Matthew Owen flashes us with the naked truth on Mills’ “nudity ordinance”

mathew owens 1

Last week, we posted about the City of Eureka’s new municipal code related to “public nudity”. Chief Mills and city staff presented the code as a way to deal with scofflaws who are purposely undressing in front of kids and not putting their clothes on when asked by police. The story sounded ridiculous and we called the city out on creating another way for EPD to harass the houseless:

“However, the proposed nudity law really irked us. Not just because the law is blatantly sexist and wrong (a six year old boy can run shirtless in a park but a 6 year old girl would be committing a crime), but because we think the real purpose of this law is to criminalize people who don’t have regular access to a bathroom. You see, merely “exposing” your genitals (including any portion of your “areola”, the ring of pigmented skin surrounding a nipple) will now be a crime if you “expose” yourself on any “Park, building, street, sidewalk, bike path, alley, parking lot, plaza, park, playground, pool, beach, or adjacent waters, or any place open to the public”. The law gives some exemptions for things like being 5 years old or younger, and breastfeeding. However, the law doesn’t take into account people who live on city property (like behind the mall) and would thereby criminalize people going to the bathroom in those areas. Without city provided bathrooms, hundreds of people a day will be violating this law by simply fulfilling a human need to poop and pee. Criminalizing this human need is Mills true goal with the code.”

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/will-verbena-reveal-the-bare-facts-on-eurekas-nudity-ordinance/#comments

Mills said the department is currently 6 and soon to be 7 cops down (at another meeting he said down 8)

Chief Mills never admitted this was the true purpose of the ordinance, which passed by a vote of 4 to 1 (kudos to Linda Atkins for standing up for human rights). However, yesterday local politico jackass Matthew Owen wrote another op-ed for the Lost Coast Outpost. In the article, Matthew Owen let slip his opinion about the public nudity ordinance, and shed some light on exactly who was being targeted. From the Outpost:

“The Public Nudity Ordinance was the citizens frustration of seeing our homeless/mentally ill folks getting naked and showering with a bottled water in public view, urinating and defecating all over our streets, and masturbating in public. After the usual suspects commented in favor of the homeless/mentally ill being able to “do their thing in public” the City Council voted to pass this ordinance.”

http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2015/nov/6/matthew-middle-naked-gun/

There it is Eureka. The ordinance which was heralded as a way to save the children is actually a law to further criminalize the behavior of “homeless/mentally ill”. The laws true intent should have been obvious to all the “progressive” council members, and not just Linda Atkins. We expected Ciarabellini and Brady to vote for the ordinance, because they are all in on criminalizing the poorest among us.   However, we were a disappointed with Arroyo and Bergel. Both of those council members should have recognized Chief Mills spin for what it was, and voted with Atkins to kill the ordinance. Sadly, this council seems to vote in ways that are about as progressive as Matthew Owen, which is a sad state of affairs in Eureka.

Advertisements

45 thoughts on “Matthew Owen flashes us with the naked truth on Mills’ “nudity ordinance”

  1. One person expresses their opinion, and the TE reaction is “well there you go….now you have your answer……now you know the reason for the ordinance”. Pretty sad.

    Like

  2. I’m glad it passed. Who wants to see some homeless guy taking a cap in public on their way to work in the morning? Not me, but I did yesterday. Saw a guy last week on Broadway with his pants around his ankles totally out of it. You’ll get no sympathy from me

    Like

  3. Is it T.E.’s position that it would some how help the homeless and mentally ill, to learn they don’t need to follow social politeness rules that all others adhere to?

    Like

  4. Yes! Kim Begel and Natalie Arroyo = Matthew Owen. Thanks for the update TE. (sarcasm)

    Like

    • I think the criticism is more about the naivete of Arroyo and Bergel in regards to believing everything the Chief says. Atkins saw through the smoke and mirrors and voted against the ordinance. This ordinance will be used to enforce punishments on people because of their lack of resources or their “unsightly” looks.

      As a side note, what really progressive ordinance’s or projects have Natalie and Kim pushed forward since being on the council? That’s not a sarcastic question either. I’d really like to know since I haven’t seen much of anything in the traditional media.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I don’t know either. I’m learnin’ JP. I’ll let you know. I do know this. I’d rather have them on the Council than Mike or Chet. I also know I would have loved someone to have run against Marian. Why isn’t she or Melinda mentioned here?

        I think this is yet another example of seeking perfection and letting it be the enemy of the good.

        Like

      • We expect foolishness & bigotry from those two.
        We had such high hopes for Arroyo and Bergel.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. Well, one positive thing that might happen if an arrest is made. The person arrested can look forward to three meals and a toilet in jail. Seems like it would be far less expensive to build low income housing and porta potties behind the mall. Hard for officials to be reasonable, however.

    Like

  6. Eureka city council’s failure to recognize the imperatives and obligations to ethically and equitably frame policies to serve everyone’s basic needs and legal rights…

    …is neither “perfection” nor “good” 2:02PM.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Why would anyone pay any attention to Matt Bass Owen in the first place? The man is a total buffoon. btw, if anyone is interested he’s the guy behind the THC curtain. He doesn’t do all the writing obviously but it’s his brainchild.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. TE, Jim, MOLA, Midnight:

    “We expect foolishness & bigotry from those two. We had such high hopes for Arroyo and Bergel.”

    But to assume readers and voters understand this only serves to undermine your own hope.

    Have you already forgotten that Bergel and Arroyo voted (or didn’t) as the only – non-police-state just 2 weeks ago. That was a much more significant vote than this one in my estimation as it will continue our public action of criminalizing people’s desperate attempts to shelter themselves. Just as winter hits the North Coast.

    Sweeping, unguided anger is simply not responsible if you do really want to move in a direction of policies that treat and handle houselessness in context of a society with a broken safety net.

    What you are basically doing is focusing your anger on those which offer some hope, ignoring those who will then step into the policy void you create. Without criticism, Melinda and Marian will seem to offer a road which is not controversial.

    That is the political battle that has to be articulated, no matter how difficult or frustrating.

    Unless of course you believe, like those on the right, that no policy or governmental action is better than action based on democratic consensus.

    Remember TE, we are not the only people out here. There are others, and their votes and opinions count. They are also very loud and have plenty of backing when it comes to matters they might categorize as “safety” issues. I know you yourselves are very passionate about active police action against crime and gang activity.

    We know from experience what happens if we have both left and right shouting generally at politicians both left and right. The right will win at least 4 of 5 seats. We know this from the Heraldo/Mirror days and the only reason we held onto that 5th seat was the strength, wisdom, experience and perseverance of one Linda Atkins.

    I don’t want to take Eureka back to those days, do you? That is where we will head unless we can clearly articulate clearly important anger with the proper perspective, direction and proportion.

    Like

    • I disagree.

      Dismissing anger as “sweeping” and “unguided” is broad and hyperbolic. The sole example you provided is accurate.

      The failure of a council majority to declare a crisis that is obvious to all, is foolish and bigoted. Foolish because the status-quo costs more than providing shelter through easing regulations, bigoted because easing regulations for our propertied lawbreakers is a local legacy.

