Saturday, February 28, 2015

For God's sake, people, what good is free speech if you don't USE IT?

Excellent article by Ryan Burns at Lost Coast Outpost.

County Mental Health Branch in Crisis After Mass Resignations of Doctors, Nurses

There are many comments by people claiming to be affected, employees at DHHS. Anonymous. One particularly well-thought out comment by PsychTraumaTxist is, like the others, under a pseudonym.

He/she says, among other things: Forgive my having gone on quite so long, but the negative, sometimes traumatic, effects this has had on the wellbeing of literally hundreds of people in our community is something I've been seeing for quite a while. It's time to speak up — and I hope others join me in letting those ultimately responsible hear from us. Please, call, write and/or email the Board of Supervisors individually and together.

You can't go to that Board Of Supervisors meeting anonymously, and you can't go with a paper bag over your head. You're going to have to stop being afraid.


  1. Couldn't agree more.

    I'd add, how free are we if we can't express ourselves using our own name?

    I don't think being anonymous is irrational. I think there are real, important reasons people use this. I think its on us as a community to ask why most do feel afraid to express themselves politically using their own name.

    I think the problem goes back to limited employers and the fact they will use your opinions against you. I don't think this makes this community unique. I do think we are worse on this on average.

    1. No. Don't blame anyone except the people who CHOOSE to play the "i'm too scared" game. I've been hearing from them for years now... here's this bit of info, but I/they can't go public, you can't use my/their name, don't use MY/their name, but they have no problem letting me use mine on their behalf. They have no problem saying all the same stuff amongst their friends, at parties, they just enjoy the intrigue that comes with saying 'don't use MY name,' Oh, they're afraid of hurting someone's feelings, they're afraid someone might know they're the one who talked, and be mad, they might even truly be afraid to be fired, but from all they say, the conditions aren't worth staying for - unless they've exaggerated that too. Not just me, every journalist and reporter in town deals with it, and that's why, in part, many are so jaded. Some will use anonymous sources, but most get sick of it. Don't blame the employers, most of them are likely completely unaware that these people are even afraid of them.

    2. Rose is right. Sometimes anonymous comments or sources are undertstandable but it is out of hand. In a small town, people talk behind people's backs. Want others like Tose and me to take the heat. I also have a problem with anonymous comments with malicious lies.

  2. In the early days of this blog wasn't there a tremendous amount of very inside, very accurate but very anonymous commenting and that without that you would have missed lots of Gallegos corruption stories.

  3. 10:11. Yes. And if you read my comment above, you get a taste of my frustration with those people who, though they were desperately trying to get the word out about how bad things were, were afraid or otherwise refused to go public. Many in that instance faced a very specific threat of reprisal. In general, I required proof, and in almost all instances, made sure I had multiple sources verifying the information. I understood their desperation, and thought it was important to chronicle the information.

    Nonetheless, I believe that if they had stood up, spoken out, gone public, maybe things could have been stopped a long time ago.

    I, and others, have also heard from people frustrated with DHHS. I don't know how many people, if any, went public. I noticed the comment bloom on LoCo a week or so ago, where anonymous people were commenting that it was imploding. Looks like Ryan Burns followed up, so SOMEONE must have had the guts to finally say something, and then others followed.

    Too late, isn't it. Horrific working conditions. Mass resignations. No one left. It's a monumental disaster.

    And STILL you have people commenting anonymously.

    What I am saying is this - you have the right to speak. If you don't use it, what good is it? You might as well be living in Soviet Russia, or worse - a prison of your own making, built, and in this case in real life allowed to flourish to the point that people who wouldn't speak out of fear for losing their jobs are losing their jobs anyway, by their own hand.

  4. I wonder if the Board of Supes will appoint Gallegos to replace Phil Crandall! Birds of a feather...flock together.

  5. *reads url* *realizes this isn't TE*

    OOPS! MY BAD. Not. Employer's. Fault. * steps backward slowly*

    What I meant to say when I wrote what I did was anons are cowards and need to learn how to pull up their damn heart-straps. Do you hear me MOLA? (unofficial leader of the anon anonymous club) Get some darn courage!

    That's just what a work-a-day average person that John just wrote about needs to succeed in her HumCo business career. Employers will take a look at the intertubes, notice, "Hey - this person is fighting for higher wages - I admire her gumption, HIRED!" - Or - "Gee, this person just called me out publically making my life more difficult" ...RAISE!

    I also think Pam Service's outspokenness and politics was the only saving grace with her employers at the Clark Museum (which btw, is where Mike Newman had an event according to his 2015 (for 2014) 460's.

    Note: the above sarcasm is my own and should not be construed in any way to represent the sarcasm of either my employer or the Membership of the Dems.


    "What I am saying is this - you have the right to speak." If we do, it's in name only. "Speech" as it is defined by Rose and her 5 activist judges will be protected. Speech in the form of $$, speech which enriches somebody - seemingly always the media (except under Communist Obama's regime where the internet will be maintained as a utility as it should).

    I was really surprised when Janelle and others fought for free speech alone in the wake of Occupy. Fred (or anyone representing libertarian principles) nor Rose (or those representing Constitutional Conservatives) were there to fight for the 1st amendment rights that she was fighting for. That kind of speech - on the last vestige of public property - when not conforming to the wishes of the powerful - will not be construed as speech.

    I think when we talk about "speech" or "freedom" we need to first define our terms.

    "you have the right to speak" It's a great for sloganeering on platforms like KINS and GOP fundraisers. However, I think the paucity of people who are willing to speak out demonstrates that in this country, with $$ on the line, our ability to express ourselves as we wish is extremely limited.

    Another example of our flawed narratives of ourselves that the right likes to draw. We really are a wonderful country with wonderful traits. We also have a whole lot of work to do to live up to our own principles - if we were to be honest with ourselves.

  6. God, you do love your boxes. You crack me up, Jon, but you're earning your liberal title, since you like your boxes, I will give it to you. Sorry to hear that you think you don't have free speech. Especially since you use your right every day, and we love you for it. The only thing people have to fear is fear itself. They create their own conditions. No bootstraps involved.

  7. Wow. I had a really long reply that disappeared.

    I was thinking about saving it before posting but didn't.

    Here is a summary...

    I clicked a box for Republican Frank Jager last election (uncontested). I also did not click a box for Democrat Marian Brady (uncontested).

    For the record.

    Also John Fullerton has come out publically as rejecting he is a Republican. That seems to me to leave only Frank.

    This is a desparate situation on a political system that needs competition. Without competition there will be corruption which I think is represented currently by Supervisor Bass and Fennell touting their Democratic name while working hard for Republican values. When we get a chance, like we did last November, the proof can be seen clearly as Virginia supported strongly Mike and Chet who register as DTS and tout their moderate stances.

    But what does moderate mean when there is no real opposition?

    It's not about boxes Rose as much as you'd like to box me in that box. It is about issues and our system, as you must know from the lack of interest in your party or your party's endorsement by elected officials.

    It's time during this down period both parties look to what then can do to serve our public better.


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