sounds like she has. Kudos to her for being forgiving.
But that doesn’t change what he owes to the people of Humboldt County: A straightforward, no-excuses apology for his misbehavior — one that indicates that he actually understands where he crossed the line, which was not just that he struck her “too hard” in order to convey his disapproval, but that he struck at all for that purpose.
November 30, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Anonymous
Mark’s verbal aggressiveness around the office and community is well known and well documented. I don’t know if that is symptomatic of bullying or not but it certainly adds another concern to the list.
November 30, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Joe Blow
What do we call this sickness? AntiMarkism?
November 30, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Eric Kirk
Does Bass have to file the charges or does the County?
Virginia would have to file a complaint with the San Jose police or Santa Clara District Attorney.
November 30, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Anonymous
“Virginia would have to file a complaint with the San Jose police or Santa Clara District Attorney.”
That makes a lot of sense for criminal battery charges but what about violations of the Humboldt Workplace Violence rules that Jackson quoted in the Times Standard article?
November 30, 2013 at 4:09 pm
Anonymous
I agree with suzy blah blah that the behavior described doesn’t really seem to fit the definition of “bullying.” More like a strangely out-of-proportion emotional response to not getting his way, combined with a serious failure of impulse control and/or lack of coping skills. Anger Management counseling might be able to at least help with the latter.
November 30, 2013 at 4:19 pm
Eric Kirk
Yeah, as someone who was victim of some severe bullying as a kid, I don’t really see it that way either. What Mark did was offensive and wrong, but bullying doesn’t come from a moment of passion. It’s a cold calculated thing.
November 30, 2013 at 4:28 pm
Liberal Jon
This whole thing is a rorschach test to me at this point. People, including, very clearly, Ms. Jackson (and me) are taking partisan sides of this issue. I think the most important point to make is we know so little. I think what we do know comes, it must be said, from decidedly partisan sources. Again, if my sentence isn’t fair anon 1254, what would be fair and neutral? Ms Allison seems ready to prosecute, with a very specific narrative at the ready, as, btw so do all the anonymouses in this thread.
Again, Ms Jackson misses this point too. If this is an example of “violence” – a word she uses 20 times – is is also an example of violence on Supervisor Bohn? Why not? And what about Supervisor Bass’ opinion that it was not intentionally malicious, and as an anonymous noted accidently, that means it was not intentionally harmful. If Supervisor Bass changes her tune on this, and she should feel free to do so, as intentional harmful then the whole conversation incident changes shape – toward the narrative advocated by Ms. Jackson. But what if it was frustration based, and it was less than appropriate, but it was within the limits allowed by…say being human. I think that is the question to ask. Why and how can this clearly be defined as going over that threshold of violence, and why is this true only for Supervisor Bass. Would it have been true if she already didn’t have an injury?
And back to the tired meme about partisanship. Isn’t clear to everyone here that this entire blog conversation is so clearly tainted by partisanship? Are we to just know this and then not talk about it?
Take San Diego’s mayor. The guy was a serial harasser and a ***hole and, yes a Democrat, and he deserved to go. That was an example of an event that is beyond partisanship – that is right and wrong and he was clearly wrong. This event or incident is momentary in nature (not an excuse, many momentary incidents have consequences) and what it illustrates is how we are biased by our prejudices. This could be a serious incident or it could be a case of excessive emotion expressed inappropriately – yes a physical touch could be acceptable even if inappropriate. The 3 people who know what happened are Rex, Mark and Virginia and they are the ones along with any witnesses who can be the judge of if inappropriate, if it was still acceptable. It’s pretty much up to them to figure out what happened (or to take the incident through the appropriate channels), and for us to chat and chat about it. We’ll see. What I’d like to see more of is people like Ms Jackson putting a name behind her opinions. Yes then we can trade accusations of partisanship, but we are human and we are all prejudiced and that is obviously part of the story too. (but still 20 “violences”? I think we get your point and your bias!)
November 30, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Anonymous
In most corporate or government workplace settings, what would normally happen in this kind of situation is that as soon as the incident came to the attention of a supervisor, that supervisor would be responsible for immediately reporting it to Human Resources, who would begin a formal process to address the situation. If, in the end, the offending employee was deemed to have behaved in a seriously unprofessional and inappropriate way, then depending on the severity of the incident, the eventual outcome could be a written reprimand, or the employer could require the offending party to attend in-house training or outside counseling to address the relevant behavior, or, if deemed severe enough, the offending employee could be suspended, demoted, or even fired.
Of course the difference in this case is that the offending employee is an elected official, which means that nobody can “fire” them, other than the voters (or in certain cases, a judge). Nobody can suspend them or demote them, and unless I’m mistaken, no one can require them to get counseling or anything like that. So even if there’s an internal administrative process within the county bureaucracy, it seems like it would be bound to be a fairly toothless one. Human Resources could maybe gum you a little.
November 30, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Anonymous
Oh, so now it was a “non-violent” angry, frustrated, disapproval-conveying exaggerated, sarcastic too-hearty good-old-boy slap? Well O.K. then.
November 30, 2013 at 7:28 pm
Anonymous
“And” not “or.” It’s clearly both.
I don’t think that he intended to injure her, but without question he did intentionally hit her, apparently to “convey his disapproval in a sarcastic manner” (your words). He willfully applied force and made unwanted physical contact, in an angry and rude way.
So it looks like his actions were plenty violent to qualify as misdemeanor assault and battery, if she had chosen to pursue the matter that way. Lucky for him, she hasn’t.
California Penal Code 242 — Battery. (“Battery defined. A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.”)
Judicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction 960 — Simple battery. (“The slightest touching can be enough to commit a battery if it is done in a rude or angry way.”)
http://www.shouselaw.com/battery.html
Go ahead and check out the elements of the crimes of Assault and Battery, and the possible defenses against those charges, in the chart on that web page. I think you’ll find that even by Mark’s own account, his behavior quite clearly fits the definition of Assault and Battery, and you’ll also see that none of the defenses listed there would apply. Note that, shockingly, there is no “exaggerated, sarcastic good-old-boy backslap” exception.
Oh, and before you waste your time, no, you don’t have to injure someone, or even intend to injure someone, in order to be convicted of battery.
November 30, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Anonymous
“could be acceptable, even if inappropriate”
Attempting to lower the bar, while simultaneously splitting hairs. Now that’s some ambitious spin-doctoring.
December 1, 2013 at 7:44 am
Anonymous
Pols slap each other on the back all the time. If Bohn had slapped Virginia on the back no one would have even noticed.
December 1, 2013 at 8:25 am
Liberal Jon
Anon – see if you can come up with a neutral sentence that takes both versions – Supervisor Bass’ and Supervisor Lovelace’s into account. I going to guess that Del Norte Supervisor Michael Sullivan isn’t a disinterested witness. I do discount his version and I do take Supervisor Bass’s version as the gold standard – even if she changes it. To be fair, I think the fact that both Supervisor Bohn and Supervisor Bass were slapped on the back is critical to a fair version of what occurred. This little fact is for some reason downplayed by those ready to send Supervisor Lovelace to an anger management class, and/or prosecute him for violence in the workplace. I”m not entirely sure why it’s not mentioned, but it’s avoidance is interesting to me.
I have done my best to remove spin in my descriptions of the incident as requested by anons. It seems the only benefit to that was to leave the spin that sets up this narrative. Here is my sentence based on the TS article again…
“Supervisor Lovelace slapped both Supervisor Bass and Supervisor Bohn on the back in a method he meant to convey his disapproval in a sarcastic manner. By all accounts, including his own, it was done with too much force, and inappropriately.”
I think that is entirely fair based on what we know. Still. What would your non-spin sentence be?
Also this…
“Mark’s verbal aggressiveness around the office and community is well known and well documented”
If this is true, whoever is saying whatever might want to back this up. I can’t find any such evidence using Google, so instead of a blanket statement, it would be nice for the Anon’s coming in here could back up these damning narratives they are so certain of.
And yes… Oh, so now it was a “non-violent” angry, frustrated, disapproval-conveying exaggerated, sarcastic too-hearty good-old-boy slap?. You and I were not there, so I think all this, even if complex is better than the simple, but not accurate at this point, “hit”, “strike”, or “violence”. And a final point, if you use those words, would they also apply to Supervisor Bohn? Is an equal “slap” or “hit” a “slap” on Supervisor Bohn’s back but a “hit” and Supervisor Bass’s. And does that imply that Supervisors Lovelace’s action is described differently depending on if the recipient (or victim probably in your view) is a male or female?
December 1, 2013 at 9:23 am
Anonymous
liberal jon,
you are not supposed to hit or slap anybody. especially at work out of frustration. the mental gymnastics you are going through to change this into something that is OK is amazing. it is also exactly what allison jackson wrote at the end of the article. why are you discounting the comments from the del norte guy? because you disagree with him.
amazing.
December 1, 2013 at 9:41 am
suzy blah blah
-Jon, i have a private question for you:
suzyblahblah@gmail.com
December 1, 2013 at 9:56 am
Anonymous
“Mark’s verbal aggressiveness around the office and community is well known and well documented”
“…If this is true, whoever is saying whatever might want to back this up. I can’t find any such evidence using Google, so instead of a blanket statement, it would be nice for the Anon’s coming in here could back up these damning narratives they are so certain of…”
Unquestionably, as part of the investigation that the County’s own rules require, staff in the Supervisors office will be interviewed. Those interviews will conclusively show a very clear and very regular pattern that when Mark doesn’t get his way in a meeting or vote that he petulantly stomps around the office slinging f-bombs and tossing notebooks. His tantrums are famous. Until this latest incident I haven’t specifically heard about physical abuse but it certainly seems like a natural progression of unchecked anger.
BTW, Did you really expect to Google “Lovelace” and have a Utube pop up showing Mark kicking his dog? Do you actually believe that if Google doesn’t have it that it never happened? Please consider arguments that actually make sense. After reading through many of your posts I suggest that you might want to slow down a bit and let your brain catch up with your fingers. You seem like you might be a smart, articulate guy but you often seem to be speaking before thinking, which gives your comments a lot less credibility then they would otherwise receive. Just a thought.
December 1, 2013 at 10:04 am
bolithio
Regardless, this is the shit that looses you elections. Emotions are not a politicians friend.
December 1, 2013 at 10:22 am
Anonymous
“Regardless, this is the shit that looses you elections. Emotions are not a politicians friend.”
Agreed, even in the Third District I don’t think that regardless of the circumstances, that you can hit girls and be reelected. That’s assuming that this whole mess doesn’t continue to grow legs and result in Lovelace’s early departure from office.
So…. who will the progressive Arcata crowd choose to replace Mark in the next election?
I’m sure Brinton wants it but seriously. How about Wilson, Wheatly, or Meserve? Maybe Lehman want to consider a race he actually has a chance at?
December 1, 2013 at 11:56 am
Janelle Egger
Suzy and Eric, Agreed, the act of bullying can be summed up as repeatedly aggressive use of power. That power need not be physical power and people may both be bullied and bully others or they may witness others being bullied.
I see Mark’s action as a response to what he might have perceived as bullying by the majority on the Board. To paraphrase Ecobolius @ Nov 28, 8:14am: Has anybody been paying attention to the board of supervisors meetings, particularly the Monday meetings? They have been fairly difficult at times for Mark.
As for this incident, I could imagine Mark felt fairly blindsided; it seems he had no idea Virginia would ‘challenge’ him and the kicker is that it seems he had a ‘chance’ to say he was opposed to Virginia stepping forward to serve as co-chair and didn’t speak up. I imagine he wisely refrained from saying what was going through his head at that moment.
Was there a planned coup to unseat Mark in this Coastal County Regional Association? Anonymous, Nov 27 at 10:07am quotes from John Chives’ blog, whose “neutral source” Sullivan made the motion to appoint Virginia because Mark didn’t say anything. The source was then standing there talking to Virginia and Rex when Mark decided to give them a sarcastic thank you and slap on the back. This man, a Del Norte Supervisor, was quoted in the TS as saying, “It was excessive and extremely inappropriate, if it had been me I probably would have hit him.”
