Friday, June 27, 2014

Peter Childs Responds to Various Posts (at Eric's SoHum Parlance)

"...I don’t usually spend much time on the blogs because there’s too much heat and too little light. But certain comments on SoHum Parlance lately (June 1 and 3) that were brought to my attention call for a response...."

Let me start by saying that it troubles me deeply to see Bonnie Blackberry and Dan Taranto spoken of in such terms, by bloggers whose ignorance seems to me to be equalled by their arrogance. Bonnie and Dan are two of the most intelligent, selfless, and tireless public servants it has ever been my privilege to know (and work with). You who so facilely demean them have no idea what they have done, for you among so many others, over so many years. Riding such a high horse makes it hard to see what’s actually down there on the ground.

So here’s a little history, for what it may be worth. One person’s version, of course....

Some of my heroes. A great read. Check it out.

(Don't miss the comments section, as Peter Childs tries to educate LiberalJon)


  1. Two of humboldts treasures. If you are dissen' them you have no clue about anything!

  2. I wonder why Rose, if Peter and Dan and Bonnie have the support of the county's most conservative voices, why they don't think their message is inherently conservative?

    And in what way are Bonnie, Dan and Peter "public servants". They have inserted themselves into, the public dialog, but this does not make them a public servant. This makes them a participant in the public dialog.

    And I would contend, one interested in protecting private interests. Wouldn't you Rose?

  3. Because it's about what's RIGHT, not what party you are, or whether you consider yourself to be liberal or conservative, Jon. People used to know this. I'm sorry that you can't grok this simple fact.

    Dan Taranto - and Peter, and Bonnie - have stepped up to stop wrongs from being committed. Against Government overreach. In all your wisdom, surely you understand the importance of this.

    That's not 'public servant' - HERO is more apt description.

  4. The only reason Rose they are heros to you is exactly because the are against "government over-reach". This is yours and their description when in the other thread we were just discussing how big a problem illegal grows are.

    "Government overreach" could be the calling card of the strand of libertarian conservatism that grew out of Barry Goldwater, through Reagan and Rush and whose latest popular uprising came through the Tea Party. Taxed Enough Already.

    So as much as you'd like there to be a narrative of right vs wrong, it's still the narrative of left vs right you are describing, and Peter and Co. are powerful and persuasive advocates for the right specifically because they use the language of the left - Public and Democracy all the while keeping their distance rhetorically (but not at the ballot box) from the right.

    But at least you and I agree, and both disagree with Peter, that they are most decidedly not public servants.


    What a surprise that in googling "grok" I learned about science fiction writer Robert Heinlein who according to wikipedia "repeatedly addressed ...the importance of individual liberty and self-reliance". (and also wrote the

    Your language Rose is also steeped in your right-wing philosophy. It's OK, and right and proper. But it does exist. I'm sorry to break this to you, but you are a conservative member of our community. And I'm sorry you can't grasp this simple fact.

  5. OMFG, Jon. Honestly. Now HEINLEIIN is right-wing? Get a grip, man. You're lost.

    No, I don't 'disagree' with Peter - I 'grok' (understand fully, Jon) what he means. Standing up for what is right, and protecting the rights of citizens IS an act of Public Service, if not given the technical designation, which tends to be reserved for electeds.

    Without people like Dan Taranto, and the others, your rights do not exist, and you are far too willing to give them away.

    Why is that?

    Why aren't you more like them? Do you REALLY want the electeds, or worse, some unelected bureaucrat deciding your life, your fate?

  6. Heinlein wrote "Starship Troopers" Yes, as a science fiction fan myself, that is definitely right-wing. Definitely not the vision of Ursula LeGuin or even Gene Roddenberry.

    Yes Rose, I really do want elected not, deciding my fate, as they don't do that, but deciding the direction our community will go. That's why they are elected.

    When it comes to land use planning, some one does have to "plan". I think we may disagree on that simple point, but it's true. You would rather leave this to property owners. I'd rather leave this to the electeds and to the educated professional "bureaucrats". We pay them high salaries to do a job. It would be nice if we could allow them to do it.

    And no, what Dan is actually doing is removing our right to be represented by our Supervisors. What he is doing is adding another layer of "democracy" onto the planning process to insure that government is even more lame on land use planning. Which is exactly why they are your heros.