      So far, this failure has emboldened Ciarabellini and Brady to blame homeless advocates for “slow progress”. Declaring a crisis would change that.

      “The right will win at least 4 of 5 seats” because there will be no ballot initiatives to inspire the few hundred additional voters needed. This was how the non-right wing won their first majority in living memory.

      Every significant social justice success in history evolved out of bitter and contentious polarization. We need much, much more of it, if you want folks to start voting. (Recall the public anger expressed over Measures “R” and “P”). Regardless of how you chose to characterize it, it is essential.

      Criticizing the poor performance of candidates you support is OK.

      I appreciated their vote to cut the Chamber of Commerce public subsidy, but allowing the authorities to remove pallets from the destitute, or allowing public policy to refer to homeless men, women and children as “criminals, addicts, and mentally ill” should disgust every civilized human being.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. Matthew Owens behind the TE curtain. Now that’s some funny shit !!

    Like

    • I think that Anonymous indicated THC not TE. A distinction with a definite difference.

      My sources say the same though I’m not sure that Matt is behind the whole enterprise. More likely he’s just a significant contributor and Ms. Bass’s campaign account is the principal funding source. The Arkley machine is alive and well in Owen’s diminutive frame. It’s hard to tell just who is less impressive, Owen or his breasted ventriloquist dummy. Neither is qualified to run a lemon-aid stand much less a county.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Realized that after I posted…..my bad. TE has more of a Heraldo backed smell.

        Like

      • Silly. First of all THC costs nothing to run except the amount needed to buy the gifts they have to give out for people to agree with them. Second of all as much as I disagree with Virginia, she would not be a part of a blog that spews that much vitriol. I know she knows Rob C. and DeAnna (sp?) S. for example who THC went off on for no apparent reason.

        No, given THC’s politics, I would wager it’s Bohn who would contribute leaks to them. At least once THC has admitted they got the heads up from a Supervisor, I just don’t see that it could be Supervisor Bass

        http://thclive.net/2015/10/08/workforce-development-by-idiots/

        Also, this “It’s hard to tell just who is less impressive, Owen or his breasted ventriloquist dummy.” is crass. Not sure if you are working for the Bass 2018 campaign, but you are only helping to make her a sympathetic figure by your written misogynistic bullying.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. Many local governments are setting aside land and moving unused containers on the land, converting them to LOW COST living units and creating community where none existed before. They start with unmarried women and children. Then they build separate units for men. Central garbage pickup is provided as well as employing off duty officers to keep the area safe and free of open drug use. Why not give it a try in Humboldt? Social services are much easier to administer. You build them closer to areas where employment can be reached on foot. It works and many places are doing it.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Midnight: a couple of points.

    a) “because there will be no ballot initiatives to inspire the few hundred additional voters needed.”

    I don’t believe in gimic democracy. Like you say, let’s go to work. Let’s go door to door. If there is a measure that should be on the ballot – let’s do it. But let’s not create a measure to get out the vote. That’s Rovian.

    b) “Every significant social justice success in history evolved out of bitter and contentious polarization. ”

    How did the counterculture polarization of the late 60’s /70’s work out for us? There are great initiatives like the Clean Air Act, etc. but we are losing ground in the important narratives. If American generally and HumCo and Eureka specifically are to continue to move forward to a sustainable future, we are going to need to move the center of the political spectrum with us.

    The thing is, we can. The reason is, reality is on our side.

    Instead of directing anger at electeds who can inspire hope, let’s take a step back and see what else we can do to make their decisions to do the right thing easier.

    Here are 3 examples from the past and the near future that might help. a) we could have found an opponent for Marian. b and c) we could find opponents for Supervisors Fennell and Bohn.

    Initiatives or not, if we don’t have candidates we can’t win.

    Like

    • It’s not “either/or”!

      It takes a candidate AND it takes voter participation.

      “Gimmick democracy” is establishment politics, doing and saying whatever is necessary to appeal to the “center” to get elected, ie, careful (and costly) manipulation of the 30% of eligible voters that are still voting. That’s 15% plus one to win!

      We will continue to “lose ground on important narratives”, as long as those narratives remain focused on the “center minority”.

      2014 ballot measures like “R” and “P”, were an end-run around center-focused representatives who are consistently unable or unwilling to legislate in the larger public interest, a primary cause of chronic low-turnout.

      Thus, it is no surprise that ballot initiatives are successful in motivating voters and, in fact, have delivered Eureka’s first non-right wing majority, despite decades of competent liberal candidates that are typically outspent and defeated. It’s tough to inspire candidates within a political system corrupted by money during a depression, these are political novices dominated by advisers wanting to appeal to the center-minority instead of utilizing strategies that address majority issues, (reality).

      Considering the historic anomaly of our current city council, I am astounded that any liberal-leaning individual would demean ballot measures as a broader strategy to maintain it. A “win-win” or “Killing two birds with one stone” is hardly “Rovian”. A rent control initiative in Eureka could draw thousands into voting for the first time. We can thank decades of housing market corruption for that.

      In the quest to win the “center minority” you must throw the ‘60’s under the bus!? Why stop there? What has the Civil Rights and environmental movements delivered us? Mass incarceration and a cancer epidemic? The Magna Carta resulted in more torture and mass-surveillance?

      If you were paying attention in history class, you would understand that the outrage of slavery became the outrage of Jim Crow exploitation, which became the outrage of mass incarceration and marginalization. One era’s victories become the next era’s challenges because the enemy never gives up, always changing the rules to maintain entitlement and privilege. It’s your turn to be outraged.

      Making it known the kind of government you can respect is the first step in achieving it.

      Refraining from calling-out your elected leader’s mistakes is “gimmick democracy”.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Midnight:

    I think this is an important discussion and I respect so much you say. I do want to address the rest of the post but first have to do a little “for the record” bookkeeping.

    The two paragraphs beginning with

    In the quest to win the “center minority” you must throw the ‘60’s under the bus!?

    are null and void to any connection with thoughts/ideas I might have b/c you missed something. I deliberately typed “late 60’s” which you then interpreted as “60’s”. There is a big difference.

    ’65 and the Civil Rights Act that Johnson (not Kennedy btw) signed is seminal and it stemmed from one of the most inspirational and important movements in human history. imho.

    Those two paragraphs are someone else’s (imaginary?) humble opinion but they do not represent my own.

    I do credit the youth rebellion which people like local yokal Peter Childs help ignite for changing the environmental awareness of California and the globe. I’m not sure how much of the credit must be shared, but as I experienced my life I always understood the counter culture to be not only a net positive, but a driver of awakening our inner John Muirs AND David Browers.

    But I am on a decades-long journey of understanding that the anti-authoritarian, me-first aspects of that movement may not have been as benign for our politics as I had thought. We cannot lay all the blame for yuppies and Reagan (not to mention the DLC) at the power of an entitled wealthy few. We, the electorate, had to buy into it. Missouri’s Rush Limbaugh took the banner of the counter-counter culture revolution/narrative beginning in 1985 and made palatable the middle class an earth-shaking shift in electoral politics.

    The anger clearly came from race-based politics, but it was sold, with a significant amount of legitimacy, by angering the largely white working class at a movement which had too many very clear paradoxes. One of which was they eventually had to earn a living too.