By comparison Rex and Virginia’s responses to the incident are more appropriate than Supervisor Sullivan’s hypothetical response. Rex and Mark had a “heated exchange” and Virginia and Mark had lunch.
According to the discussion on the Watch Paul blog, no one was much interested in talking about what happened when anonymous posts appeared on blogs. Now, according to the TS, Virginia has said she didn’t mean any harm by volunteering to take over. Lovelace has apologized for letting his frustrations get the better of him. And Rex has reminded all that policy disagreements don’t have to be personal. (Thanks for reminding us that who sits in what seats effects policy.)
Mark should be used to blindsiding by now. There was Rex /Estelle’s move to change the Guiding Principles and Virginia/Ryan’s rework of Guiding Principle 4 (or 5?) using the Arcata letter. But this predates the Board personnel changes. Back in 2011 they all knew there was a cancelled movement against Occupy at the end of October, but Mark was out of the loop and heard about the November 7 raid through emails from the public. Then in March 2012 no one bothered to say a thing as he announced at the Board meeting that there was no ordinance, the vote only direct staff to draft language. The next day those listening to the Shop Talk radio program learned it would be on the next meeting’s agenda and that it was an urgency ordinance, which meant it would go into effect immediately.
Maybe Mark is just catching on that this is the norm, or maybe when it was Clendenen and Smith moving and shaking he could forgive more easily.
I honestly don’t see any of the former of current Board as evil people out to bully each other, but the system allows and even rewards bullying behaviors.
December 1, 2013 at 12:09 pm
Anonymous
Ah Jenelle, now I understand. It’s okay to push women around and throw tantrums if you don’t like changes in local politics. I guess I had totally misunderstood my parents when they told me that responsible adults need to control their tempers and that it’s never okay to hit girls. If I only knew it was different when I didn’t get my way….
December 1, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Anonymous
Janelle’s response is typical of many of the progressive responses here – Mark is actually the “bullied” person here, because he is frustrated being on the losing end of most votes lately.
This view completely discounts the fact that this is what the voters chose. Don’t like it? Too bad; you’ll get another chance to vote Virginia and Ryan out in November 2014. Janelle, take a look inward and realize that you are completely discounting the will of the majority of voters, simply because you disagree with them.
December 1, 2013 at 1:16 pm
Liberal Jon
See where this is headed?
“that you can hit girls and be reelected.” -or this-
I guess I had totally misunderstood my parents when they told me that responsible adults need to control their tempers and that it’s never okay to hit girls.
That is the goal here. If you can say “hit” you can use sentences like the above.
Thank you anon with the purple gravitar for making my point for me.
Oh, and then there is this…
“Unquestionably, as part of the investigation that the County’s own rules require, staff in the Supervisors office will be interviewed. Those interviews will conclusively show a very clear and very regular pattern that when Mark doesn’t get his way in a meeting or vote that he petulantly stomps around the office slinging f-bombs and tossing notebooks. His tantrums are famous. Until this latest incident I haven’t specifically heard about physical abuse but it certainly seems like a natural progression of unchecked anger.”
This is a new tune before it was this from the purple anon again. “Mark’s verbal aggressiveness around the office and community is well known and well documented.” – note the “well documented”. I guess that mean “well documented – soon – after we get the investigation we want and need to prove our point.”
This person obviously has been dying to be able to say this. Before. I’m not excusing and I’m not defending. If Supervisor Bass considers this incident reportable to either county administrators or to the San Jose Police as Eric mentioned, then I will shut my mouth and let the legal system or internal county employee policies take their course. Until then I think it is very important to understand what people are saying. Words do have meaning and words like “hit”, “strike”, “physical abuse” and I didn’t notice until now, “slap” without “on the back” or “violence” are gold to political opponents of Supervisor Lovelace. I’m just saying.
And yes, I notice that the challenge of writing a neutral sentence from those who prefer the more dramatic language and prefer missing the important point that Supervisor Bohn was not “physically abused”. That sentence would not have the same political impact would it? Supervisor Lovelace “physically abused” Supervisor Bohn? How? With an inappropriate and exaggeratedly forceful slap on the back? Huh?
Google is very good at linking to incidents that, for example, the Times Standard or NCJ will report. Again, this seems like political opportunism and the second sentence of this comment is the goal. It’s pretty clear if you pay close attention – especially to the precise use of the English language. Unfortunately most people don’t have the time or interest to pay close attention, that’s why these tactics work.
And again, I need to continually emphasize this, my comments are based on Supervisor Bass’ quote from the TS ”I’m certain it was nothing malicious. It’s not good behavior, but I don’t think it was intentional.” If she changes that, then I will change my opinion on the matter. Like I said, her opinion of what happen is the most important. Not a Del Norte Supervisor’s opinion, not Ms. Jackson’s, and not anonymous bloggers.
December 1, 2013 at 1:23 pm
suzy blah blah
-thanks for clarifying, i see your point now Janelle. At first i mistakenly thought it was Mark’s behavior that you were describing as “bullying.”
December 1, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Anonymous
I doubt this will have much impact on Lovelace’s re-election chances. If the victims had chosen to press charges, the story would definitely have legs. Since they didn’t, it probably won’t.
Most of his supporters reside entirely within the hermetically-sealed Arcata Opinion Bubble, where Lovelace allies Patrick Cleary and Hank Sims of the Lost Coast Outpost, Judy Hodgson of the North Coast Journal, and Kevin Hoover of the Mad River Union have all circled the wagons in defense of their hero, and declined to do any reporting on this incident. If ongoing developments force them to do any reporting on this at all it will almost certainly take the form of snarky pseudo-editorializing disguised as reporting and will be as protective of and favorable towards Lovelace as they can possible manage.
If his political opponents bring up the issue during the next election campaign, the LoCO, NCJ, and MRU will rally to his defense, dismissing the incident as “old news.” If they cover it at all, it will be to portray Lovelace as an innocent victim of “dirty politics” and “mudslinging.”
Other than the one article and one op-ed in the Times-Standard, there has been no coverage in the local media, just a couple of posts on obscure political blogs like this one. So most of his constituents probably haven’t even heard about the incident, and those who have are mostly those who pay close attention to local politics and already have strong opinions about Lovelace, one way or the other. His opponents already opposed him, and as this thread so clearly shows, his base supporters will twist themselves into whatever ridiculous rhetorical and ethical pretzels they need to in order to deny or justify his misbehavior. As far as they’re concerned, the real story here is that poor little Mark bravely stood up to the “bullying” by those awful meanies who so unfairly took away the co-chairmanship of this committee that rightfully belonged to him…and all the rest is just an horribly unfair smear campaign based on a deliberate mischaracterization of what was really just a friendly “pat on the back.” With his base intact, and most potential swing voters kept in the dark, or spun by friendly media treatment, I just don’t see this costing him all that many votes.
So assuming he can manage to keep his hands to himself in the future, I don’t think his electoral chances in the 3rd district will be impacted very much. I suppose if he were involved in a very close race, it might make a difference in the outcome.
December 1, 2013 at 2:14 pm
Anonymous
Where it might make a very big difference, however, is if he has/had any ambitions to run for higher office, like the state legislature (and I have no idea if he did/does or not). But I’m pretty sure that the Democratic movers and shakers who provide endorsements, help raise money, and so on, would take a hard look at this incident, and the phrases that would inevitably come up would be “potentially emotionally unstable” and “not ready for prime time.” Of course they won’t admit that publicly, but privately, that’s what they’d be saying. Possibly already are.
At that level of politics, and outside the safety of the Arcata Opinion Bubble where his media-owning allies can protect him with friendly coverage (or lack of coverage), nobody’s going to want to take a chance on a guy who lost his cool, threw a tantrum, and physically assaulted his colleagues over some committee co-chairmanship. Too much chance that he’d snap again at some point, embarrassing the party, the endorsers, etc.
Again, I have no idea if he was or is interested in a run for the state legislature. But I think if he had been, he might have been a credible contender. But now…almost certainly not. So in my view, this incident could have little impact on his political future, or a lot of impact — mostly depending on whether his political ambitions extend beyond the role of 3rd district Supervisor.
December 1, 2013 at 3:11 pm
Anon
I’m not sure that Anonymous analysis is exactly correct. I think it is far from certain where the Counties internal investigation will lead. If it turns out, as it has been stated, that Mark has a history of losing his temper around the office then I think we might well see Bass and/or Bohn file charges. I don’t think that either one of them wants it on their conscious if Mark were to hurt someone else sometime in the future and they could have stopped it. They also have a clear obligation not to tolerate from a colleague what they wouldn’t from a subordinate. They, personally might not want to press the issue but as bosses and officials they might see a social obligation to take action. I’m holding off on predictions until there is more information.
December 1, 2013 at 3:49 pm
Forest Queen
(Time lapse due to not-available Internet connection.) –
moviedad/anonymous,
I have one magnet pix. on my frig., it’s a pix of a dog and he’s saying; “My name is No-No Bad Dog. What’s yours?” I don’t suppose you see the humor in that? “What’s your dog’s name?” “I don’t know but we call her Daisy.”
“Acting like you have some authority.” Authority is granted by the people to elected officials. Maybe you want to pick another word?
“Come out of the closet,” says moviedad. Distraction that has been discussed in here at least 6 times in the past 12 months. Barry Soetoro a/k/a OKenya a/k/a Obama. Samuel Clemens a/k/a Mark Twain to name two.
What is it you’re trying to say?
December 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Anonymous
Anon 3:11 makes a good point. If an internal investigation turns up a pattern of misbehavior, and/or someone files charges, it could become impossible to sweep this under the rug. We’ll see what happens.
December 1, 2013 at 4:52 pm
Eric Kirk
So far the only source for the claim that Mark “loses his temper around the office” is coming from someone refusing to put a name to the claim.
December 1, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Anonymous
“So far the only source for the claim that Mark “loses his temper around the office” is coming from someone refusing to put a name to the claim.”
Eric, You are absolutely correct. While there have been rumors about Mark’s office tantrums for several years. The staff in the Supervisors office are appropriately trained to keep mum. Now it’s different. Now they will be interviewed and will presumably tell the truth, whatever it is. Do you agree that if staff reports that Mark loses his temper, throws F-bombs, papers and notebooks then this would at least be part of substantiating a pattern? I assume that as an attorney it wouldn’t be welcome news to have a client accused of assault and battery be shown to have regular control issues?
December 1, 2013 at 6:03 pm
Forest Queen
Janelle, ~was that chastising of me to state that the firing of Police Chiefs happened all over CA. INC? Whatever is happening “in the news” here is also being applied (at least) STATE-wide. That’s a no-brainer. Occupy L.A. and Occupy Oakland were also without filled Chief of Police positions on Nov. 7, 2011 at 3:00 a.m. Coincidence? I think not. ‘Civil’ court –there’s nothing civil about the Police STATE beating on any one of the people. You say that; “courts can only award money.” Courts also put persons behind bars. Going to a STATE Administration-ship expecting a just remedy for a STATE employee’s actions, ain’t gonna happen. That’s like the fox guarding the henhouse approach. Eric’s 2 ½ ¢: ‘Bass would have to file a complaint with the San Jose Police Dept. or the Santa Clara D.A.’
Yeah, I can see how the Policy Police would/could provide remedy. Not! D.A.’s exist to convict (real criminals), even tho they are incompetent fact witnesses, i.e., they weren’t at the scene of the injury. “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges” ~ we can take care of our own. For remedy; Complaints are filed into the Public at the Court File Clerk’s window. Anything less is just bunk. We are under a monarchy –what would make you think any different? The Revolution? LOL ~history written by the assassins. Nothing changed ~same story, different day. All wars are banker’s wars. Constitutioner –one who signs for another’s debt –Black’s Dictionary. The Constitution was evidence of the debt. Hence, Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Patrick Henry among many others, refused to sign the Federal Constitution. Patrick Henry stated that, ‘he smelt a rat.’ When the debt wasn’t paid by 1811, the Brits. arrived in The War of 1812 and burned the White House to the ground, destroying records of the 13th Article in the Bill of Rights –titles of nobility, and they took control of the Courts –collateral for the debt. $ British monarchy –millennias of inbred, insane, psychopaths.
