Sunday, April 27, 2014

A little piece of history:

◼ Oct. 28, 2004: The Journal endorses

...That leaves the Eureka City Council Ward 4. First, the citizens of Eureka should be thankful that both these men are willing and most able to serve and there really is no wrong choice. However, of the two, we are backing Rex Bohn as the stronger candidate.

The last 3 ! / 2 years on the council Chris Kerrigan has demonstrated that he is hard-working, articulate and a good listener. He is on the right side of many issues we support -- quality of life issues such as beautification and trails, for instance. However, there were several instances in this campaign where issues of character arose and Chris came up a little short.

In campaign literature, Kerrigan takes credit for being "instrumental" in "saving and creating hundreds of jobs in our community." Well, not exactly. As a member of the Redwood Region Economic Development Commission, he is one of 18 people who represent cities and agencies throughout the county. About 80 (full-time equivalent) jobs have indeed been "created" since Chris joined the board in 2001, most outside Eureka. In addition, there are a number of local businesses reporting jobs were "saved" because they received RREDC loans, a claim that is always open to some skepticism.

In addition, Kerrigan has exaggerated his role in the effort to bring direct air service from Los Angeles. (Some credit goes to the Humboldt County aviation director and RREDC staff for doing the legwork, in conjunction with the city of Redding, which initiated the entire effort.)

Exaggeration is not all that uncommon, especially in politics. However, Kerrigan made a serious misstep when one of his supporters, activist Richard Salzman, sent out an e-mail using Kerrigan's phone number soliciting funds. In it Salzman wrote that challenger Rex Bohn was "out for himself a greedy oil executive bent on revenge." It is a failure of leadership that Kerrigan did not act in the wake of the controversy by publicly condemning Salzman's comment and by apologizing.

We are backing Bohn because he appears to be a man of strong character with a lifetime of real-life experiences to bring to the council, and he has a track record of getting things done.

That was then. ◼ THIS IS NOW - with Salzman at his side. And a little more carefully worded bio.

No mention of ditching his job in the middle to go on a quixotic quest to become a big-wig in the oh-so-honest-and-ethical John Edwards Presidential campaign.


  1. Character Chris -1. Virgina Bass +1.

    Got it.

    Greetings Rose,

    Policy? Or does that matter?

    What about the Guiding Principles?

    What about issues of homelessness? Can we all agree to disagree with Mr. Arkley that nonprofits should not be helping those in need? I think Virginia even disagrees with Arkley on this.

    What else separates the Democrat Bass from your views Rose?

    What side of the chasm is she on? What side is Chris? Is it only issues of character that put Chris on the other side and Virginia on your side?

    Do you think the NCJ can update their rating of character of Supervisor Bohn after rewriting the Guiding Principles with Supervisor Fennell? I don't think it would be as complementary, but that's probably because Judy is on the other side of the chasm too.

    BTW, you are absolutely right about John Edwards, that guy had the right politics, but his personal life ethics and /or morals were so backward that I would have done anything I could to remove him from the Democratic ticket in primary season.

    But still, come the general, policy matters such as health care, soft and smart diplomacy vs agro military use, wise Justices instead of ideological originalists, etc. in the general I still would have had to vote for Edwards over McCain.

    Politics is about policy. Money, conservatives and the right would love to make it about simply character - why? because they lose on policies. People know a safety net is essential. People know that universal health care is better for both citizens and businesses (see 17 of the other 18 industrialized countries*), people understand that military force is to be used only as an absolute last resort. etc.

    Oh, to bring it back home, people believe in protecting natural resources (and I'd argue even ecosystem values) for the long term. Supervisor Bass is uncomfortable leaving that phrase to stand on it's own. Chris Kerrigan would not.

    You know what, believe it or not it takes a whole lot of character to stand up to money and powerful forces in our community who would, say "discourage resource conversion" on TPZ lands. Even if you yourself voted for the language in the first place.

    So Rose, I will be here for a long time on this river of life trying to get you to further explain in a public forum your side of the chasm. There is nothing wrong with it, there are good principles, many of which I wholeheartedly agree. (also...many I don't) I just wish you (and other's like Chet Alin or any of the anons for example) could be more open about them so we could allow the public to make more transparent choices.