    I didn’t take as many history classes as I would have liked, but we can probably save that particular lesson about the US path after slavery which leads directly to todays race-based wealth, justice, etc inequality for others. Not that I’d love to learn more.

    It’s your turn to be outraged.

    I am outraged. Just not at the genuine actors like Natalie, Kim or Linda. To direct my anger at them or at government generally may have consequences to a local and national narrative that will allow a government of, for and by … wealth.

    Which we agree is outrageous.

    Like

  13. “Genuine Actors”?

    They are our elected representatives, chosen by a bit over 15% of the eligible voters.

    You have only considered the consequences of criticizing their mistakes, conveniently ignoring the greater consequences of your self-censorship.

    Nationally, the consequences are prolonged and unparalleled carnage in the longest violent conflicts and occupations in U.S. history; bi-partisan war crimes that will continue to serve as validation for many of the 70% of eligible Americans that refuse to vote.

    Similarly, the needless suffering of homeless men, women and children due to bi-partisan human rights violations in Eureka, (dramatically illustrated in passage of the outrageous and bigoted “Homeless policy”, “Nuisance Ordinance” and “Nudity Ordinance”), will, at a minimum, maintain the status-quo of voter abstentions that always favor the right wing. Worse, it will cost the dignity, health, and lives of Eureka’s poorest residents, requiring public subsidies in excess of the costs of providing modest shelter.

    I can understand the complexity, fear and burden of responsibility that causes broad self-censorship in publicly righting wrongs.

    It is perplexing, however, that the only GD tool proven to motivate local voter participation merits your public attack as “Rovian”, when it should have inspired great hope in reversing a corrupt political legacy dating back to Eureka’s handling of past unwanted residents that were native and Chinese.

    Silence serves the repetition of civilizations’ darkest mistakes. Legislating the marginalization of entire classes of human beings always preceded their extermination in history’s genocides.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. “Genuine Actors”?*

    Yes, Kim, Natalie and Linda may not have voted the way you would have wanted, but they are genuine. They care deeply about what they do and they are doing their best to make sometimes difficult decisions. You can see this by watching an ECC meeting.

    “It is perplexing, however, that the only GD tool proven to motivate local voter participation merits your public attack as “Rovian”,”

    It is Rovian, I’m sorry. It’s God, Gays, Guns but instead Minimum Wage, Rent Control, GMOs Suck. You yourself just wrote it’s a “tool”. I’m down. All I’m saying is I’m not going to ask Verbena to initiate a Fair Wage Ordinance fight to help elect Natalie. I support the heck out of such an ordinance, but it has to be organic. It has to have a will and need of it’s own. There has to be passion from real people like you and me. Not just you and me.

    And Rovian does not mean to imply demonic. Rove is a campaign specialist who happens to disagree with a bunch of ethics that you and I might share and has a bunch more of the money than we ever will.

    The problem with tools or gimmicks is they can and will be used against the left with much more lasting effects as the late 60’s ’till today should have taught us as we have incessantly worked to decimate Roosevelt’s America.

    What you are talking about in focusing on human dignity is reality and you are connecting what is a very powerful and potentially benevolent force – capitalism and markets (see Hans Rosling and the health and wealth of societies)** to those our society left behind. I agree.

    But our greatest asset isn’t slipshod anger. It is in fact a net loss for us. Our greatest asset is our narrative. Our narrative isn’t something that people can listen to when they are angry. Rush’s and Rove’s narrative can use anger and fear. Our narrative is asking people to look to their heart free of fear or anger. We on the left must as people to feel empathy, they can’t if they are angry or afraid.

    Anger and fear are losing issues for the left. It may win one election, but the reaction will lose the next 4 in a society controlled by wealth.

    * Doesn’t imply Melinda or Marian are not genuine people. From my perspective, their politics is not.

    ** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

    “You have … conveniently ignor(ed) the greater consequences of your self-censorship” I’m not ignoring this. I wrote on this, but it would have overwhelmed the above sentiment. I’ll post it later.

    Like

  15. Ensuring there is a ballot measure that addresses resident’s unmet needs, that helps them identify candidates who share their interests, while generating higher turnout in the process, is called a “win-win-win”. And that’s exactly what happened in the 2014 election for the first time.

    It is a natural and positive political synergy that merits celebration and repetition.

    Instead, you chose to demean it as “Rovian”, in the same way Mathew Owen has done out of slipshod anger. Are you an “Owenian”?

    FDR’s America was not decimated by grassroots ballot measures. His reforms were reluctantly enacted out of extreme public suffering and protest that is returning. And when the contentious, polarizing anger grows sufficient, the organizing, political strategies, protests and voters will return.

    Demeaning anger as “slipshod” is simplistic. Contrary to your assertion, empathy often evokes immense and necessary feelings of anger.

    Again, it is important that we hold our elected representatives to account for votes that violate basic human rights regardless of fear over political expediency, a far worse offence than the win-win-win of grassroots ballot initiatives.

    This has been my only criticism of these representatives to-date amid a host of accolades.

    I have written in detail why their votes merit the vocal condemnation of empathetic and outraged residents. In turn, will you please explain your support of Eureka’s new “Homeless Policy”, “Nuisance and Nudity Ordinances”, all enacted within the span of a few weeks amid the bigoted calls for the eviction of the homeless?

    Liked by 1 person

  16. “win-win-win” except Measure R lost.

    I think you could be right. I think that Measure R and those that worked hard going door-to-door increased the actual number of voters supporting Natalie and Kim. However, there is a strong argument to be made that given that the measure lost 38% to 60% * it actually worked against the left-leaning candidates (ie also increased the number voting for Mike or Chet – except by 6 voters for every 4 that voted for Kim or Natalie). It is not as absolute a sure thing that R helped to elect left-leaning candidates as you make it out to be. Unless you are hiding some statistical evidence I am not aware of. (And I am aware of Mitch’s awesome bar-graph.)

    Correlation (successful election in Eureka) does not indicate causation (progressive measures on ballot). We agree on this right?

    And again, I’m not against R or what James, Verbena, Don, Zach, et. al. did. That was Occupy at it’s best imho. I do think that direct democracy in the form of propositions is a net loss for the left just given the current potential for money to buy what it wants and have laws pass with a little wordsmithing and faux-populism. Prop 13 seems to me to be a seminal example.

    Am I Owen-ian? Well, I do believe that political parties are a critical tool for individuals and movements to enact important societal changes. In that sense I am. I am different though b/c I don’t believe in picking a party based on which one gives the electoral advantage and forcing the square peg of my personal principles into the round hole of that party’s platform. I think the latter is what separates Matthew and I given the many similarities we all share. (such as caring about Eureka’s future and having opinions on the best policies to take us forward)

    * http://www.humboldtgov.org/DocumentCenter/View/27921

    “Demeaning anger as “slipshod” is simplistic.”

    To review…we agree anger is important. I’m not saying self-censor anger. I am saying we need to prioritize and direct the anger in a way that helps us to achieve political goals, not work against them.

    It is not self-censoring, it’s prioritizing. Think about it. How absurd is it to direct one’s anger at the candidate that gave one hope and not the one we knew never did. Prioritize, we are not going to change 30 or 150 years of “other” politics in one election. It’s going to take time and smart, sustainable policies AND politics.