Common law is common sense. Common law is not Commerce. It originates from a higher jurisdiction than man’s laws. The Constitution is based on common law. They want us to accept the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. ‘Law’ is a shared perception . . . it implies morality. The law does not operate on paper, particularly whenever the law is based on Nature. What is written on paper is merely a Statement of the Law. There are no benefit (jail)/privileges ($) at common law. Acquitted, you go free of the charges. Guilty, you hang. No BAR members are allowed in a common law trial unless testifying (picture a lawyer taking an oath to tell the truth –rofl!). It does appear Janelle, that you’re tossing words around based on old programming, minus any homework. Repeating a mantra that is a partial truth, keeps the masses hypnotized and causes communication break-down. When you use the words, sovereign, amendment, Sea Merchant Rule, common law, Civil Rights, Civil and Criminal courts –grouping them together as some sort of (imagined) power, I can’t make any sense of what you say.
No one can take away your rights without your consent. If you don’t know your rights, then you don’t have any. Let’s see, speech, right to bear arms, state’s rights, probable cause, due process, right to travel, created equal, taxes spread equally on cigs, petrol, alcohol, feds provide post offices, post roads, magazines and forts. Not there: TAXES labeled, license, permits, fees, penalties, income, social security, health care, estate, insurance, sales, re-sale, etc.
So when you say the words ‘Civil Rights” what terms are you applying and why? If you’re separating the 13th and 14th Articles in the Bill of Rights because they were an issue in the 1950’s and 1960’s labeled Civil Rights –then I don’t get it. What do you believe the 13th Article is –legally? Who did the 14th Article apply to and why? Was it legally ratified? “Battling for Civil Rights.” Huh? We don’t have to fight to be free. We just have to refuse to serve.
“If QUEENoftheforest so proclaims, it must be true.” The CAPS NAME slur that ricocheted . .. truth is an opinion. . . and you don’t know my truth Janelle. What would be my motive to lie? I am not in commerce. I have no lie ability.
Next: what’s the difference between a crime, an offense, and a code violation? How do you distinguish theft from taxation?
December 1, 2013 at 6:03 pm
Forest Queen
liberalJon, Why would you ever admit to being a Liberal, or whatever label fits your fancy at the time? Why not living man that is human? You weren’t born a (fill-in the blank), so why say you are one now? Don’t you get it?
December 1, 2013 at 6:31 pm
Joe Blow
Forest Queen asks of moviedad: “What is it you’re trying to say?” He’s trying to say the only way he know how. My name is, “No, No, Bad Dog.”
December 1, 2013 at 6:54 pm
Anonymous
Yes, as a matter of fact, words DO have meanings, and most people are able to understand the meaning of these words quite well, despite your ambitious attempts at obfuscation.
For example, “slap” simply means to “hit” with an open hand, as opposed to, for example, a clenched fist. This is true whether you hit someone with an open hand on their back, or on their cheek, or “upside the head.” Yes, all things being equal, some slaps are generally considered more offensive than others, and a “back-slap” could be entirely inoffensive, if done in a friendly, non-angry, non-rude way. Unfortunately for all involved, that was clearly not the case in this instance.
By the way, the words “assault” and “battery” also have meanings. As a matter of fact, they have specific legal definitions, which turn out to be quite simple and straightforward. Lovelace’s behavior, even by his own description, appears to easily meet these definitions. That is true whether the victim believes that the assault was intended to cause her a physical injury or not, it’s true whether the victim perceived the assault as malicious, or “merely” obnoxious, it’s true regardless of exactly how forceful the blow was, it’s true regardless of what part of the body was struck, and remains true whether the victim chooses to report it as a crime or not.
Many assault and battery cases are not reported — probably the great majority of domestic abuse cases, and I would suspect a very large portion of workplace violence incidents as well. That doesn’t make the perpetrator on any of those cases any less culpable or their behavior any more acceptable in a civil society.
Usually, though, if an incident is not reported to authorities, few people other than the victim and a few friends or family members ever become aware of the perpetrator’s misbehavior. What’s different about this case is that (1) it was reported in the newspaper, (2) both the perpetrator and victims are elected officials, and (3) even the perpetrator’s own description of his actions appears to easily meet the definition of the crime.
All the desperate damage control spin in the world won’t change the fact that slapping is a form of hitting (striking, applying force to another), and intentionally hitting (striking, applying force to) someone in a rude or angry way — on their back, or any other part of their body — is called assault and battery.
The problem Lovelace’s spin-doctors are having here is not that this situation is complicated and murky, it’s that the situation is actually quite simple and clear-cut: Lovelace was mad. He took out his anger on his colleagues by hitting them. That is assault and battery. Since the assault and battery took place in the workplace, it is an instance of workplace violence. As such, it should be treated as such.
December 1, 2013 at 7:27 pm
Liberal Jon
I was born a liberal FQ. I think we all were. Being a liberal, or a small d democratic simply means we look out for eachother. Yes, if all else fails including friends, family and church/synagogue/masjid, then government should be there to help.
And in threads like this being up front about ones position I think is handy, and it’s something I would like to do my tiny bit to make it OK to be a liberal in public (or Democrat).
But it a good question, and it has been the most challenging one to answer as it relates to the partisan/nonpartisan debate.
December 1, 2013 at 7:36 pm
Anonymous
If “violence against one woman is violence against all women” is it also true that violence against one man is violence against all men? And therefore equally worse?
December 1, 2013 at 8:05 pm
suzy blah blah
-i don’t know about being born liberal, but you are free til you’re four or five years old. At that time your freedom starts being taken from you as you begin to be manipulated and pushed into areas. You are analyzed and labeled. Eventually you loose any freedom you had unless you fight to retain it, at least some of it, and then try to let that grow and mature. But most folks can’t do that under conditions and pressure that encourages them to do the opposite. So they become consumers of mass culture, get the house the car the marriage the kids and go to a job to gain highly valued money which enables them to be one of the good consumer/citizens.
And you are praised for it, LOL. You’re doing something good, being a good contributor to the free society. And that means you are free too, see? You’re part of the team. But what is not mentioned is that –there’s no life in it, it’s boring, it’s very very boring. But by this time you don’t know anything else so you have to do it. And like the great majority of people you are caught in it and have been molded and formed into what you’re supposed to be.
If you have lost your individuality you are not free. Yet everywhere you turn, you see people falling for the line, “you have an opportunity to be a winner” (sound of the crowd cheering). “And then you will really be free!”
Except your real freedom was taken away long ago … your freedom to know and explore who you are as an individual, unique, self. Your knowledge of who you really are is lost. You attempt to cure that loneliness of not knowing yourself by looking to a world full of other non-individuals. You stand in the midst of people talking about their fears and anxieties, especially their biggest fear, that they aren’t going to become a big winner (they know the odds) so that everybody will love them and they won’t be lonely.
December 1, 2013 at 8:53 pm
Joe Blow
Jon has proven himself to be about as free as a slug. Touch a little salt, you know what the Holy Bible says about salt? “Salt of the Earth.” Well slugs wither up and die when touched by salt. Problem is for them, like Jon, they don’t realize what’s happened to them until it’s way too late. Sorry Jon.
December 2, 2013 at 12:34 am
John Q. Adams
We always had bullying in politics and I settled it like a man with 100 duels! But, this was a last resort after months of heartfelt and bitter public debates that kept citizens informed.
Despite being inundated by “smart phones”, televisions, radios, magazines, movies, and newspapers, when’s the last time you were informed by passionate debate on issues of importance in your community by your elected representatives and their critics?
No wonder your cities and county are run by developer-sycophants. The public is forced to search the blogs for relevant debate amid second-hand innuendo posted by teenagers and freshmen practicing their parent’s prejudices.
The more a political environment is corrupt, the more it resembles the era of kings and queens….where citizens can expect to be denied ANY kind of public debate, large or small, in the interest of maintaining harmony, (for those that count). Everyone else had better damn-well stay constructive, positive, and compromising if you want a seat at the table to be heard.
December 2, 2013 at 5:42 am
Liberal Jon
“Yes, as a matter of fact, words DO have meanings, and most people are able to understand the meaning of these words quite well, despite your ambitious attempts at obfuscation.”
Like this…
that you can hit girls and be reelected.”
-or this-
I guess I had totally misunderstood my parents when they told me that responsible adults need to control their tempers and that it’s never okay to hit girls.
Is that the type of meaning you mean? Most people do understand that, but that would be a misunderstanding of what happened. Supervisor Lovelace hit Supervisor Bass is technically true, but saying that removes all the necessary context. Context which is complicated. Context which may seem like obfuscation to you because your narrative (and possibly objective) is so clear. Your narrative must include of course this “Mark’s verbal aggressiveness around the office and community is well known and well documented”, which when pressed turns out not to be well documented, and is well known apparently to you and this incident is a swell soap box for you and others to use to make your grievances known and it has to be said over and over – anonymously.
Words make up a narrative and that is what you are doing – parsing words to create a narrative (ie spin). The narrative has clear goals that may not be obvious to most and I will allow for the fact that even you don’t know you are doing this.
The narratives goal?
The goal is to use this acknowledge inappropriately forceful slap on the back directed, (I’m assuming because we still don’t have a clear picture of what happened) simultaneously to both Supervisors Bass and Bohn… use this to build a case that anger is a problem with Supervisor Lovelace. If that meme becomes part of the political dialog of the county, well the political discussion about policy shifts too.
The only difference between this and what we are doing right now right here is of type not kind.
December 2, 2013 at 6:04 am
Liberal Jon
oops, should be a difference of kind, not type. -not- type not kind. Doh!
December 2, 2013 at 10:17 am
Joe Blow
LJon says “oops, should be a difference of kind, not type. -not- type not kind. Doh!”
Is this not a perfect example of someone that lives completely within the realms of his own mind, totally devoid of his present reality?
December 2, 2013 at 10:25 am
Joe Blow
Suzy says: “If you have lost your individuality you are not free.”
By definition you are a slave or enslaved.
But then Suzy, how can you lose something you never possessed?
December 2, 2013 at 11:06 am
suzy blah blah
-you’re right Joe. Let me rephrase it so, “if you’ve lost any chance of becoming an individual, you can’t be free”
December 2, 2013 at 11:40 am
Anonymous
Liberal Jon,
FYI, none of the quotes you used in your 5:42 comment were from me, except the very first one (“Yes, as a matter of fact, words DO have meanings…”). Since I am posting anonymously, I can understand why you made the assumption that you did, and went off in the direction you did. Now that this has been clarified, feel free to respond (or not) to the following points:
Slapping is a form of hitting. Specifically it means hitting with an open hand. It is not O.K. for someone to deliberately hit their colleague in anger, on any part of their body, including their back. Not with an open hand, not with a closed hand.
The fact that the blow was an open handed slap to the back, as opposed to, say, a closed-fisted punch in the mouth, certainly makes it a less severe assault and battery, but it doesn’t make it something other than an assault and battery. The difference is one of degree, not of kind
The fundamental facts are these: He was angry at his colleagues. He took out his anger on his colleagues by hitting them. That is assault and battery. Since the assault and battery took place in the workplace, it is an instance of workplace violence, and should be treated as such.
None of the context, qualifiers, excuses, quibbling over terminology, complaints about narratives and concerns about political maneuvering changes these fundamental facts one bit.
December 2, 2013 at 12:10 pm
suzy blah blah
-from what i understand so far his slap on the back was a judgmental expression intended as good old boy style congratulations –sarcastically. So i don’t think he intended to hurt them physically, he was trying to be witty. The problem is, he used way too much force. I don’t know, but the misjudgment he made of how hard he was slapping them might be considered assault and battery.