    I spend time here because you are the one non-libertarian conservative who has the guts and time and interest and public service compunction to blog. Problem is, just like every other conservative, it's difficult for you to allow people to connect your views to your name on a day-to-day basis.

    Instead, as we learned in Ollivier's race we will get talk about debate, which in the end is only about personal experience and character (or misdirection on jobs and the economy or cutting taxes) and apparently another theme is how important it is to be non-partisan in races. All the while being completely partisan. (As it should be btw.)

    So, from the job-quitting, windmill tilting, terminally ill cancer wife cheating on, angry, lying, painfully uninformed, polarizing, violence against women not-condemning, partisan side of the chasm Rose, I say please enjoy this beautiful day in this beautiful county.


  2. I still can't believe young Kerrigan upset good ol' Rex

  3. You into gun control, LiberalJon?

  4. Greetings Rose.

    a) short answer - absolutely

    b) thank you for broaching a policy question - finally! *sighs*

    c) it's an important subject that illustrates what's wrong with local partisanship - the local board is not going to broach this subject. Nor would I if I were ever elected, it would be a sure loser for liberal causes in this county.

    d) so long answer is yes, but I would not be for any local initiative to try to control it - that would be politically insane.

    e) why politically insane?

    The NRA has revved up their base and the conservative wing of the Republicans to the point of almost defining being an American by a belief or even faith in the 2nd amendment, That's right wing radio and the NRA at work in that graph. Even with that work, most Americans (71%) favor gun control either as it is now or more strict. (In 1990 78% wanted it to be more strict) I don't think we need it in Humboldt politically or even as a sound policy, but I would like to allow other local governments who wish to control guns to do so. I also favor national gun control to avoid one jurisdiction being the source of guns for another.

    f) This is your political savvy showing Rose. You know it's ultimately about policy (over character), and you know what policies are good to talk about. Guns is one of the three "G" wedge issues political players use to win elections. Wedge issues are political topics which will split an otherwise unified voting block. This is one of the ways the Reagan democrats were split off from the Dems in the 80's and 90's. It probably has been a big play up here I'd imagine charging up both the Republicans and the Libertarians and many independents who are afraid of their government instead of understanding they are their government.

    g) now what we do is have a discussion about what "gun control" would mean locally. Let's speak across the chasm about what policy implications this has for the BOS races for example. My guess would be none. I don't think this is even on the radar as a topic. But that doesn't mean we can't define the partisan differences in the blogosphere.

    Having said that. We don't want to spend all our time - especially precious time before an election talking about red herring political issues for obvious reasons. Let's save this one for December and talk about the issues the candidates and public are right now.

  5. Good, Jon, You've made yourself VERY clear.

    Now - all that free stuff you're so fond of, you know that is paid for with other people's money, right? Taken from them at gunpoint. Are you against guns in that instance? Or it's cool with you if it's the overlords? Just asking.

    It doesn't have a thing to do with the DA's race, but you keep wanting to go off on these dogmatic rants. You're so proud of what you take without thinking. Or, you think it is ok, because you want it. I'm not clear which. Go back to your basement.

  6. "Now - all that free stuff you're so fond of, you know that is paid for with other people's money, right? Taken from them at gunpoint. Are you against guns in that instance? Or it's cool with you if it's the overlords? Just asking."

    No time to unpack this Rose. But this is ultra-partisan. It is a conservative narrative (I have liberal narratives) that touches reality, but is not the greatest descriptor of reality. It's may be why many conservatives feel the "mainstream" media is biased - it presents a reality that not always comports with the worldview of the conservative.

    Having said that - I'd love to unpack that and I will over time. Not this AM, but thank you for being blunt. The more blunt, the more transparent and productive conversation we can have here, at least imho.

    Some points that I think are false. "doesn't have a thing to do with the DA's race". This is untrue, isn't it? Wasn't this post about the Supervisorial race? That is what I'm interested in and I'm trying to point out where I think you are misleading. Is that fair - both of what I'm trying to do and as a better representation of reality in this case?