    Like

  17. And not once blaming Reagan, Bush, Rove, Beck, Cheney, Rumsfeld, O’reilly, Limbaugh, or Fox News for anything! I never thought I’d live to see the day.

    Like

  18. Thanks to local research we know that over half of the voters supporting Bergel also voted for Measure “R” and that she won by a tiny margin. And for that, Measure “R” was successful. You can parse semantics till you turn blue, but to suggest that Bergel could have won without “R” is not only an extremely hard sell, it suggests an agenda I don’t understand.

    Our larger debate reveals a big reason why most Americans don’t vote.

    They’ve too often sought answers (hope) outside themselves and are inevitably disappointed because everyone makes mistakes, even those that we entrusted our “Hope for Change” with. For some, these mistakes must be ignored as if they solely define a person when, in fact, a poor decision does not necessarily define a poor representative.

    Criticizing the decision is not criticizing the representative, no one’s “good intentions” have been questioned, and mistakes are just that: Mistakes!

    Self-censorship, however, is not “prioritization”! Anyone compelled to censor themselves, for whatever reason, is still self-censoring.

    Even on this anonymous rural blog, for example, you are compelled to censor your true feelings about your city’s new, unwarranted, bigoted, punitive and injurious Homeless Policy, Nuisance Ordinance, and Nudity Ordinance because, I assume, you know they are indefensible mistakes.

    What is most striking about your non-response is that it mirrors the local non-response by housing advocates, public professionals, elected representatives and media. Given the magnitude, the sheer scale and suffering within growing populations of local and national homelessness one would expect it to be a top priority of every human rights, civil rights, housing, social justice, and democratic organization everywhere, instead of deafening silence.

    Conferences, strategy sessions and debates regarding how best to build a movement to dismantle this new caste-system would be occurring on a regular basis, except for the deafening silence.

    Foundations would be lobbied to prioritize reform, media campaigns would be unleashed in efforts to overturn our new punitive public policies and confront the public prejudices, if not for the deafening silence.

    The rhetoric associated with specific reform efforts would stress the need to end homelessness, and declare a state of emergency, not just tinker with it, if not for the silence.

    Our institutions are composed of fallible people afflicted by unconscious biases against the homeless and, like most people, resist the belief that we might be part of the problem, primarily due to our silence.

    Everyone has reasons for their constraint, reasons that no longer make good sense, if they ever did, and like the ugliest of Humboldt County’s legacies, we will be embarrassed by how long it took to move out of denial and do the hard work of ending the legislated marginalization of an entire class of our poorest people.

    In her memoir, “Lift Every Voice”, Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier acknowledged, “(social justice) litigators like me become like the Washington insiders we were so suspicious of…we reflexively distanced ourselves from the very people on whose behalf we brought the cases in the first place, our anchor. We not only left people behind, we also lost touch with the moral force at the heart of the movement itself”.

    The same is true for our empathetic residents, professionals, public interest advocates, representatives, and media that are too detached and fearful to share in the public outrage over the further punishment and marginalization of homeless human beings through public policy.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Criticizing the decision is not criticizing the representative, no one’s “good intentions” have been questioned, and mistakes are just that: Mistakes!”

    If this was true I wouldn’t be arguing. It is important to speak one’s mind but Arroyo=Bergel=Owen=Newman=Albin mind set is mind numbing. This is the type of criticizing the representative that will lower interest on the left in 2016 and 18. Why depend on a rent control measure when we could be speaking our displeasure with a little more nuance and understanding of what is at stake. (search Tuluwat by “arroyo” to find “ON 11/4/14 EUREKA ELECTS A PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY?…JUST KIDDING!”, “MEET THE NEW BRADY BUNCH; SAME AS THE OLD BRADY BUNCH”, “TWEEDLEDEE AND TWEEDLEDUMB, AND EVEN FREAKIN’ DUMBER”,

    If by this…”Thanks to local research”… you mean this http://democracycounts.blogspot.com/2014/11/did-bergel-voters-vote-for-arroyo-for.html

    It isn’t research as much as a graph. And it’s awesome. And it by Mitch Trachtenberg who I think you call a right winger?

    Look, I do believe R helped. I believe this in my heart b/c I love R and what it tried to do as much as I love those who ran the campaign and what they are trying to do. However facts are important and nobody should be ashamed or upset if an analysis of reality contradicts what we want to be true. We need to learn from our mistakes and move forward.

    a) To say that R is a success is wrong. By any measure. I’m sorry, but it’s true. It lost 38% to 60% in an election where increased minimum wage measures won all over the country including the deep south. I think we both understand we were beat by deceptive campaigning on the other side and John Fullerton and so many others has proven this by his lack of action on a county wide minimum wage increase.

    b) Did R push Kim over the top? Maybe. We can’t prove this either way. You do represent the one side of the argument well. R pushed more left-leaning voters out of their homes and into the polling place (via, importantly, registration). While I want this to be true, we don’t know this. We don’t have evidence that I’ve seen of increase registration numbers in the precincts R may have focused.

    The argument against you is one that is based on the fact that 6 of 10 voters came out against R. If R won, there is no argument that it helped Kim by both counts – energizing the base AND a majority of voters. However, when defeated so soundly there is a great chance that R did not help and here is where you can see it in the numbers. Bergel got 1900 “yes” on R votes Newman got 2620 “no” on R votes. That is pretty damning for your argument.

    In the end Kim won. We will never know why. I would not have changed a thing, even knowing the results. The reason why is R was not my baby, it was Verbena, James, Sarah’s, Zach’s, and all those that supported it. They did exactly what they could and their passion was inspiring. If that Occupy-type passion is not palatable to many voters, sobeit. That passion is positive and imho can only help left-leaning candidates.

    ************************************

    What I think hurts left-leaning candidates is the negative, blind fury that Tuluwat, Jim, yourself and others demonstrate too often. The most frustrating thing for me is it comes anonymously so there is absolutely no accounting for your anger. Why so angry on Q but then also angry specifically on gang-focused violent crime. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense without a full picture which we will never be privy to.

    Where this passion is coming from is this. The problem that Democrats and left (ish) and left candidates have is the anti-government, anti-authority, anti-establishment narrative. This has important and significant roots in the left of the late 60’s but since the 80’s the right understands the power of this sentiment and has taken the same argument which begins in Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. This is what I’m worried about and I think the TE take hurts our chance of changing this important narrative by allowing this false story that government and electeds are working against us. It’s not and they are not unless WE allow the Owens, the Newmans, the Albins, to allow government advocate for those with influence and power.

    RE my “self-censorship”: I don’t know enough to write with intelligence on our ordinance. It passed with Linda’s vote. I respect and trust her and I think she was trying to balance the safety issues she herself feels (along with the outspoken safety contingent) living in the Cooper’s Gulch area.

    Like

  20. Multiple posts and a thousand words make your narrative clear.

    You self-censor your opinions on your city’s new and punitive Homeless Policy, Nuisance and Nudity Ordinances due to your personal priority for political expediency. How is it that you are a member of this county’s democratic central committee, attend city council meetings on this subject, have a political blogsite, and “not know enough to have an opinion”???