December 2, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Liberal Jon
“The fundamental facts are these: He was angry at his colleagues. He took out his anger on his colleagues by hitting them. That is assault and battery. Since the assault and battery took place in the workplace, it is an instance of workplace violence, and should be treated as such.”
Thank you Mr/Ms prosecutor. I understand you point and it is well backed up with dictionaries and online legal charts. If Supervisor Bass decides that it is an instance of workplace violence (as she has the right and absolutely should if she feels it is) then you may want to sign up as part of her legal team.
What I am trying to do is understand this neutrally, from a perspective of what really happened. I stepped back from the “too” or “inappropriately hearty” because upon reflection you were probably right that it was a slight euphemism given Supervisor Lovelace’s description. And I’ve noted that after complaining about my spin, you have not backed down one iota from yours. In fact, as usual you continue to double down, this time with the new term – “blow”.
And if you don’t see the connection between your point of view, your language, your once well documented, then not well documented evidence, and the other anonymouses use of sentences like “that you can hit girls and be reelected.” then, again, there isn’t anything else I can do to make the connection for you.
Basically you and Ms. Jackson have a vision or a narrative you want to tell and you are very insistent on that narrative and the language associated with that narrative for some reason. And I don’t think the reason can be found in an interest in minimizing the real problem of hostile work environments for women.
December 2, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Anonymous
Assault and battery does not depend on the amount of force used, or whether injury was intended or not. Strike someone in an “angry or rude” way and that’s assault and battery, whether you judge your own actions to be “witty” or not.
December 2, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Anonymous
Again, you’re veering off into other commenters’ narratives and claims. I made no claims about any other alleged incidents of workplace violence or any other inappropriate workplace behavior by Mr. Lovelace. I have no reason to believe there was any.
“What I am trying to do is understand this neutrally, from a perspective of what really happened.”
What is it you don’t understand? He was angry at his colleagues. He took out his anger on his colleagues by hitting them. The source of the anger and the basic details of the assault do not appear to be in dispute.
December 2, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Joe Blow
You don’t have to physically touch someone to assault them. All you have to do is communicate to them either physically or verbally the threat to touch them.
Interesting point when I discussed this with my wife who has worked in a man’s world for 30 years. Neither man nor woman ever took the liberty to slap or otherwise touch her. Apparently, the reason for this has to do with respect. Mr. Lovelace let his expression of utter contempt for Bohn and Bass get the best of him – it can happen to the best of us.
December 2, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Janelle Egger
JB, Supervisor Lovelace has told you of his “utter contempt for Bohn and Bass”?
December 2, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Janelle Egger
The fundamental facts are these: A man walked up behind two people, said “Thanks, guys” and slapped them on the back.
An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. (CPC 240)
A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. (CPC 242)
Here are some other facts:
–One person reacted by taking a few steps forward and the slap on the back aggravated an existing shoulder injury.
–The second person remained in the same spot after the slap.
–He later had a heated exchange with the second person.
–He had breakfast the next morning with the first person.
–He has written an apology to both.
–Both have said they want the Board on which they all participate to move forward.
December 2, 2013 at 2:50 pm
Joe Blow
Yes, with his exaggerated slap that he apologized for. Had he any respect for either of them he would have kept his hands to himself, regardless the anger or provocation. But then, that’s not something you would understand, is it?
December 2, 2013 at 4:02 pm
suzy blah blah
-i think everyone agrees that Lovelace stepped out of bounds. But was it a foul, or a flagrant foul?
December 2, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Anonymous
I can’t imagine why, but somehow you overlooked a fundamental fact: This was not a friendly, cheerful slap, it was an angry, sarcastic one. That makes a huge difference.
Nice try though. And at least not as ridiculous as your earlier attempt to excuse his behavior by speculating that he might be a poor downtrodden victim of bullying who had simply struck back at his bullies.
December 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Joe Blow
The victim is always guilty for causing his own beating. Classic bully mentality – blame the victim. Compare Bohn’s and Bass’ conduct pre-slap with the definitions of bullying and assault and you can easily draw your own conclusion. When you realize what motivated the contemptuous response, perhaps even a bit of anger, it’s not as ridiculous as you might try to make it be. I’d say, that’s probably the reason why they’ve ALL backed off.
December 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Anonymous
Lots of men who hit men later have heated exchanges with them.
And lots of men who hit women have breakfast with them the next morning.
Neither one these things makes the hitting O.K.
December 2, 2013 at 5:24 pm
Joe Blow
5:05 says: “Neither one these things makes the hitting O.K.”
Neither did I say it did.
December 2, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Anonymous
It was a response to Janelle’s 2:45 comment, where she made a point of including the info about the heated exchange, and the breakfast. Sorry for the confusion. I guess I hadn’t refreshed the page and didn’t realize there were new comments below Janelle’s.
December 2, 2013 at 5:41 pm
Joe Blow
December 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm Anonymous says:
“Lots of men who hit men later have heated exchanges with them.
And lots of men who hit women have breakfast with them the next morning.”
This statement is a classic example of a totally worthless opinion. No adult “man” hits another man for any reason, let alone then has a “heated exchange.” Men forced to defend themselves as a general rule finish the job. Juvenile effeminate thinking males on the other hand do act this way.
More importantly, adult men never hit women period. Let alone then go on to have breakfast with them the next morning. That is tantamount to rape. That is exactly what a juvenile effeminate thinking male does.
So, I guess we know what we’re dealing with here.
December 2, 2013 at 8:41 pm
Liberal Jon
“What is it you don’t understand? He was angry at his colleagues. He took out his anger on his colleagues by hitting them. The source of the anger and the basic details of theassault do not appear to be in dispute.”
Do you not see that is a biased take? That this is an example of spinning, just as you were accusing me? You must.
Do you want to see the result of language and spin like this? Check out the second speaker at the GPU meeting today, 12/2/13*. Thankfully, no one else in the room, not even Supervisor Lovelace responded. But this is where the words you are intentionally force-fitting into a narrative that also must consist of first… definitely abundant…. then …not at all available…. documentation lead us.** A misinformed and unfair political discussion based on carefully manufactured representations – dictionaries and legal websites included – no assembly (by the reader) required.
The thing is that this is the goal, to take this event, this incident and create a story by using very simple, very specific language which when forced, will fit the shape you desire. The worst part is actually knowing the people involved and to see their private lives being used as, another anonymous said in another thread, political footballs.
We should be giving both Supervisor Bass Bohn and Lovelace the space to solve this on their own – with or without the authorities or county internal staff. But that’s not going to happen.
* http://humboldt.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=771
** not your contention I understand. I did not notice you arguing against it’s use at the time and it fits hand-in-glove with your narrative if you did not notice.
December 2, 2013 at 9:23 pm
Anonymous
Putting words in boldface does not make them an inaccurate description of what occurred. That is an accurate description, based on what was reported in the Times-Standard. Certainly far more accurate than Janelle’s whitewashing or your convoluted euphemistic spinning. I realize you would prefer if that wasn’t what happened. So would I, and I’m sure so would Bass and Bohn — but that’s on Supervisor Lovelace, not anyone else. He created the story with his inappropriate actions.
As a public official, who behaved in an “extremely inappropriate” way (to quote both the eyewitness, Mike Sullivan, and the proprietor of this blog, Eric Kirk) he doesn’t get the luxury of having his inappropriate behavior completely ignored by the public. Kind of a “can’t do the time, then don’t do the crime” situation.
December 3, 2013 at 12:01 am
Anonymous
You’re referring to the second speaker at the very beginning of the meeting, right? Unless I misheard, I believe she said her name was Virginia Damron of Eureka. Given the size of our community, I’m guessing that’s probably the same Virginia Damron who wrote the following in a letter to the Times-Standard earlier this year:
“What I see in the GPU now is a document developers certainly could use to get anything they wanted. Environmental protection advocates might well have liked it before Smarty edited in the loopholes…Anyone else see the pattern? This GPU is not actually about controlled development. There are also other problems with it. It’s a web, the rules that count are hidden throughout it. Environmentalists can’t afford to look away. ”
http://www.times-standard.com/therev/ci_22547766/general-plan-update-is-not-what-it-seems
So assuming the speaker you’re referring to was Virginia Damron, the self-described “Green-leaning Democrat,” who wrote that letter to the editor, I think you’d have to agree that she seems more like a potential political ally of Mark’s, than a likely opponent.
So if it wasn’t about ideology or politics for Ms. Damron, presumably she was simply speaking from her heart. I know this is hard for your to accept — perhaps even painfully hard to accept — but there are plenty of good reasons why someone would have serious concerns about Mark’s (mis)behavior and feel compelled to speak out publicly about this incident — even if (and maybe especially if) they are generally aligned with Mark’s politics and policy preferences.
Now let me be clear: I do feel that it was inappropriate for her to speculate about a brain tumor, or drug use, as possible reasons for his behavior, no matter how hypothetically she tried to phrase it. Other than that, while there were certainly a couple of awkward moments, I thought she “conveyed her displeasure,” and her concerns, in a civil enough manner.
And let’s face it, there’s no easy and awkwardness-free way for a member of the public to address an elected official’s embarrassing personal misbehavior, in a public hearing, with that elected official present. That doesn’t mean members of the public shouldn’t do so, if they feel it’s important enough.
I’m sure it wasn’t easy or comfortable for her to get up and say what she did, but she obviously felt strongly that somebody needed to say something, in public, on the record, and to his face. I salute her for taking that on, even though I might have advised against saying a couple of the things she said.
And given that this was the first opportunity for public comment since the incident, and given that this was the only public comment about this incident that Mark had to sit there and listen to, I’d say he got off pretty easy.
Again, if you don’t want to have to endure awkward comments about your inappropriate slapping of your colleagues, well, don’t inappropriately slap your colleagues. Problem solved.
December 3, 2013 at 8:03 am
Liberal Jon
That is an accurate description. No, it is not It’s precise maybe but not accurate.
December 3, 2013 at 8:06 am
Liberal Jon
I was rushing out the door, Should be “That is an accurate description” (ie in quotes) And here’s a chart describing the difference if you need it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Accuracy_and_precision.svg
December 3, 2013 at 8:56 am
Conservative Tom
It is terribly sad to see the liberal posters falling all over themselves excusing the actions of a man who hit a woman only because the man is a liberal.
This is hypocrisy to the extreme.
December 3, 2013 at 9:02 am
suzy blah blah
We should be giving both Supervisor Bass Bohn and Lovelace the space to solve this on their own
-no, that’s like having LeBron Jones and Toby Brian making the call on the playing field. We need an official uninterested decision. If suzy would’ve been there i’d’ve blown my whistle as soon as Lovelace charged the mound.
December 3, 2013 at 9:39 am
Anonymous
“The worst part is actually knowing the people involved and to see their private lives being used as, another anonymous said in another thread, political footballs.”
Oh boo hoo. He’s an elected official, who was representing Humboldt County at a statewide gathering, and he did what he did in a room full of people. Private life my ass.
December 3, 2013 at 9:44 am
Anonymous
You’re referring to the second speaker at the very beginning of the meeting, right? Unless I misheard, I believe she said her name was Virginia Damron of Eureka. Given the size of our community, I’m guessing that’s probably the same Virginia Damron who wrote the following in a letter to the Times-Standard earlier this year:
“What I see in the GPU now is a document developers certainly could use to get anything they wanted. Environmental protection advocates might well have liked it before Smarty edited in the loopholes…Anyone else see the pattern? This GPU is not actually about controlled development. There are also other problems with it. It’s a web, the rules that count are hidden throughout it. Environmentalists can’t afford to look away. ”
http://www.times-standard.com/therev/ci_22547766/general-plan-update-is-not-what-it-seems
So assuming the speaker you’re referring to was Virginia Damron the self-described “Green-leaning Democrat,” who wrote that letter to the editor, I think you’d have to agree that she seems a lot more like a potential political ally of Mark’s, than a likely opponent.