    And instead of defending myself personally, which would end up in another food fight, which takes us further away from policy discussions, let me continue to own your view of our side of the chasm.

    From's basement dwelling, dogmatic ranting, non-thinking, myopically narcissistic, angry, lying, cringe inducing know-nothing, woman assaulting, gun-wielding authoritarian government supporting, other people's money taking (by gun point).

    Do you start to see what you are doing Rose? Look at the last descriptors of our side of the chasm. You are actually starting to get to policy and politics here. Out of character descriptors, ultimately comes policy recommendations. In this case a public sector that takes in less revenues from taxation - or possibly a flatter taxation rate. Also, oddly you are implying our side is pro-gun point tax-collecting. I don't know about that. I suppose I could argue your side is gun-totting welfare-fraud investigating? I don't know how to unpack that political tactic honestly. It's something I'm going to have to work on because I know it is an important thread in Humboldt politics. I've gotten there also in my conversations about the GPU and code enforcement.

    Anyway, thank you again for clearly defining your politics, the more you do the more better for our community. I promise to do the same in an open and honest manner.

    The goal is Rose, to be able to communicate with respect across the chasm (ie across and extant and important to acknowledge partisanship). We are not going to agree - CAPS LOCK ON ALMOST ANYTHING - but our community deserves us to be able to define what we are arguing or debating when it comes to things that we all care about - who we are, where we are going, and how we are going to get there.

    Peace Rose.

  7. Jon. I am not misleading you. You brought up gun control, and the fact that you think other people should pay to take care of you.

    So I asked you if you, who think guns should be 'controlled,' are in favor of taking stuff from your fellow citizens (of ANY party or other definition) at gunpoint.

    There's no point in discussing anything with you, however, since you have already stated multiple times that even if you know the facts and can see the irrefutable truth, you will still stick with your dogma. Truth doesn't matter. Facts don't matter. Reality doesn't matter.

    You're a big-government nanny-stater who wants Big Brother to take care of you, and all that that entails. You love the newspeak, you'll happily throw things down the Memory Hole.

    1984 is your world. Oceania. And you're a good little - what do they call them, Jon? Soldiers?

  8. "Truth doesn't matter." It does, a lot.

    "You brought up gun control"

    Is this true?

    "You have already stated multiple times that even if you know the facts and can see the irrefutable truth, you will still stick with your dogma"

    Is this true?

    What about this?

    Is this true?

    What about this?

    I'd say both the links are true. One is easier to prove than the other (the former), but another is potentially much more significant that the other (the latter). One is the truth behind the Tea Party, the other the truth behind Occupy.

    The bottom line is, there is always only one truth, that is what is happening each day. What happens is one side or another (both are guilty, but not equally guilty) choses a small sliver of what's true to extrapolate to a larger narrative which deviates from reality.

    That's why the little things are important - a) to establish credibility, but b) to make sure we are on the same page of reality.

    Who did start the discussion of gun control? (hit "cntl-f" to find the instances of the word "gun"). Also are you sure of the "fact" that I "think other people should pay to take care of you". If these "facts" are not "true" if these do not represent reality, what else may not be?

    Rose, I'm not here to pretend I'm perfect, I'll way -too-often be wrong getting either the truths or facts wrong. However, I do try so hard to represent reality and base policy decisions on the pertinent essential facts and truths as we as a society understand them (and with advances in technology our ability to gather data and understand it is increasing daily). And - I don't discount you when you are wrong, we all will be, that's not what I'm saying.

    What I'm saying is this. We are both good people and will be right and wrong. One side doesn't own truth, but I would argue that the right is doing it's damned best to ignore it.

    That's why in California and in Humboldt Chet Albin has to run as a Democrat now. It's a tragedy and somehow I'm trying to reach you, a neighbor and someone interested in politics to see this unfolding disaster of polarized civics.

    Partisanship in local politics is a good and essential thing. We apparently disagree on this.

    However, we wholeheartedly agree that this ... "even if you know the facts and can see the irrefutable truth, you will still stick with your dogma" ... is wrong.

    Maybe that agreement is a good place to start.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.