    REALLY???

    Alas, a good example for how small town officials feel immune to pass injurious policies against the weakest residents…just like the big boys.

    Here’s what HUD had to say about this issue:

    https://www.hudexchange.info/homelessness-assistance/alternatives-to-criminalizing-homelessness/

    “What I think hurts left-leaning candidates is the negative, blind fury that Tuluwat, Jim, yourself and others demonstrate too often.” (LMOB)

    Very clever of you to make aggressively hostile accusations against me without providing an example.

    I am not the Tuluwat, or “Jim” (?),so your extensive disagreements with the tone of their opinions are misplaced here, nor have I claimed “Mitch” is a republican, (whatever that has to do with anything!?).

    “a) To say that R is a success is wrong. By any measure.
    b) Did R push Kim over the top? Maybe.”(LMOB)

    Apparently, “R” might have been a success by your own measure.

    Again, 2014 had 2 progressive ballot measures when Eureka won its first non-right wing majority. Over half of Bergel’s supporters also voted for “R”. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence is accepted in most courts. Similarly, a rent control measure would help thousands of poor residents in Eureka where a 20% affordability rate for home ownership is part of a long legacy of corruption. Advancing ballot measures creates an organic political synergy to reinvigorate public participation and renew faith in the candidates that endorse them.

    I would appreciate it if you could use an anonymous identity on these anonymous blogs so that we can learn what you actually think about an issue of grave local importance and national significance.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Anon – discussions about personalities or credibility will always be a one way street and only be of lasting significance to one of us. These discussions are do not seem genuine to me b/c there seems to be a change of ideas or thoughts from point a) what I represent my idea to be to b) how you represent my ideas. It’s happened more than once and this is the latest.

    My quote “I don’t know enough to write with intelligence on our ordinance.”

    Your representation of my quote “not know enough to have an opinion”

    I agree, btw with the “???” after the quote you made up.

    What we can do, is discuss numbers and try to come to some agreement on what happened in the election in 2014 and what that means for the future. Remember, we mostly agree – I just want to make sure that we on the left speak with accuracy and precision. Here are the numbers.

    YES ON R Voters for Bergel: 1900
    NO ON R Voters for Newman: 2620

    YES On R Votes 2789 (39%)
    NO On R Votes 4389 (60%)

    % of YES ON R Voters for Bergel 68.12%
    % of NO ON R Voters for Newman 59.69%

    Eureka Election Totals:

    2014
    Ballots 7,397
    Registered 14,325
    Percent 51.64%

    2012
    Ballots 10,199
    Registered 14,406
    Percent 70.80%

    2010
    Ballots 9,175
    Co. Percent 66.07%
    Registered Est. 13,887

    Again, b/c of R’s landslide loss, the absolute number of voters against R went for Newman by a difference of 720 votes. That is important. Maybe those voters, as conservative voters often do, were coming out to the polls anyway and those votes were going for Mike regardless of R. OK, I can’t prove otherwise.

    Now of the Yes on R voters – 2789 of them – 68% voted for Bergel. This makes sense. Almost 7 of 10 people who believe in a living wage would try to vote for the more liberal or progressive candidate.

    That percentage IS higher than the 59% (6 of 10) of No on R voters who also voted for Newman. This also kinda makes sense given that most people who were not passionate on R lacked as much passion to vote for a candidate more aligned with their views. In other words, this is evidence to back up your contention. One that I agree with, btw. A popular liberal measure has the potential to increase interest, registration and votes of the base. It’s a tool. However, when over-used as a way to manipulating election results this tool can quickly become gimmicky and ultimately counterproductive. (and yes, I think any measure aimed in the vicinity of rent control would be critical, not at all gimmicky and I would be a strong supporter)

    The problem is, even with that higher percentage of people that went with Bergel if they went with R, b/c R lost so soundly, the total number of voters against R seems to me to be a net win for Newman.

    The bottom line though is Bergel won. In the end, that is what matters to you, to me, to Kim and to our City. What does continue to have significance going forward is why she won. Right now we don’t have enough evidence either way to prove that the election Kim won either aided or hindered by R being on the ballot.

    Note: all numbers came from the cumulative election totals you can find here

    http://www.humboldtgov.org/Archive.aspx?ADID=937

    Numbers on how man R voters voted for Bergel can be found in the link to Mitch’s site in my previous comment.

    What should not go unnoticed is how incredible the numbers one could produce from the transparency project’s raw data. We don’t have exit polls locally, but this information could go a long way toward getting even more important data. It is a political science Master’s thesis waiting to happen for the industrious/interested student. imho. (Or AP Politics individual study for a H.S. Student?)

    **********************************************************

    “Very clever of you to make aggressively hostile accusations against me without providing an example.”

    The examples provided were specifically from the TE’s headlines and the contents of those blog posts. I retract adding Jim and yourself to that list, please accept my apologies. I would say that “aggressively hostile” may be overstating the case though? Anyway, I do appreciate, reference and value what you contribute.

    I’m also glad we can all agree that making allegations like Bergel=Owens=Arroyo=Newman=Albin is not true and not helpful. We should hope for more precise and accurate political commentary to help inform and build a political movement instead of undermining the few foundations of the one we have. These types of ideas might also help to increase the anemic registration and ballot numbers in Eureka.

    Like

  22. I had no idea you were running for city council, I will re-frame future comments on another string.

    However, I prefer to accept what’s obvious and that you have already conceded:

    “Did R push Kim over the top? Maybe.”

    I have observed 40 years of Eureka’s democrats, unions, and other donors spending millions of dollars to do everything they could think of, yet, never once seizing a majority from the control of the development industry…until 2 progressive ballot measures appeared simultaneously with the candidates. (Also a first).

    Maybe we should let Bergel tell us if she thinks she could have afforded to forfeit the votes of her “R” supporters?

    Furthermore, if you are concerned about advancing progressive values and voter participation you might consider refraining from using the deception inherent in the calculation of voter turnout that you have cited above.

    If a rural county like ours were to ever fall into progressive hands, one of the first orders of business should be to begin reporting turnout as a total of eligible voters not simply registered voters.

    Non-participants are the majority making a choice that affects all. Including them in the calculation would be more meaningful, accurate, and most importantly, alarming enough to lead to reforms.

    In this string you have written that “It is important to speak one’s mind”. I would only add that it is the Genesis of change. Yet, despite being repeatedly asked, you have withheld your views day after day on Eureka’s new Homeless Policy. You have also written, “Anger and fear are losing issues for the left”. I agree! Eureka’s new Homeless Policy, Nuisance and Nudity Ordinances are entirely based upon fear that will ultimately fail.

    I’m happy that I could be there for you to blame for misrepresenting whatever motivates your self-censorship on this issue. Few that know you will accuse you of, “lacking enough knowledge to write intelligently…”.

    Once again, what is your opinion?