So if it wasn’t about ideology or politics for Ms. Damron, presumably she was simply speaking from her heart. I know this is hard for you to accept — perhaps even painfully hard to accept — but there are plenty of good reasons why someone would have serious concerns about Mark’s (mis)behavior and feel compelled to speak out publicly about this incident — even if (and maybe especially if) they are generally aligned with Mark’s politics and policy preferences.
Now let me be clear: I do feel that it was inappropriate for her to speculate about things like a brain tumor, or drug use, as possible reasons for his behavior, no matter how hypothetically she tried to phrase it. Other than that, while there were certainly a couple of awkward moments, I thought she “conveyed her displeasure,” and her concerns, in a civil enough manner.
And let’s face it, there’s no easy and awkwardness-free way for a member of the public to address an elected official’s embarrassing personal misbehavior, in a public hearing, with that elected official present. That doesn’t mean members of the public shouldn’t do so, if they feel it’s important enough.
I’m sure it wasn’t easy or comfortable for her to get up and say what she did, but she obviously felt strongly that somebody needed to say something, in public, on the record, and to his face. I salute her for taking that on, even though I might have advised against saying a couple of the things she said.
Given that this was the first opportunity for public comment since the incident, and given that this was the only public comment about this incident that Mark had to sit there and listen to, I’d say he got off pretty easy.
Again, if you don’t want to have to endure awkward comments about your inappropriate slapping of your colleagues, well, don’t inappropriately slap your colleagues. Problem solved.
December 3, 2013 at 10:07 am
Anonymous
According to John Chiv, Mark apologized to Virginia and Rex, and to the public, at the beginning of yesterday’s Board of Supervisors meeting.
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2013/12/mark-apologizes-to-virginia-and-rex.html
I guess it must have been before the meeting itself, because as far as I can tell, it’s not included at the beginning of the meeting on the archived video.
John Chiv’s brief piece says that he’ll have more details soon. I’m curious whether Mark improved on the half-hearted pseudo-apology he gave to the Times-Standard.
December 3, 2013 at 10:34 am
Liberal Jon
“I do feel that it was inappropriate for her to speculate about things like a brain tumor, or drug use, as possible reasons for his behavior, no matter how hypothetically she tried to phrase it.”
Thank you, this is my point. I could argue further, but I now see where that leads and I’m not going to bring a private citizen into this food fight other than to say exactly what you did in the quote above. What she said was wrong and had to be corrected. This is where inaccurate narratives necessarily and intentionally lead.
To sbb and anon 939…. a) sbb – totally correct. I mis-wrote. I have written over and over in this thread that I believe Supervisor Bass’ perception of this incident is the gold standard. If she believes it was a “hit” then she has every right and even responsibility to follow up through the proper channels and I did mean that implicitly in what I wrote, but I didn’t write it. b) 939 – that’s why I said “people” (plural) to include Supervisor Bass. This is a very awkward and difficult situation outside of political considerations for people who know and like both people.
sbb- you pay close attention to language. Much closer attention than I do usually and I think you like to call me out on that – usually I’m too dense to notice. Just in case, I did use “disinterested” very specifically to describe the Del Norte Supervisor as not … “unbiased”.
In this one case, my use of “disinterested” was precise but I allow for it to not be completely accurate as I am making an educated guess about Supervisor Sullivan’s politics. I wouldn’t have brought it up but you did put it in bold for some reason.
December 3, 2013 at 11:10 am
LoCO Guest
Mark has apologized how many times now?
How many times does he have to apologize for it to count?
December 3, 2013 at 11:18 am
Joe Blow
What? Is this an open admission that Jon deliberately speculates, guesses, conjectures, makes guesses – formulates and expounds worthless opinions, even lies about other people? Jon says: “In this one case, my use of “disinterested” was precise but I allow for it to not be completely accurate as I am making an educated guess about Supervisor Sullivan’s politics.”
December 3, 2013 at 11:32 am
Anonymous
“How many times does he have to apologize for it to count?”
One real apology to each of his victims, and one real apology to the public is all it would take for it to “count” as I’m concerned. Unfortunately his half-hearted, dissembling pseudo-apology from the Times-Standard was not a real apology.
Hopefully his private apologies to Res and Virginia, and the public apology he apparently offered yesterday, were more contrite.
December 3, 2013 at 11:46 am
Anonymous
It seems probable that the actual severity of the incident falls somewhere between Sullivan’s description and Lovelace’s. In other words, I’m assuming Sullivan didn’t underestimate how much anger was displayed and how much force was applied, and that Lovelace didn’t overestimate those things. So I think it’s reasonable to assume that what happened was somewhere in that range. In other words, somewhere between extremely inappropriate and shockingly inappropriate.
Given that the victims described the gesture as “extremely exaggerated,” “not good behavior,” a lapse in judgement,” and “lacking in professionalism” I suspect that the actual level of severity was probably well past the half-way point in the direction of Sullivan’s description.
December 3, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Liberal Jon
Joe – Just to be clear. I no longer have the option to engage with you. You have said you consider me a thug bully. There is verbal abuse too, so I do take your words seriously. I don’t want to have any part in a conversation if one participant feels bullied. The only option that leaves for me is to allow your points to go unanswered. I find this a very convenient situation for you. But again, I do take that charge seriously and in a way, by observing and commenting us commenters are judging each other. I’ll stop the observations and comments on you Joe, until or if you ever say different.
I cannot think of any other option. If you have one let me know. Despite all the negativity that is part and parcel of the comment zone, despite the odds, in the end my goal is to reach positive outcomes.
December 3, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Joe Blow
That’s a good start Jon – all “feelings” aside. Try changing your tone (inferences) to go along with your actions and I might take what you do a little more seriously. You saying your sorry is hardly worth anything but semantics when you continue with the never-ending justifications. How is it that you repeatedly ask the same question when I already told you several times. “I cannot think of any other option. If you have one let me know.” You got a serious problem?
Only a change of heart will make an apology worth anything. Put your actions where your mouth is and you just might regain some credibility. Your admittedly unsubstantiated, conjecture, and inaccurate guesses that you deliberately expound upon everyone are NOT observations, by definition, they are worthless opinions. Accept the truth for once and move on.
December 3, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Anonymous
It sounds like in his public apology at this morning’s Board meeting, Lovelace was much more contrite, and acknowledged that his comments in the Times-Standard fell short. In response, it sounds like Virginia said some things that were no doubt difficult to say as well as difficult to hear, but nonetheless needed to be said. This is from John Chiv’s blog:
“…Mark said that while trying to explain his frustrations, some of his remarks came across as justifying his actions. There is never any justification, he said, for such behavior. Mark added that in the last week he had seen his actions through the eyes of others. He concluded by saying that he hoped both Virginia and Rex and the community would forgive him and he promised that “it won’t happen again.”
Rex was quiet. Virginia did respond. She said she appreciated the apology, especially to the community. She commented that kids are taught not to use violence and as role models and elected officials, “we are held to higher standards.” She pointed out that if this behavior was by an employee, there would have been an investigation, perhaps even a dismissal. Virginia concluded her remarks by saying “that this was not the time to talk about it” but that she looked forward to a discussion perhaps in the future and suggested anger management to Mark.
The meeting then proceeded as normal….”
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2013/12/mark-apologizes-to-virginia-and-rex.html
Again, this must have been very awkward for everyone present, but it needed to happen.
December 3, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Janelle Egger
Joe Blow wrote, “Yes, with his exaggerated slap that he apologized for. Had he any respect for either of them he would have kept his hands to himself, regardless the anger or provocation. But then, that’s not something you would understand, is it?”
Joe,
I understand what it feels like when someone purposefully slaps you, across the face and with the force to propel you back when you have both feet planted firmly on the ground and you are leaning forward in defiance.
I also understand that a completely accidental, unintended blow when I was relaxed also put me in motion and threw me even farther because I was relaxed and already moving in the direction the blow propelled me.
And I understand that a slap on the back is considered a friendly gesture, but in some contexts could be considered sarcastic humor, or even bullying behavior.
So what I can understand is that the situation here cannot be characterized by us with any certainty.
And I do not understand, accept or respect wild characterizations of the incident based on the very limited information we have.
To whoever posted at December 2, 2013 at 9:23 pm,
The word “anger” is not in the Time-Standard report and neither is “assault.”
As for my whitewashing, I have no intention of preventing anyone from learning the truth about what happened. I attempted to present the facts, without the use of subjective language.
But let’s look at the subjective language that was actually used:
Lovelace: “perhaps an exaggerated, good-old-boy slap on the back.”
Bohn: “declined to talk much about the incident” and “called Lovelace’s slap on the back a ‘lapse in judgment”’
Bass: “an extremely exaggerated slap on the back.” and “the incident has been mischaracterized by local blogs”
Then there is Sullivan: “pretty disturbing,” “pounded them on the back,” “excessive and extremely inappropriate,” “Everyone was in shock.”
And: “If it had been me, I probably would have hit him. …For someone to hit a woman that way, it was just completely out of line.”
And (sarcasm alert!) I’m sure he meant he would have pounded him on the back with an open hand…
What do Bass and Bohn say about Lovelace’s action?
Bass: “It’s not good behavior” and “I’m certain it was nothing malicious”
Bohn: “it’s a situation between Supervisor Bass and Supervisor Lovelace that needs to be addressed between the two of them”
And how are Bass and Lovelace addressing it?
Lovelace explained: “he was irritated that he was essentially removed from the association by his fellow board members without any discussion.” And “I was frustrated that they chose to take that appointment away from me without any prior conversation or consultation,” he said.
I think Bass might understand: “Bass said she believes Lovelace has worked extremely hard on the Coastal Counties Regional Association, and that she didn’t mean any harm by volunteering to take over for him as the association’s co-chair.”
Lovelace apologized in writing and publicly accepted responsibility for his actions: “I can’t deny my frustrations in working with this board at times, but I certainly shouldn’t let my frustrations get the better of me, and I can’t justify anything that’s inappropriate behavior”
Suzy,
Basketball is a game and part of what keeps the action moving forward is quick, decisive calls by a referee. That is easier to do in a ball game. But, yeah, if Virginia thought an official uninterested decision was needed I would think Mark would welcome it also.
To December 1, 2013 at 12:36 pm,
I don’t discount the will of the majority of voters. Bass and Bohn have said they want the Board on which all three serve to move forward. We elected them to do that, didn’t we?
I thought this Board might be more open and transparent, I have seen indications of some movement in that direction and still think it is possible. I do have an opinion on where there could be some improvement. The bullying behavior I have called “blindsiding” is not new to this group of Supervisors. I also honestly don’t see any of the former or current Board as evil people out to bully each other, but the system allows and even rewards bullying behaviors. Perhaps these folks can set a new more respectful norm.
Liberal Jon,
I think the statement to Lovelace at yesterday’s meeting was heartfelt, not sarcastic. But I had some context, having read about the speaker here before watching. What she said is good to remember, let me re-quote: “Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.” As these are adults perhaps we needn’t worry as much.
December 3, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Anonymous
Today’s Board meeting is still in progress, but the archived video should be available on the County website later today, or at least by tomorrow. Here’s the link:
http://humboldt.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=3
According to Chiv, Mark’s apology and Virginia’s response are at the very beginning, before any other business. So it should be easy to find.
December 3, 2013 at 1:45 pm
suzy blah blah
-Janelle, it’s difficult to tell whether Bass was selling it or not without seeing the instant replay and hearing the medical report on her injury.
December 3, 2013 at 3:06 pm
Just Watchin
Poor jonBoy…..Joe really has your number.
December 3, 2013 at 3:50 pm
queenoftheforrest
LoCo Guest,
“How many times does he have to apologize for it to count?” He can stick his apologies. It’s not as if all-of-a-sudden his ‘anger’ problem just showed up. Impersonating a Public Servant AND accepting pay for it is a misappropriation of public funds.
The people are the ones who establish a new form of government -once the new guards are in place. Why do you think we’re here at this time in space, in place? These ‘opportunities’ will continue, and arrrive stronger each time. . . until enough of us can hold the higher frequency in place.
“The dead should not rule the living.“ A criminal syndicate is running government –corpse orations. They are criminals and thieves or they wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing.
