Comment / By Not Hank Sims / Dec. 16, 6:56 a.m.

Hank, Hank, Hank… what you really meant to say was that “nearly every consequential office up for grabs this year ended up in the Moderate win column.”

Why do you (and other media) keeps labeling moderates as conservatives, when in reality all they did was defeat the radical-left?

Got no idea where you’re going with the “Tea Partyish, Goldwateresque cadre of shock troops” comments.

If you think you can control the radical elements of the far-left or far-right, be my guest.

See the photo of Dr. “Commodore” Ken Miller in today’s Times Standard?

I’ll be looking forward to your “SDS, Weather Undergrounds types showing up at Eureka City Council meetings” comments in the future.

Comment / By Hank Sims / Dec. 16, 7:43 a.m.

There’s two major political parties in Humboldt County. The one side is led by environmental non-profits and their allies; the other side is led by big business. Both are “special interests” in that they lobby for certain policy priorities at the expense of others. Neither is illegitimate.

You can’t call them “Republicans” and “Democrats,” because it doesn’t break down that way. Calling one “far left radicals” and the other “moderates” is just childish — you might as well call them “the bad guys” and “the good guys.”

I’ve settled on “progressives” and “conservatives.” “Conservative” is a political label with a proud history and not perjorative, as you seem to suggest. But as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m open to suggestions.

Comment / By three cents / Dec. 16, 8:37 a.m.

I’m game to call it polar like that, Hank, so to say both are special interests pushing for policy at the expense of others, what they’re doing then is at the expense of eachother.

I don’t care too much about the one side telling us we need more jobs when there’s more than enough jobs right now…or that the same side wants to keep building and building when there’s tons of places to live right now too.

In your model, I see Expand, building on a neverending game of catchup that’s plagued the nation forever vs. Stabilize, practiced in places people only wish they could live.

Which side belongs to the small minority that makes money while the majority watches their cost of living inflate while their job values deflate? It’s pretty dang obvious.

BUT!!! More allegorical to the way it really is, if politics involves somebody banging on your head with a hammer, it wouldn’t be accurate to say the political spectrum is banging on your head with a hammer vs. not banging on your head with a hammer. There’s a lot of stuff politics can do besides bang on your head with a hammer…but within the spectrum, a certain group would constantly have to work to stop a (non-affiliate) group from banging on your head with a hammer.

Comment / By not Not Hank Sims / Dec. 16, 9:32 a.m.

Not Hank Sims (first comment) is full of it, and he (she) knows it. Heavy duty conservatives…the “far right”…took office. A few of them flew “lefty” flags to trick voters, too. To say they’re plans are moderate is just as intentionally misleading. The only thing they gather from public input is how to tell the public what the public wants to hear along the lines of what these pseudo-moderates have planned.

Comment / By Kym / Dec. 16, 10:33 a.m.

This piece was an excellent recap of the major stories in Humboldt this year. I have the satisfied feeling of diner who has just pushed back her chair from an excellent meal. Thank you.

Comment / By Neighbor Neal / Dec. 16, 11:06 p.m.

Progressives and Conservatives… I’ll take it.

To Not Hank Sims - you can’t fool all of the people all of the time … the way you did on election day.

Comment / By Anonymous / Dec. 17, 4:19 a.m.

The conservative - progressive labels are less important than the bias Hank is showing by not being able to see that the officials to whom he refers, save Jager who IS conservative, are truly not conservative by any reasonable standard except in comparison to those he labels progressive. His bias is further shown by his reference to Tea Party affiliation of which there is none. Overwhelmingly these people are exactly what they say they are…Moderates. Nothing more, nothing less. Describing them as anything but what they are is inaccurate and an intentional misrepresentation.

Hank, it is always difficult to see your own prejudice but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. Consider a second pair of editorial eyes. Ask Heidi to give it a once over for accuracy and bias before it goes to print.

Otherwise a great article. Informative, interesting and generally accurate.

Comment / By Hank Sims / Dec. 17, 8:10 a.m.

1). The principal tenets of conservativism are individual liberty, defense of property rights and a healthy respect for the powers of the free market. If you didn’t hear that in the last campaign from the candidates you’re talking about and their backers, then you weren’t listening. And no, it didn’t all come from Frank Jager.

2). You want to insist upon “moderates,” which of course is a value judgment more than a description. Everyone wants to be a moderate. The trick is to define the bounds of acceptable political discourse. Then you can place yourself squarely in the center.

So since you’re taking up that work, here, I’ll ask you: If the party I’m calling “conservative” is really “moderate,” what are they they moderating? Who is to their right?

Comment / By Anonymous / Dec. 17, 2:35 p.m.

Sorry, don’t know why only half the post posted. Feel free to delete the former.

1). I don’t buy your conservative “tenents” as absolutes. Are progressives opposed to individual liberty? Hardly. Are liberals not aware of free market powers, communists certainly are. Socialists most assuredly believe in property rights. It is a question of degree and application that varies by persuasion. To suggest that our local officials can be lumped into two camps is overly simplistic to the point of absurdity. Why not use reproductive choice or gay marriage for your litmus test. Of course they don’t work either, particularly on a local level. I suppose you get to choose the criteria that works for you but don’t be so shocked when the majority disagrees with your predetermined mind set.