    Sophistry and evasion are common skills when seeking the votes of 15% plus one of the eligible voters to win an election.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. *sigh*. I trust and respect Linda and if she would allow it I would often seek guidance from her based on her experience and our many shared values. It seems to me knowing this there is a very real possibility, if I was in her shoes, I might have voted with the ordinance too.
    Having said that, my personal opinion is it sucks. The timing just before winter is dangerous, punitive and wrong. The way officers discuss the homeless before the CC is cringe-inducing. I’ve asked for a copy of that responsibility pledge they are either asking or mandating people to sign.
    Those are my opinions from the heart. The long-form opinion, which I’d like to have the time to write would include (of course) mental institutions, Reagan, and us on the left. Amma – there is plenty of blame to go around on this problem including myself.

    I’ve done a lot of work on this and have really based many of my opinions on your writings and experience. I do believe you are right that the tide is turning against developers. I disagree with your contention that the ballots prove this was because of R (which I agree is progressive) and P (which may be progressive but not necessarily liberal).

    So, in your opinion, we let one entirely interested (biased) person, Kim, make the decision if R helped her? Would you even care about reality if it was against an argument you would like to make? Reality is important and what we on the left should ALWAYS be taking it into consideration as we make decisions.

    I agree that I’d like to see what the county estimates to be the total number of eligible voters on each final report. If it’s really important to many other voters I could see including that on the totals for each race.

    The problem is that that number is not known. Our Constitution mandates we make a count every 10 years for these exact purposes, but you must know the common right-wing whining about the intrusiveness of these counts. People are beginning to want to lie or ignore much of the census process so these numbers seem to me to be increasingly less dependable.

    But that is our starting point and it is a decent one.

    I think largely based on that, when you search Eureka CA population on Census.gov you get a final number of 26,925 for 2014. These would conceivably be all people – even those <18 and undocumented people who are not eligible to vote. Let's forget the undocumented and others such as felons etc b/c these populations would be much smaller and not change the broad number much. Subtracting 20% based on the census' estimate of those <20… we get 21,540 of eligible voters.

    2014
    Ballots 7,397
    Registered 21,540
    Percent 51.64%
    Est. Pop 21,540
    Percent 34.34%

    2012
    Ballots 10,199
    Registered 21,538
    Percent 70.80%
    Est. Pop 21,538
    Percent 47.35%

    2010
    Ballots 9,175
    Co. Percent 66.07%
    Registered Est. 13,887
    Est. Pop 21,756
    Percent 42.17%

    So what the numbers show is even with R &P only 34% of potential voters voted in 2014 and this was a 13% decrease from the presidential year and a 8% decrease from the last similar election.

    So, still you may be right b/c we will never, ever know what the total would have been like without R and P but there is absolutely 0 evidence that I can find to support the fact that R helped increase the numbers of registered voters or voters

    I want it to be true. I believe in my heart it's true given the hard work the Fair Wage Folks did, but there is no evidence of this.

    Having said all that. The bottom line is we need to do everything we can every day to get all eligible Eurekans to vote. What the numbers do show is a depressing trend in the other direction and instead of trumpeting a strategy of ensuring progressive measures with it's success measured in 10's of votes for a candidate we turn around and call Matthew Owen we should be going door to door (yes all if possible) and doing whatever we can to get people involved.

    If we do this Amma, you might be shocked, but most Eurekans will be to the right of you and me on the homeless ordinance. That is another one of my opinions.

    Like

  24. Whew…Thanks for your opinion. You have done no injury to Atkins or Bergel by adding another critical bullet in the most important war of every era: Public consensus. Had there been a larger handful of individuals persistently and publicly doing the same, those policies and ordinances might not have passed, nor even been presented. What use is a silent narrative?

    Sorry, but many truths do not reveal themselves readily to number crunching.

    When “X” number of thoughtful people become vociferous with their values and solutions, it could make it increasingly difficult for:

    “most Eurekans to be to the right of you and me on the Homeless (Policy)”.

    I find this assumption of yours far more problematic to prove than “R’s” impact on Bergel’s election. Research has repeatedly shown that self-described right-wingers actually share numerous liberal values on a host of issues. Utah, the reddest of states, has led the nation in solving homelessness.

    No one has any idea what “most Eurekan’s” believe at any given moment on any issue.

    No, I didn’t leave it up to Bergel to decide on “R’s” contribution. OF COURSE she could not afford to relinquish those votes.

    There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that she needed “R” supporters to win, over half her supporters also voted for “R” and she won by a tiny margin! The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and sufficient, unless you have some another agenda.

    You can find more detailed local and national Census data that tallies populations “over 18 years old” to compare to ballots cast. While the Census is imperfect in gross under-counts, especially in rural areas like ours, it still reveals a scandalous number of non-voters that merits inclusion as a primary context of every official and media election report…instead of effectively being censored.

    It is well-known that popular and controversial ballot measures increase turnout, and that increased turnout defeats right-wing issues and candidates, this is the “rule” and there are exceptions, but not enough to stop republicans from doing everything they can to make voting difficult.

    Surely you realize that the 2014 turnout would probably have been far less without Measures “R” and “P” on the ballot? And that it’s equally important HOW they voted on other issues and candidates that rely on tiny margins? We registered hundreds of first time voters for Measure “R”. The candidates that clearly endorsed “R” also won their vote.

    Instead of spending so much effort looking for numerically provable truths, listen to your conscience and look at the bigger picture.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Anon, to those of us in the non-virtual world credibility is critical. We can’t change our email address when the argument goes poorly and start fresh, even if our cause is just. That makes a difference.

    Reality matters. If it doesn’t. If we go decouple our narrative from it to win this or that argument or even election then the result might be that we lose nearly everything we worked for.

    I think that has happened since the 1948 split of Progressives from a Democratic Party run in part with a racist Dixiecrat base in the south. Another schism happened in 1968 and the results are we could not keep up with other industrialized nations in creating many no-question important reforms such as universal health care and progressive taxes.

    Our stories like government is good are often so boring that they can’t compete in popularity contests with shiny objects like billionaire celebrities politicians blaming our woes on others. We can’t afford to make any mistakes. We can’t play the games Rove and Bush do b/c our policies are meant to last forever, theirs are often just as successful if they are fleeting. We try to build a sustainable future with shared responsibilities, they are happy to go with the ethos that if you can’t make it on your own, well either a) why didn’t you make better decisions or b) become religious for goodness sake. (Also, make sure you choose the right religion.)

    Take a look at this thread. You are pushing a narrative which I too want to be true, but it’s not in the facts. And facts do matter.

    Here is my original contention…

    Remember TE, we are not the only people out here. There are others, and their votes and opinions count. They are also very loud and have plenty of backing when it comes to matters they might categorize as “safety” issues.

    And now this “Research has repeatedly shown that self-described right-wingers actually share numerous liberal values on a host of issues.” . Do you remember what happened last time you brought up the term “research” which wasn’t really research but a graph?

    The result was this…“Sorry, but many truths do not reveal themselves readily to number crunching.” and this…“Instead of spending so much effort looking for numerically provable truths”.

    You are not to admit you are ever mistaken and my allowance for logic like correlation does not prove causation is seen as a concession. I would say that line of reasoning is beyond “Rovian” and becomes “W” -ian.

    A couple of other numbers…

    Thanks to local research we know that over half of the voters supporting Bergel also voted for Measure “R” and that she won by a tiny margin.