“You cannot correct what you are unwilling to confront. What you permit will always continue. Behavior permitted is behavior perpetuated.” Mike Murdock
“There is a fullness of time when men should go, and not occupy too long the ground to which others have a right to advance.” Jefferson
“Power never concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will.”
Fred Douglass
“Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.” Jefferson
“The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Fredrick Douglas (1857).
One Mississippi, two Mississippi . . .
December 3, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Anonymous
Jannelle’s long-winded whitewash is no more convincing than her previous attempt. We’ve all read the Times-Standard article, all Jannelle proved is that she can cut and paste quote, rearrange them, and insert her excuses, minimizations, and justifications.
December 3, 2013 at 6:33 pm
Anonymous
Here’s Supervisor Lovelace’s public apology to Bass, Bohn, and the community, which he offered at the beginning of today’s Board meeting:
December 3, 2013 at 6:48 pm
Anonymous
And here’s Supervisor Bass’s response:
December 3, 2013 at 7:29 pm
Anonymous
The Times-Standard did a story on the Lovelace’s apology today, and Bass’s response, as well as brief comment by Bohn.
http://www.times-standard.com/breakingnews/ci_24648866/lovelace-apologizes-bass-bohn?source=rss
December 3, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Anonymous
Uh oh….Mark apologized again…end of story, right?? They’re all adults right?
December 3, 2013 at 8:06 pm
queenoftheforrest
Anger Management -that ship sailed. We all know who pays for these persons ‘benefits.’ Sorry Mark, not interested in picking up the tab in an attempt to balance your right and left hemispheres. You took the oath. You broke your promise to the people -Breach of Contract. Have the decency to step aside, at least, ‘go from us and may we forget that you were ever one of our countrymen.’ Perhaps Mark should receive an offer he can’t refuse? Then we’d have one down and four to go! Let the light shine in -the old guard is very, very boring Public Theater.
“We’re elected so we have a different path.” No, there all the same -there’s the door, don’t let it hit you on your way out.
December 3, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Anonymous
“Uh oh….Mark apologized again…end of story, right?? They’re all adults right?”
Credit where credit is due: That was a much more appropriate apology.
December 4, 2013 at 5:51 am
Liberal Jon
Eric – I know you get so much unwelcome advice on your blog. Here’s more – not necessarily advise, but a note about digital media in HumCo generally. I think this story is the perfect example of how destructive anonymous posters can be. I think this needs to be fixed somehow and I don’t really know how. Possibly the consistent unique avatar would work so we know how serious to take the poster. At least then their online credibility would be on the line. Thats something.
And Janelle – I agree the statement was heartfelt – it was inappropriate to speculate. Also – I strongly support with your position during this thread. I am so thankful you’ve written what you have, as eloquently as you have. Thank you.
December 4, 2013 at 7:08 am
queenoftheforrest
Disturbing.
December 4, 2013 at 10:12 am
Just Watchin
Apparently all you need to be credible and taken seriously on this blog is a consistent unique avatar. Really ?? I see al lot of posters here that meet that criteria that are generally considered buffoons.
December 4, 2013 at 10:29 am
suzy blah blah
-it’s incredible –some are credible Salloways, some are credible Kirks, some are credible Liberals, some are credible queens, some are credible others, some are credible watchers, some are credibel rivers, some are credible bolithios(?), some are credible blah blahs, and some blow.
See Anonymous, you need a unique avatar to be taken seriously like us, otherwise your words have no meaning, er, credibility –same thing, right?
December 4, 2013 at 10:36 am
Joe Blow
I showed everyone what kind of a person LJon is, and by god if he didn’t followup with this “advice” to Eric, as if he has some credibility in all of this, and prove me right. His statement above about anonymous posters is the absolute last straw – beyond contemptible.
Jon’s all about freedom and liberty and all that other “apple pie” crap that supposedly goes with Democracy. For awhile he even called himself “Democratic Jon. What Jon has shown is how really foul and destructive he and his ilk truly are; this present comment says it all. That is why I say if anyone is really interested in fixing “the problems” confronting our society, the best place to start is with these kinds of people. Everything else will fall into place. They would enslave everyone.
The only time an anonymous poster is ever a problem is when someone, like Jon and a few others I could name, want to attack the person. Keep the discussion to the issues, non-personal observations, and there is no problem whatsoever. You can easily see how really dangerous these kinds of thug bullies truly are to everyone’s well-being. Jon made his dealings with me personal, so I was forced to deal with him personally. That’s what made him a thug bully. All bullies are parasites that feed off the willing and unsuspecting. They survive by making you believe you can’t live without them while they suck away your life-blood; your self-worth, self-esteem, the value of you as a person. Then when they’re done with you they move on to another victim.
This guy has shown to have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, yet like a shameless whore he’s out here continually lording it over everyone with all the self-righteous virtues of a Catholic Nun. At some point the solution becomes obvious.
December 4, 2013 at 10:49 am
suzy blah blah
-suzy’s not making any statements at this time about Jon’s possible ejection from the game Joe, but it’s a fact that he needs to make a sincere apology to the officials to improve his bullypen average.
December 4, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Janelle Egger
Joe Blow(hard?),
You have failed to show me that Liberal Jon is the “kind of person” you say he is. By your claim, however, you have come closer to confirming what “kind of person” you are. But don’t worry, there are some redeeming qualities evident elsewhere.
BTW on November 27, 2013 at 9:48 am you told me to “take note.” Sorry I haven’t had a change to follow that suggestion/order. Besides time constraints, my excuse is that I wasn’t sure what it is you wanted me to take note of. Feel free to elaborate. or not.
LIb Jon,
Here is a rule I try to follow: stick to the subject (though there are many examples of me ignoring it). And a bit of advice: With some people (no one here though) being nice and admitting weakness is tantamount to yelling, “I am a victim, please attack me.”
Suzy,
I caught the instant replay of yesterday’s exchange; as Lovelace is a good liberal he played by the rules, so did Bass; but I think they may have different editions of the book. But this is admittedly unsubstantiated, conjecture, and guesses based on my observations.
December 4, 2013 at 12:32 pm
LoCO Guest
How do you attack or bully anonymous people?
December 4, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Joe Blow
Apparently, when I was speaking of Jon and his ilk I was including Janelle Egger since she only knows how to assault people. I allowed Jon to show himself for exactly what he is, so now has this person – no one has to take my word for anything. See the slime: “But this is admittedly unsubstantiated, conjecture, and guesses based on my observations.” Check the dictionary, you’ll see she defined her own worthless opinions – as usual.
December 4, 2013 at 1:10 pm
Anonymous
All of Janelle and Jon’s attempted whitewashing looks even more ridiculous in light of yesterday’s exchange at the Board meeting. As Bass noted, if Lovelace wasn’t in the privileged position of being an elected official, he might well have been fired for his behavior. Too bad it required a week of public shaming to get him to own up to the seriousness of his misbehavior. Hopefully he takes Bass up on her suggestion of seeking help with anger management.
December 4, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Liberal Jon
“As Bass noted, if Lovelace wasn’t in the privileged position of being an elected official, he might well have been fired for his behavior.”
Yes! which is exactly why I am so unhappy with what Supervisor Bass the politician and Supervisor Bass the woman said yesterday.*
If Supervisor Bass, the woman, feels what happened constitutes a dismissal. Well dammit, she should follow up. This would have two benefits. One, Supervisor Lovelace would have a chance to defend himself – because he doesn’t in the court of public opinion – not realistically, not in a situation like this. Just take a look at this thread if you need any proof. Two. If this was worthy of dismissal she has the duty (imho – and I do note as a male) to women in the workplace generally and her fellow County employees to follow up. Saying she’s an elected official doesn’t make sense to me – that’s a question for a lawyer, but if she see’s it as a “hit” then I don’t know if there is an exception for elected officials. I don’t know WHY there would be. To me this just feels like a well crafted political maneuver making the most hay out of a bad situation.
Administrative notes…
JB – if you are addressing me in the second OR more likely third person I’m not paying attention any more. I am not here to get into shouting matches and/or bully someone (in your view and I respect that) who is not interested in a two way conversation. (BTW, Bolithio is especially noteworthily good at what he does and I often concur word for word with what he writes.) JB the last post of yours I read you said this “That’s a good start Jon” Apparently you understand only what you want to. That wasn’t a start, that was an end and I think it was pretty clear. It’s and end at least until you no longer feel bullied. Let me know when you want to have a conversation again – as equals like the rest of us – I do enjoy mixing it up with you when times allows.
Janelle – as always great advice and I so appreciate it – Thank you. What I say to anyone who might care is … I’m not a victim. I just don’t have enough years on this blue marble to waste shouting about nothing. And I don’t see the point of puffing out my chest. I’m human. I’ll make mistakes – many.
When I shout, and I do a lot, often at shiney objects that aren’t necessarily on topic, and I am sorry about that too. I am, really, even though I know I’ll do it in the future. But I am improving, I hope.
* Btw, I think Karen Brooks is suddenly interested again for some reason. She was at the GPU meeting Monday. First time I’ve seen her since the June 3rd meeting.
December 4, 2013 at 5:32 pm
Not A Native
Reading Mark’s apology, I’m satisfied that he’s contrite and rues what he did. From Virginia’s response, I’d say she doesn’t want to publicly discuss the incident any more. Rex tacitly indicated the same.
I reside in the Third district, unless Mark acts badly in the future, I consider this has no political importance. Personally, I doubt Mark has strong political ambitions beyond the county. And anyway, the current State/Federal district boundaries make a Humboldt candidate much less likely to win.
December 4, 2013 at 5:33 pm
Anonymous
Wow did you miss her point. The point wasn’t that she’s an elected official. The point was that because he is an elected official, the County doesn’t have the authority to discipline or dismiss him. Whereas if he was any other employee, the County would have that authority.
December 4, 2013 at 6:44 pm
Anonymous
Virginia was supposed to sit there and keep her mouth shut, and passively accept his apology like a good little victim. The fact that she thought she had some right to respond and share her point of view, that’s bad enough — but for her to point out the seriousness of the misbehavior, and suggest a way forward…how dare she! Who the hell does this woman think she is?
December 4, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Joe Blow
In the Bible it says some people are considered “salt of the Earth.” We know salt brings out the flavor in food, it also preserves food, so we know salt is beneficial for humans and their survival. Ever see what happens to one of these big ol’ slugs when it crosses a few grains of salt. It runs around leaving a trail of slime as it withers away to nothing. If you didn’t know what happened, you’d wonder what the heck ran all over everything leaving a gooey trail of shit. The only redeeming feature is that slug’s shit don’t stink…
December 4, 2013 at 7:59 pm
Anonymous
I agree. And I say that as one who was not at all satisfied with his initial apology.
That’s my reading of it too. In my view, Liberal Jon has it exactly backwards — far from trying to “make political hay” of this, Virginia and Rex both seem to be doing their best to defuse the situation and put it behind them.
I also agree that the political and electoral impact of this incident will most likely be negligible (assuming Mark is careful not to do anything like this again, which I feel pretty confident will be the case). So again, Jon’s panicky hand-wringing seems a bit silly. I don’t think you could make enough political hay from this to fill the trunk of a Prius.
December 4, 2013 at 8:15 pm
Anonymous
Thank goodness Liberal Jon is here to lecture Virginia about her duties and responsibilities as a woman.
December 4, 2013 at 9:58 pm
suzy blah blah
-i can feel i’m getting warm, it won’t belong til i understand, i think maybe slugs are related to ilks. A team of slugs, a gaggle of ilks. Suzy’s on the slimy trail.
December 5, 2013 at 6:10 am
Liberal Jon
WARNING:
Actually this post may also be titled – Supervisor Incident Still as Unclear as Ever.