    We can't solve our environmental problems by the nature conservancy buying land Rose. That is where your disconnect happens. We have to tax, regulate and enforce. Not only human misbehavior that this blog likes to focus on but on the more mundane problems like code enforcement. Which, if you haven't noticed, includes regulating, enforcing and prosecuting local, state and FEDERAL laws on mj. Something I would hope we both agree on - at least in principle.

  7. Heinlein had a damn good idea in Starship Troopers, and that was the right to vote, and only the right to vote, apart from all other rights, must be earned by service of some sort. The idea that a person gets to vote just by being born and reaching a certain age is foolish.
    The non-serving citizens in ST had all the rights of those who served, except the right to vote.

  8. Jon, do you have ANY idea how much land the government owns?

    And have you seen what has happened to people who, with all good intentions, gave their land over to a conservancy? Look at Drake's Bay. Talk about an overlapping layer of government, you need look no further to see the use of phony science (documented, and even decried by DEMOCRAT Dianne Feinstein.)

    I'm glad we're sharpening your Google skills. Remember this one - The government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away.

  9. While Peter Child's dissertation is worthy of his admirable actions in a corrupt county overrun by criminal pot growers and sellers, it is a shame he has to post it on Eric Kirk's Brownshirt blog. Maybe in the end, there is some justification in that it is a fitting place, a lawyer's blog, for his account of the corruption and what amounted to a simple learning experience – totally lost on Kirk and his blog readers.

  10. Rose, I only brought up the conservancy b/c when I first got here that was your solution to me regarding set-backs from rivers - buy the land.

    A conservancy is where unmeritorious folks like myself can pool our resources and buy land. I don't for a minute believe it's a solution either - so we are agreed.

    Also, please don't forget that just because I'm a DEMOCRAT I will agree with or justify the actions of all DEMOCRATS. Don't forget that Virginia is a DEMOCRAT.

    So, Rose, how do we solve our environmental problems then if not by conservancies and if we are going to have land in private property owners lands who have the constitutional right to do whatever they want with that land? What is the conservative solution to, say, a 150 ft min set back from rivers and streams that salmon require? Or, say, a regulations on timber production that are going to help prevent landslides like they had in Washington recently?

    And yes, I was reminded by that post by our august Republican's recently that we the people still own a bunch of land. That fact still exists. Thank you for the update, and isn't it grand that we do?

  11. Conservancy is a good topic, Jon - and yes, I think it you want to control the fate of a property, you should buy it - as Sanctuary Forest did. It's honorable, and better than stealing it, NO?

    But there are very serious abuse issues with conservancies. Take the time to read Range Magazine's piece titled Nature's Landlord It's a long read, and well worth your time if you are really trying to understand the issue - such as how 'conservancy' land suddenly becomes off-limits to you, the public, who is so pleased to be a part of this - and how those same lands are made into exclusive resorts. There's good and there's bad, Jon. Many things that start out for all the right reasons inevitably become just another restrictive bureaucracy - nothing like what was originally intended.

    Grand? Let me know after you read it.

  12. Rose, how much of your day do you spend working on websites like this one?

  13. Rose, you are a workaholic . Thank you for trying to educate LJ. I fear that the likes of Salzman,Soros, Etc have rendered his brain to a steaming pile of prog mush. There are many good men and women like Bonnie and Peter who are true public servents in Humboldt. It is so sad that all of us who have fought for individualism, liberty, property rights and environmental integrity see our future looking more like a North Korean hell. You will be PC or enforcemet for you.

  14. anon 7/1. Did you vote for Bonnie or Virginia?

    And my vision of America and Humboldt looks like Denmark - not North Korea. But thanks for the effective straw man and making my point that for the Right, the education isn't about policy, because the policy answer is always the same Q: ___ A: The free market. (exception: law and order and defense)

    The education the right has to give the left is about us, the left. Who we really are. That's another good way to win arguments. Not ethically sound in my judgement, but then who am I to judge for goodness sake, I'm a Kim Jong Un apologist.

  15. Rose is a freeloader. She hasn't had a paying job in years, and now collects her SS.

  16. Richard, are ypou drinking again?


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