    Final Election Results:
    Bergel 3,359
    Newman 3,313

    Removing the Yes on R votes from Bergel…
    Bergel 3,359 – 1,900 = 1,459

    Holy crap! Thats 1900 votes. That’s “over half of the voters supporting Bergel” AND “she won by a tiny margin”. QED!

    That is where your story has to end. The problem is … there is more to the story. There exist out there the people who happen to disagree with you and me on many things. Even if you turn off their TV and you lecture them for 40 hours straight on why they are wrong to blame the homeless on the fact they can’t make ends meet.

    Here is the other side of the story…Newman’s votes minus the “No on R” votes he received.

    Newman 3,313-2,620 = 693.

    The final result if we not only subtract those who voted FOR R and FOR Kim AND those that voted AGAINST R and FOR Mike would have been…

    Bergel 1,459
    Newman 693

    I think Kim would have taken that result too.

    So what is my deal? Why am I spending all this time on a liberal website to argue against HumCo people on the left who care passionately about many of the same issues I do? WTH?

    The reason is the narrative. R was right (P – no so much but it’s harmless to all but local farmers. It may be that there is an economic reason to ban GMOs here that is based on the millions of national consumers who might buy into this.) We both agree it was an important measure, we both strongly supported it.

    But it lost anon. It lost badly. That is one of the points of this discussion. What did it get us in the end? It sealed in victory the lies and deception of John Fullerton and helped Charlie Bean with his narrative that living wages hurt SSA income recipients. To hear TE tell it, it gave us leaders who are really no different than Melinda, Marian or Matthew, yet you still call it a Win-Win-Win.

    Seems to me from the TE perspective it is at the very least a Loss-loss.

    Without reality, without accountability, without logic, without, in short a true story to tell voters we will never be able to maintain election wins. The problem is we have to b/c the other side does not care if they lie or deny (global warming), use gimmicks (add measures such as anti-gay or anti-transgendered) to get out their base, or posture and stonewall (Bush’s Iraq policy which was sold as something it was not).

    The ends do not justify the means and that is part of what it means to be accountable.

    Paraphrasing you … ideas are the Genesis of change. I agree and your ideas and my buying into them are a perfect example (inshallah). I do too believe in going door to door. I do too believe in Measures such as R as an appropriate use of direct democracy when the legislators failed us. The problem is time moves on and we have to maintain and defend those ideas from those who would like to maximize their self interest.

    There were ideas galore in the late sixties. How did that work out for us? We got the EPA and the Endangered Species Act but we also got Reagan, Rush and a world where a justice system sees corporations as people, money as free speech and our journey seeking racial equality under the law as complete. I think we agree that can and must do better. I think we do that by a) getting people out (please notice the downward trend by any accounting and with Measures R and P) and b) by making sure our story inextricably linked to reality, logic, and reason.

    Do you disagree?

    Like

  26. You cannot effectively make your case and once again resort to fanciful accusations.

    To borrow your insult: “Those of us in the non-virtual world” would like to know where I have used “alternative e-mail addresses” in this debate, or what it has to do with the issues being debated here? You have already apologized for wrongly comparing my criticisms to others, as if you are a qualified judge of other’s anger and all that’s positive and appropriate.

    You are not.

    Again, the frustration we share over the needless collapse of every measurable indicator of the economy, environment and society, will require multitudes more of the public hostility needed to impact public consensus. You might be repulsed by the Tuluwat’s expression of outrage or Verbena calling the mayor an ass in public testimony, but they have every right to, and it has a role to play, such courage and conviction can motivate other’s involvement. Once we have our first local progressive movement you can try again to prove any injury it causes. With a mere dozen or so persistent dissenters, Eureka’s disgraceful Homeless Policy, Nuisance and Nudity Ordinances might not have ever passed nor even been presented.

    “Paraphrasing you … ideas are the Genesis of change.” (LMOB)

    No, I wrote, “speaking one’s mind in public is the Genesis of change” Ideas are as useless as “narratives” when self-censored. (Big difference).

    No, I have not been limiting my “narrative”, (that I am “pushing” and that you “want to believe”), only to Measures “R” and “P”, but to more important and broader truths, this is another reality you have chosen to discount. The data we are debating never made any local mainstream news. No one cares.

    I don’t understand why, but you are intent upon interpreting and debating these issues from the perspective and sensibilities of our opponents as if you have been thoroughly brainwashed. It is a horrendous waste of time when you could be mastering your “narrative” and leaving opponent’s arguments to opponents.

    For example, you tried, but could not prove that “R” and “P” failed to increase voter turnout. Then, you made the alternative argument that “R” aided the opposition more than aiding Bergel instead of seeing “R” as a desperately necessary grass roots initiative that won Bergel’s election ONLY because she wisely chose to endorse it. You took issue over my assertion that surveys (a kind of research) show that self-described right-wingers share many independent issues with the left. Then, you ignore our 900 small town republicans that voted “yes” on “R”.

    You keep repeating the nebulous mantra of “credibility” that flows from republicans that win their elections by virtue of moneyed corruption and 30% turnout. This is a reality described by U.S. officials as “illegitimate rogue nations” when they refer to the 30 countries we’ve bombed since WWII.

    I guess you’ve never read Martin Luther King’s comments on Rosa Parks, a lighter-skinned black woman without divorce, jail or drugs (“mistakes” most people make), in her extended family. Numerous blacks of all ages had also righteously defied the busing laws and King lamented the time consuming, costly, counterproductive, and self-defeating efforts to always try to locate the perfect candidates, defendants and activists that would appease, and appeal to the sensibilities of their opponents instead of focusing on the convictions of their values.

    Those who are loudest to judge and condemn the “negativity” of angry and bitter detractors are always the ones in power trying desperately to hold on.

    Try and focus on the bigger picture and your progressive values.

    How many failures faced the gay marriage initiatives, and where has that lead us?

    Measure “R” needed to be improved and repeated. Imagine what it, or any other issue or candidate could accomplish with effective canvassing. It just doesn’t happen here. So far, only the initiatives seem capable of drawing out voters for progressive causes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Anon….just another example of why lmob used to be known as “lyin jon” on blogs in the past. Even local liberals put distance themselves and jonboy.

      Like

  27. Then, you ignore our 900 small town republicans that voted “yes” on “R”.

    Could you please let me know where this comes from? I only ignored it b/c I couldn’t find it. Are you speaking of the 660 “Yes” votes Newman received? How many “No” votes came from small town Democrats?

    You cannot effectively make your case and once again resort to fanciful accusations.

    …and…

    For example, you tried, but could not prove that “R” and “P” failed to increase voter turnout.

    *throws up arms*

    “You might be repulsed by …Verbena calling the mayor an ass in public testimony, but they have every right to, and it has a role to play, such courage and conviction can motivate other’s involvement”.

    I have never once mentioned Verbena or the Fair Wage Folks negatively in this thread or I don’t think elsewhere, ever. She has every right to speak her mind and although I would take a different tact, I’m proud of her speaking her mind in public. Sometimes this isn’t pretty. Democracy isn’t always pretty. And sometimes an “ass” is justified.

    That’s her choice and I think it is a fine one for her and I completely support her right to speak out.