Here’s another anon from Loco
“So what? As of yesterday’s Board meeting, Lovelace has now admitted that striking Bass and Bohn was inappropriate, inexcusable, disrespectful, and a serious breach of personal boundaries.”
and this…
“Thank goodness Liberal Jon is here to lecture Virginia about her duties and responsibilities as a woman.”
and this…
“The fact that she thought she had some right to respond and share her point of view, that’s bad enough — but for her to point out the seriousness of the misbehavior, and suggest a way forward…how dare she! Who the hell does this woman think she is?”
and this…
” I sort of expected that, or maybe an old fashioned good ole’ boy response that ends with Lovelace on his butt with a busted nose.”
These are all quotes on this from either here or LoCO. Only the final one is attributable to a unique avatar/identity – Uri – and I mostly, but not entirely agree with his take on this.
Why even discuss this anymore. It has been resolved and everyone is mostly happy – compromise achieved.
Why? – Because according to Supervisor Bass, this event was so significant in her eyes that it could or would have ended in a dismissal if Supervisor Lovelace was not an elected official. So, given that perspective, I think “hit” or “strike” or “abuse” or “blow” is an appropriate noun to describe the incident. I don’t think Supervisor Lovelace agrees and he certainly has not used those words to describe it.
What we are then left with is a woman*! who was hit by an angry progressive Democrat. Not bad for June and to continue one of the great talking points of the right – the angry and belligerent progressive.
Not only that but it also feeds the HumCo AND national culture war conflict on such a primal level. Which side in the conflict will actually protect you women? The thing is, I would just like to point out to women that there is an unsaid second line to that question. “We will protect you because, let’s face it you are just a little, well, girly… I mean you can’t even take a slap in the back for God’s sake.”
Now I know that is cut and paste gold for the TOA’s of the world, but that is not my opinion at all. I’m just describing the pretty standard thought process that leads to things like not allowing women in combat. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s served manhumankind for hundreds of centuries. However, when trying to deal with one of the most significant phrases ever written by humans imho “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” So if women are going to be seen as equal under the law and a slap on the back of equal force was applied to both a man and woman, this brings up a very, VERY interesting ethical and legal situation.
But of course that’s all too complicated, so what’s going to happen is we are going to sweep this under the rug with the default narrative being Supervisor Mark Lovelace “struck” a woman that would have been grounds for dismissal if only he hadn’t been an elected official.
Yes, this liberal is angry about this (not furious LoCO anon) angry.
What will the result be. My guestimate – 0 to 5 points in Supervisor Bass’s election. 0-5 indicating it will definitely help her chances not hinder and less than 5 indicating a small but significant effect. It is also a step back for progressives in the HumCo culture conflict – as usual this is a step back based on an event that has only been tried in the court of public opinion, where the cultural right still has a great advantage with the help of KINS – and the secondary argument that partisanship shall not be discussed.
Team red, sbb – they are good at what they do and this counts as a double header – they just got a whole lot closer to winning the pennant.
* (who I like as a person and am using that general noun to reference the importance of her gender to this sentence)
December 5, 2013 at 6:12 am
Liberal Jon
oh, no way, It posted somehow, I just had a great opening line I was trying to add. It would have read like this
WARNING. This comment has been rated “VLAC” for Very Long and Complex. Those preferring to avoid this type of post are urged to scroll down.
Stooopid computer with it’s early posting. doh! (anger!)
December 5, 2013 at 7:41 am
liberal jon
And finally. Daniel Mintz gives us some reporting in the Mad River Union. He is a treasure to the North Coast.
If you read it you can begin to understand, I think, and I don’t want to put words in her mouth, but I think her narrative, which I know to be true first hand, not necessarily from this incident, but I too have seen the real bullying and the real power first hand. Daniel titles the section “Prologue” and I think it is very interesting and proves my educated guess that Supervisor Sullivan was not disinterested. In fact, I had no idea, but he was an integral player in giving Mark “a break”.
Again, it’s team red. Bully then play the victim. It’s pretty common and what is that? Exhibit T?
And, to be clear, I have to say this with each comment. When I say “victim” dismissively like in the sentence above I am in no way minimizing the “hit” on Supervisor Bass. if that is her impression as it should be considered the gold standard until an actual disinterested person (like Thadeus Greenson and Daniel Mintz, but one with authority) decides what happened and decides what should be the consequences. Because as it stands, the result is to a clear victory to team red on both counts. Get what they want with a power play and get to play the victim (not Virginia or Alison Jackson, the anons, Matthew Owen, Supervisor Bohn* and Supervisor Sullivan) It’s a stoopid sports analogy, but politics often is played like a sport, importantly, not a blood sport as many might like, but a sport.
Oh, and I like Supervisor Bohn’s speculation that Supervisor Bass was hit harder because Supervisor Lovelace is right handed. Awesome. Again, very precise, but how accurate?
Lot’s there that the anons will like too. We’ll see.
* also, speaking of playing the victim, apparently poor Rex in the hallway was subject to some swearing from the angry progressive. The poor innocent soul. (sarcasm) Interestingly the narratives of that event are also very divergent. hmmm. Precise but not accurate – the only question is who do you trust. And that is the ball game (Sports!)- getting you, the voter, to trust. ie credibility. (and importantly, non-voting counts as a vote for team red)
Also, NCJ Mitch! I haven’t read it but I look forward to it!
December 5, 2013 at 8:22 am
Joe Blow
Trails of slimy shit abound…
December 5, 2013 at 10:34 am
suzy blah blah
Suzy, I caught the instant replay of yesterday’s exchange; as Lovelace is a good liberal he played by the rules
-yeah, now he’s playing by the rules. But you are only allowed a certain amount of fouls before you’re out of the game. If the the team’s owner is smart Lovelace will be sent to the minors or traded for somebody with a softer touch against the backboard next election.
December 5, 2013 at 11:18 am
Joe Blow
How the Slime Works
“Remember when the National Security Agency officials maintained that they were “only” collecting “metadata” from your cell phones? What they meant by that was that they weren’t listening in on your calls,…”
Another one of Barack Obama lies.
“…just noting who you call and when. I said at the time that ‘metadata’ on cell phones inevitably includes information on where you are, so that they are tracking people.”
This is a quote from Juan Cole’s article: Trashing the Law against warrantless GPS tracking: NSA nabs 5 Billion Phone location Records a Day
This is the same kind of degenerate thinking that justifies the lawless conduct we see here locally only on a larger national or major international scale. My point, violating the US Constitution and Oath of Office with impunity starts locally, with the corrupt slime. Just look at the slime-dance trying to justify a man slapping a woman. Never you mind this man is an elected county official supposedly representing people – who can’t be prosecuted.
December 5, 2013 at 11:18 am
Anonymous
I agree with Mark that there’s no excuse or justification for his behavior.
December 5, 2013 at 11:28 am
Anonymous
Not sure where you’re getting “can’t be prosecuted,” JB. But it’s true that he can’t be disciplined or fired through a county administrative process like a non-elected county employee could be.
December 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Anonymous
Circling back, for a moment, to Alison Jackson’s Op-Ed, she said:
” Perpetrators deflect blame from themselves and make excuses. Their friends and family members even try to cover up for them. Usually the excuses are: 1) he didn’t hit her; 2) if he hit her, he didn’t hurt her; and 3) if he hit her and hurt her, she deserved it.”
Note how many of Jon’s various attempts at whitewashing fit into these three categories, especially #1, given Jon’s quixotic struggle to somehow redefine “hit” in a way that doesn’t include “slap.” And now the Lovelace-as-a-victim-of-bullying theme that feeds into a #3-type narrative.
In my opinion, when Jackson said “Mr. Lovelace, you hit all three of these excuses in your response,” she overstated the extent to which Lovelace himself actually deployed those three excuses, though the downplaying and rationalizing in his initial “apology” in the Times-Standard left room for it to be interpreted that way. And after Lovelace’s much stronger public apology in front of the Board the other day, if Jackson repeated her charge I don’t think it would ring true at all.
But Jackson certainly predicted, with great accuracy, and no small degree of precision, the kind of denial, excuse-making and attempts at justification that folks like Jon and Janelle have been spouting.
December 5, 2013 at 2:09 pm
queenoftheforrest
Jon of the human species,
Why do you buy lies? And then perpetuate the lies? You’re still in la-la land -elections/voting, teams, worn-out, useless labels self-imposed, as well as projected onto others. How is your skewed-view positive and life affirming? Where’s the merit or value?
Reading slave-speak is very boring, blocking the light –and disturbing.
It appears that you surrender all thinking to the illusion . .. your imagined power that is outside of your self.
Can the State Legislature with granted authority to make all laws and needful rules, abrogate by that granted authority, the people’s constitutional guarantees? I believe they may not.
Officials and even so-called judges have no immunity -See Owen vs. City of Independence, Maine vs. Thiboutot, and Hafer vs. Melo –all Supreme Court rulings. Officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the citizen cannot plead innocence of the law, it is ludicrous for a learned official or judge to plead ignorance of the law, therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution.
See: title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
“. .. .one with authority.” You can maybe figure this out yourself Jon. Who has the authority granted to them by the people? That’s right Jon, the oath/bond persons.
“Politics is often played like a sport, not a blood sport as many might like”
Jon, language is an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought.
December 5, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Joe Blow
Forest Queen says: “Politics is often played like a sport, not a blood sport as many might like” If the U.S. or Israel take it upon themselves to use nuclear weapons as some crazy people from CA want, it just might happen sooner than you might think. The World will not tolerate this lunacy: Congressman Stands By Claim That The U.S. Should Consider Nukes If It Attacks Iran
December 5, 2013 at 3:32 pm
queenoftheforrest
Joe,
i was quoting Jon. Nuclear attack isn’t even on my radar. It’s a non-issue used on the masses -fear factor.
December 5, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Joe Blow
“Nuclear attack isn’t even on my radar. It’s a non-issue used on the masses -fear factor.” Maybe so until some lunatic, self-righteous, born-again saved believer gets his finger on the button. When God is with, who can stand against you?
December 5, 2013 at 6:04 pm
Anonymous
Jon mentioned the article in the Mad River Union. I agree that Daniel Mintz is an excellent reporter, but assuming we’re talking about the same article “The ‘Thud’ Heard Round the County,” then for the record this article was written by Kevin Hoover, not Daniel Mintz..
It’s clear from the article that it was written before Lovelace’s revised, approved apology at the Board meeting on Tuesday morning.
By the way, on KMUD news on Tuesday night, Daniel Mintz did report on Lovelace’s apology and Bass and Bohn’s responses.
December 5, 2013 at 7:52 pm
Anonymous
For some reason the Mad River Union article is not in their online edition, just the paper version.
December 6, 2013 at 3:44 am
Liberal Jon
Oops, thanks A 6:04. I don’t have the paper in front of me anymore. But I’ve noticed that the MRU is choosing to limit their online version which may be smart. I think it is worth my dime to pay for reporting like we’ve gotten in the past two weeks – last week on the Somoa Pulp Mill and this week on the thud.
And kudos to Mitch for his work on making our voting system accountable and writing about it in tha ncj. Mitch I nominate you to run against Superisor Sunberg in June.
December 6, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Anonymous
Okay, the Mad River Union story is now online:
http://madriverunion.com/the-thud-heard-round-the-county/
December 7, 2013 at 10:47 am
Janelle Egger
Anonymous December 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm,
I believe you have misunderstood my comments. Here is a summary made up of excerpts from my posts. If you feel I left things out to change the meaning, a search of phrases should take you back to the original post. What I have written:
It is a well written op-ed. Her analogy ignores one type of case that comes up now and then; I wonder her approach as prosecutor when a victim becomes so desperate that s/he fights back, which to be successful often means it is premeditated.
I think a better analogy is bullying
“The term bullying is typically used to refer to behavior… adults can be repeatedly aggressive and use power over each other, too”.
“Bullying includes actions… ”
http://www.stopbullying.gov/what-is-bullying/index.html
I see Mark’s action as a response to what he might have perceived as bullying by the majority on the Board.
Mark should be used to blindsiding by now.
Maybe Mark is just catching on that this is the norm, or maybe when it was Clendenen and Smith moving and shaking he could forgive more easily.