    There are a couple of things anon she does differently than TE. a) she is very precise with her language and anger and does not focus her anger at Kim and Natalie. b) she backs up her words with her identity. She is accountable for her words and actions. (and no, I’m not “repulsed” by TE, we just have our major differences on how best to deal with a lack of public interest local media)

    We are winding down here. I’ve learned a great deal from someone, someone I used to want to know but I have to learn to no longer care. Good luck to you my friend but I do have to move on. Not necessarily with this comment, but this is the beginning of an end – at least until Nov 2, 2016.

    I wanted to talk about local elections reasonably but I understand now that that will not happen with this manifestation of someone. I’ll will not know why and that is just fine. To each their own.

    If I am to run I do have to prioritize my time. Step one will be to speak with people who are brave enough to meet, chat, discuss, yell if necessary, etc, write, email, tweet, etc with accountability.

    I respect what you do and your passion. I just find that it may not be as effective as you believe.

    “Imagine what it, or any other issue or candidate could accomplish with effective canvassing”.

    I’ll see you out there. Cheers.

    Like

  28. “Then, you ignore our 900 small town republicans that voted “yes” on “R”.
    Could you please let me know where this comes from? I only ignored it b/c I couldn’t find it. Are you speaking of the 660 “Yes” votes Newman received? How many “No” votes came from small town Democrats?” (LMOB)

    Once again you are illustrating how you consistently lack a progressive perspective in this debate; you are already fabricating a counter-argument to discount a progressive “win”…however modest that win might be.

    I suspect that you did not consider this aspect of the election because, as I wrote above, you are too focused on interpreting political issues from opponent’s perspective instead of leaving that to opponents. I simply combined the number of “yes” on “R” voters that also supported the right-wing candidates. It’s a “win”. Go ahead, you can say it secretly to yourself, no one’s listening, it won’t kill you.

    I neglected to respond to your insult that I am “Bushian” (“W”). According to you, I didn’t admit to “errors”, (that I feel I have not made). I regret taking the time to patiently respond to so many of your misconceptions for so many evenings, now that you only “might” run for city council.

    Your negative perspective of ballot measures in general, (and specifically “R” and “P”), is inconsistent with progressive values. Do you honestly consider it “losses” that led to the eventual success for the Suffrage movement? Were the initiatives that “failed badly” over the years really “losses” in securing gay marriage rights, or were they critical parts of the process leading to positive change?

    Describing “R” as a “lose-lose” is what our opponents do. I find this far more offensive and inaccurate than anything the TE has ever printed.

    In reality, “R” forced a debate, (win), it turned out new voters (win), it rallied youths and generated support from republicans (win). It forced our intransigent shot-callers to spend a large sum of money off the radar carefully attributed to no one, (win), it also drove them to rig an anti-“R” ballot statement on behalf of the City of Eureka without a council vote, nor a public hearing, (win). “R” laid the groundwork for a similar 2016 initiative, (win), and did all of these things with a tiny ragtag staff and without effective canvassing or sufficient funding. It exposed more of Eureka’s ugly political corruption, (win).

    Had one or two brave journalists hammered these issues and further exposed who was behind the illegality and subterfuge, more interest would be generated in running another form of “R” in 2016.

    Again, you draw an irrational line for criticizing specific city council members due to their “potential” in providing “hope” for their progressive votes, yet, ignore the positive impacts of “R” and question the potential positive impact of grass-roots initiatives in general.

    Bergel, Atkins and Arroyo supported “R” and could have passed a “compromise” (modest) minimum wage increase once elected. For some, Eureka’s first (and only?) non-right wing majority has left an indistinguishable legacy, certainly, passage of their draconian Homeless Policy, Nuisance and Nudity Ordinance provides a milestone example directly effecting the life, health and security of our most vulnerable residents, three consecutive actions that will only make it more difficult for future candidates to run on their alleged progressive values.

    The Tuluwat is among the few local sources publishing public-interest reports independent from commercial media. They have the right to their opinions too, especially when apt. You took exception to Tuluwat’s comments that the council’s vote was “foolish and bigoted” and I wrote in detail exactly how that comment is accurate. After much prodding, you finally offered your own opinion in concurrence.

    This rural blog is only the beginning; don’t deceive yourself into thinking you’re going to be “organic” or retain “authenticity” working within a corrupt and mostly public-abandoned political reality wherein candidates typically must temper values and repress their opinions to attain the few (confused) opponents’ votes needed to win. The only way I know to avoid this self-defeating nationwide strategy is to form an event around your actual values or link with a grass roots initiative that will help confirm your values for voters.

    Finally, it is outrageous, exceedingly petty, and almost unheard of on the anonymous blogs for a participant to question the “accountability” of others based solely on their anonymity! You chose to participate in an anonymous medium where you have no real knowledge of those you insinuate to be “unaccountable”, you have no clue and, in fact, no need to know when or where the Tuluwat, or myself, decide to be anonymous or decide to speak up publicly or actively engage in our community. I’ve never questioned your “accountability”, yet I’ve never once seen you share your progressive values publicly. Anonymity is a right, and the first to be lost in every tyranny from every wannabe dictator. You ought to be ashamed.

    Don’t worry, I have not offered to volunteer for your possible run! However, I’ll make a donation if your campaign unfolds and is challenged by another developer-shill.

    Best of luck, honestly.

    Like

  29. JW. I am sorry that you could not accept that a comment on SoHum wasn’t mine. It’s wasn’t. You were wrong. It’s often difficult for us to admit to ourselves we are wrong at any time under any circumstances.

    But there is absolutely no reason for you to change your understanding of who authored that post and there is every reason for you to hold onto your belief and then let other’s know about it.

    I get it and I respect it for what it is and you for who you are. I meant that during our first virtual conversation in 2013 and I mean that today. I respect you and I also understand that their are incredible differences in our world view and how we understand our roles during our short life span on this planet. That difference fascinates me.

    If you have the link to that post where all the good people started callin’ me lyin’ jon I’d love to see it. It’s on SoHum somewhere, it was a great (and long) comment on the GPU and it had a bunch of iterations like I use except it they were noted with #’s instead of )’s as I am wont to use. It also used a word I could never have used in a sentence. The person was more informed and a better writer than I am (as I remember it).

    Dubs, I’m not lyin’ when I say this. Have a great Thanksgiving with you and yours. Stay safe.

    Like

  30. “I simply combined the number of “yes” on “R” voters that also supported the right-wing candidates.”

    Friend, but you can’t. This is incorrect. You know how Eureka’s at large voting works and it’s more than likely Albin’s 390 and Newman’s 660* had substantial, if not total overlap. Do you understand this or am I somehow mistaken?

    We have to be able to talk about reality. Any movement will need this in a democracy.

    * http://democracycounts.blogspot.com/2014/11/did-bergel-voters-vote-for-arroyo-for.html

    Like

  31. Back again….wrong again.

    “Reality” is unchanged by whether or not 900 or 600 republicans supported “R”, because, like “R’s” other WINNING REALITIES, it is inconvenient to the inexplicable “lose-lose” narrative you share with your opponents. Good luck narrating your way out of that.

    It is your authentic personal values, not your bean counting acumen that is a far more important reality to:

    “Any movement…in a democracy”.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s