Rex and Virginia’s responses to the incident are more appropriate than Del Norte Supervisor Sullivan’s hypothetical response.
Virginia has said she didn’t mean any harm by volunteering to take over. Lovelace has apologized for letting his frustrations get the better of him. And Rex has reminded all that policy disagreements don’t have to be personal. (Thanks for reminding us that who sits in what seats effects policy.)
I honestly don’t see any of the former of current Board as evil people out to bully each other, but the system allows and even rewards bullying behaviors.
[correction: former or current]
So what I can understand is that the situation here cannot be characterized by us with any certainty.
And I do not understand, accept or respect wild characterizations of the incident based on the very limited information we have.
I don’t discount the will of the majority of voters. Bass and Bohn have said they want the Board on which all three serve to move forward. We elected them to do that, didn’t we?
I thought this Board might be more open and transparent, I have seen indications of some movement in that direction and still think it is possible. I do have an opinion on where there could be some improvement. The bullying behavior I have called “blindsiding” is not new to this group of Supervisors. I also honestly don’t see any of the former or current Board as evil people out to bully each other, but the system allows and even rewards bullying behaviors. Perhaps these folks can set a new more respectful norm.
Anonymous December 6, 2013 at 2:36 pm,
Thanks for the link.
I agree with your statement that “after Lovelace’s much stronger public apology in front of the Board the other day, if Jackson repeated her charge I don’t think it would ring true at all.”
December 7, 2013 at 10:57 am
Janelle Egger
Oops, I agree with Anonymous Dec 5 2:05’s statement. Didn’t make it to the bottom of my comment after going to find the identifying info for the source of the link. urgggggg…..
December 13, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Big Brother Babylon Jon
First gratuitous use of this that I’ve found… In the final minutes of KMUD’s Thursday Night HumCPR show with Tom Grover and Lee Ulansey a caller who seemed to be slightly off topic was trying to say that we should have more women leaders. Guess where Tom took the conversation before Lee could stop him?
“I think you should direct your comments to Mark Loveless (sic), quite honestly.”
Caller…”Why?”
Tom: “Uh, do you read the papers?” Laughs. *
Hardy har har Tom. Lee quickly interjected to stop the conversation as he is one of these guys who can see the political implications while involved in real time discussions.
This is what all those using terms like “hit” etc. were doing. They were creating the “documentation” others needed for their larger political narrative. Remember, this “hit” narrative started before Virginia had how serious she had thought this was in public (so serious it might involve dismissal). This story is just enough part of our collective consciousness and it’s actual events twisted just enough that it will probably continue to be used for the political narratives that are so useful when one’s policy initiatives are not in the larger public’s interests.
* 12/12/13 KMUD Thursday Night Talk (HumCPR shows are every 2nd Thrusday)
December 13, 2013 at 1:26 pm
Big Brother Babylon Jon
Oh, yeah, kudos to the indefatigable Bob F who was the next caller who mentioned the “Loveless” thing I missed.
I’m pretty sure it was Bob, I think I’m starting to recognize his unique voice.
December 13, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Anonymous
Gosh it’s so unfair that when a politician loses his temper and strikes his colleagues in anger, his reputation is damaged and he and his supporters have to endure some snarky reminders of the unfortunate incident for a while.
December 13, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Liberal Jon
Always anonymous and very tuned-in to this thread. very interesting. also another chance for you to use “strike” and “anger”. well done. I’m sure you will be covering this incident going forward very closely whoever you are and whatever your motivations.
December 13, 2013 at 1:58 pm
Anonymous
This too shall pass, Jon. People made a few snarky comments about Ryan Sundberg’s DUI for a little while too, then that issue faded away, since he didn’t reoffend. I predict the same will happen with this issue, assuming that in the future Lovelace can control his temper, or at least keep his hands to himself. I assume he can and will.
December 26, 2013 at 6:40 am
liberal jon
Shall it? Maybe after the election – until then it will be used as a frame to connect people sympathetically to Supervisor Bass. …
If the words “hit”, “strike”, “violence”, “assault” were not enough for you to connect the dots on this incident, Bob Williams in his letter to the editor today will spell it out for you. Lovelace, (and by my extraplation – Howard Dean), and … all leftists are unbalanced, aggressive, and well, are best just avoided if you can.
And it goes without saying that their ideas are… well loony, how can they not be when they are obviously unstable and mean-spirited? (sarcasm)
Kudos to Bob Williams on this – he taught me a new word and I’m always glad to expand my vocabulary today’s word – temerarious – reckless or rash.
http://www.times-standard.com/letters/ci_24795126/lovelace-caper-shows-true-colors
December 26, 2013 at 9:19 am
Anonymous
The thing that should be brought forward with the Lovelace/Bass is the way she changed her mind about handling this situation. Her first gut response was Lovelace meant nothing by it. After time at home spent with her “handlers”, it changed to Mark need anger management. I call that spin.
December 26, 2013 at 9:21 am
Joe Blow
Jon’s “issues” and “policies” – a
self-defining moment: “December 13, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Liberal Jon – Always anonymous and very
tuned-in to this thread. very interesting. also another chance for
you to use “strike” and “anger”. well done. I’m sure you
will be covering this incident going forward very closely whoever
you are and whatever your motivations.”
Did you notice his obsession with the sinister threat posed by the ubiquitous “Anonymous”?
December 26, 2013 at 1:25 pm
queenoftheforrest
Gee T. Jon, thanks for bringing us back to this crapola.
You sound as if you’re discussing a horse race.
~our time is now. It’s time to stand up against the enemy. There is severe danger forthcoming ~definitely orchestrated –worse than Agenda 21. The 2 billion rounds of ammo and the FEMA camps and NDAA and chemtrail spraying (while the dummies watch sports and discuss the petty little dictators) and on and on is just THEM POSITIONING THEMSELVES FOR THE ATTEMPTED TAKEOVER.
It’s time for all good people to come to the aid of our country. THIS IS WHERE WE ARE Jon.
What is it that you disagree with here Jon? Be specific. Aimlessly rambling on about “he said, she said” ~I MEAN, so what? What’s your point? Where EXACTLY does this get us? They are planning to collapse the state – doesn’t that interest you at all?
December 26, 2013 at 1:39 pm
liberal jon
Is it ubiquitous? We don’t know we don’t know who the A’s are or how many they are is it one person or ten? Who knows.
What would you wager that absolutely none of the a’s in this thread are Matthew Owen. I wouldn’t take that bet. Sinister is your word, NOT mine. I am not going to attribute nefarious intent. As I say over and over – good people disagreeing on politics. If one or more of these A’s are MO or if they are simply a clone (see his LoCO post – he is saying the same thing) he is right and justified saying what he is. He is defending his wife, and if his language is a little biased, well, it should be. He is biased on the issue.
I think Matthew has used the incident to further the liberal as a bad guy narrative. Unfortunately, Supervisor Bass’ take is very problematic. She has left the door wide open for this to be used as a political football to steal a term from another anon. I wish she would have either stood by her original take, or had publicly taken the appropriate action. If she does think the slap-on-the-back constitutes a “hit” as something that may have required dismissal most definitely should have, then I think she had the responsibility to do so.
This middle ground they have found is very convenient for their political goals I have noticed and will continue to point out as it bubbles up. Because it will – and it’s part of team red’s game. When team blue pulls stunts like this I’ll be calling it out too.
Joe – not sinister. Just to be clear.
December 26, 2013 at 1:50 pm
liberal jon
qotf – I disagree. The state’s fine. Just get out there and vote. No drama is no fun, but there is no drama here, just a bunch of problems that need good people who believe in what they are doing to try to help if they (we) can or at best do no harm.
Regarding my point or my “disagreement” here…. I’ve been very clear what I disagree with – the abuse of the language – not of the Supervisor. “hit”, “strike”, “abuse”, “violence” are exaggerations used by disinterested (meaning biased) political players. Mark has apologized for a too-forceful slap on the back that was done with equal force (Bohn has postulated this is not true because Mark is right handed – again – biased) to too people. Interestingly the slap is not noteworthy when it hit the big man, but is when it hit the woman with less inertia. I think to consider such a “slap” a “hit is problematic. However, if SVB thinks it is a “hit”, she should take the appropriate measures and SML should get a chance to defend himself. What we are left with is a story or narrative of the angry liberal who needs anger management and is violent towards woman. It’s baloney.
qotf. I can’t answer every question. I’m going to be continually pulling away. Please don’t think me rude, I would answer every comment if I had an infinite amount of time – but my spare time grows increasingly short and my blogging and commenting have to become more focused. If something is really important to you bold helps or ask it a couple times.
December 26, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Eric Kirk
Tom Lehrer once wrote that he gave up satire when they gave Kissingser the Nobel Peace Prize. For me, it’s the chemtrail conspiracy theorists. It’s just really hard to believe that grown-up minds can seriously go there.
December 26, 2013 at 2:35 pm
Joe Blow
Forest Queen, can you believe this? “I disagree. The state’s fine. Just get out there and vote.” And to top that he says, “…just a bunch of problems that need good people who believe in what they are doing to try to help if they (we) can or at best do no harm.”
Wasn’t it just a bunch of “good people” that got voted into office that caused all those “problems” plaguing and bedeviling everyone today?
This is cherry too: “Joe – not sinister. Just to be clear.” As if him saying it makes “it” so. It’s what he did that makes it what it is. If there was ever any doubt he cleared that up in his following comment.
December 26, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Joe Blow
Eric, but satire is so much fun…
December 26, 2013 at 5:18 pm
queenoftheforrest
Eric,
~your overuse of the words ‘conspiracy theory’ is old, out-dated. Are you also hanging onto Global Warming, Global Warming, Global Warming?
Condemnation without investigation serves no one.
December 26, 2013 at 5:34 pm
Eric Kirk
I guess the same could be said of the flat earthers. Have you investigated their claims?
December 26, 2013 at 5:41 pm
suzy blah blah
-“flat earthers”, isn’t he cute! I wish they’d stop thinking it’s clever to say tinfoil hats all the time too, gosh, that is sooo old. It makes sense that Kissinger would be in on the chemtrails racket though. Maybe Eric’s unconsciously connecting the dots.
December 26, 2013 at 5:55 pm
queenoftheforrest
Eric,
~yes, i did. The term “flat-earthers” became commonly used to refer to an individual who stubbornly adheres to discredited or outmoded ideas.
Chemtrails aren’t discredited or an outmoded idea.
December 26, 2013 at 6:46 pm
queenoftheforrest
Joe,
~no i can’t believe it. Destruction is what States do, or threaten to do, it is the nature of the beast.
“For everyone that doeth evil, hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” John: 3:20.
January 14, 2014 at 6:49 pm
Liberal Jon
Here it is again. This is not much different from what Rush and Glenn do nationally. Just make politics about personality instead of policy. It’s electoral gold, especially when your policies are to enrich those who are already doing just fine, thank you very much.
Also, as always it’s another courageous anon throwing the slime. “actually more like a cowering puppy worried lovelace might hit her again.”
I’m sorry to keep bringing attention to the baloney, but I think it’s better to address it than to ignore it. I’m a firm believer that sunshine is the best disinfectant.
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2014/jan/13/general-plan-update/#comment-1200387179
February 1, 2014 at 5:19 am
Liberal Jon
Here’s another. Is anyone else seeing how this works? This was written by the commenter “workplace violence”.
“that would be marks style or beating woman.”
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2014/jan/30/lovelace-makes-new-appointment-planning-commission/#comment-1224735841
Anons – this is what you have to address when arguing for anonymous’ in public discourse. The founder’s were not able to print this sort of drivel.
April 26, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Liberal Jon
Another anon weighs in on a Mike Sullivan and anon and Allison Jackson and Virginia Bass by her silence phenomena.
To be clear. If Supervisor Bass thought it was an assault, she has the responsibility to treat it as such. To allow it to be a political issue, even in the gutters is wrong. It demeans at the very least the political process, I’ll let women speak for themselves.
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2014/apr/25/one-one-virginia-bass/#comment-1356648071