2). Not everyone wants to be a moderate. Ask Bush or Chaney if they are moderate. I suspect they proudly say, hell no, conservative. Conversely, and locally, Glass? Larry regularly, and equally proudly labels himself an activist and progressive. Same applies to Brinton, Lovelace, Higgins and so on. They generally don’t pretend to be moderate, well maybe Lovelace does but thats a different story. These folks are progressive and happy to be labeled such. Good for them, I, for one appreciate their honesty. Further, I disagree that moderate refers to values any more than do conservative or progressive. Without making judgement, there are two extremes and a vast middle ground. Can officials like Jimmy Smith or Jill Dufy be thrown into a progressive camp? Not really but try labeling them conservative and see the emails they send you. In fact, for better or worse, they are moderates.

Finally, you ask who is to their right. Certainly if you look nationally the whole neocon crowd is far, far, and farther yet to their right. Locally, how about Harper (RIP), Crawford, Papstein, Arkley, Cookman and a whole bunch of others. Ah ha, you will say. those very conservatives supported these candidates. Did you really expect them to send checks to Lovelace and Brinton? Pragmatists all, they accept and take what they can get. But that gives you no right to mislead readers as to the orientation of their officials.

Still I fear that I have taken the time and effort to beat my head and inferior mind against the stony hardness of a superior intellect.

- Here’s a good rule of thumb: Too clever is dumb. - Ogden Nash

Comment / By Hank Sims / Dec. 17, 3:34 p.m.

I don’t buy your conservative “tenents” as absolutes.

That’s “tenets.” Different word.

It is a question of degree and application that varies by persuasion.

Yes.

Why not use reproductive choice or gay marriage for your litmus test. Of course they don’t work either, particularly on a local level. I suppose you get to choose the criteria that works for you but don’t be so shocked when the majority disagrees with your predetermined mind set.

Because I’m talking about matters that people elected to the governing bodies of local jurisdictions actually have power over. Primarily land use matters, which in California are the most important and consequential powers designated to cities and counties.

Locally, how about Harper (RIP), Crawford, Papstein, Arkley, Cookman and a whole bunch of others. Ah ha, you will say. those very conservatives supported these candidates.

That’s exactly what I will say, and what in fact I said in the article. The subject of the piece is “the conservative establishment.” That’s the “they” in the story, from top to bottom — see, for example, the sentence in which I write that “…maybe Sundberg’s votes, especially, won’t always be to their liking.”

Still I fear that I have taken the time and effort to beat my head and inferior mind against the stony hardness of a superior intellect.

You said it, not me!

Nah, I take that back. Listen: It’s been a good conversation so far, and I’m game to keep it going if you are.

Comment / By lines in sand / Dec. 17, 3:52 p.m.

Sator arepo tenet opera rotas.

It’s just not correct to say conservatives are for personal property rights…as though whoever else isn’t. Not arguing at all, but the basis of the buzzwords is bogus, we’ve been conditioned (brainwashed! ooOOOooo-oooh spooky…) to make the divisions and their associations. There are no “moderates” either…there are intentions per issue. There’s a proposal on the table with a yes/no, perhaps alternatives. Money is usually invovled.

Marina Center: Is it about jobs and personal property rights? Or is it about profits and power? Question the intentions…Is money involved? Is there opposition backed by a history of evidence? Who’s going to make the money and how? What does the history of evidence suggest? It’s a yes/no from there…on to the next issue.

Comment / By tra / Dec. 17, 4:14 p.m.

I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Conservatives tend to support individual liberty. At best, they do so in a highly selective set of cases.

In fact, Conservatives tend to emphasize the importance of obedience to state authority and conformity to traditional social norms, and they tend to minimize the importance of the civil liberties of detainees and criminal defendants, to list just a few examples.

They DO tend to support the freedom of individuals to discriminate against other individuals, but that seems to be about as far as it goes.

Comment / By lines in sand / Dec. 17, 4:27 p.m.

There’s all kinds of everybody. The super rich conservatives, just like their super rich…counterparts?…think in terms of money related to freedom. $lavery isn’t over.

Comment / By Anonymous / Dec. 17, 4:34 p.m.

“That’s “tenets.” Different word.”

Duh. I regret that my fingers sometimes have minds of their own and that spell check is blind to intention. Perhaps in the next version.

Of course you refer to matters of local import. I made no suggestion otherwise. The problem is that you apply a label that has a wider inference to an isolated example. Sorry but it’s ridiculous to suggest someone is progressive solely because they believe in restrictive local land use while they support the war, want to fire Neilson, put condos on the Jefferson site, and envision a natural gas tank the size of Baltimore on the shores of our bay. It is simply not that easy or fair.

“That’s exactly what I will say, and what in fact I said in the article. The subject of the piece is “the conservative establishment.” That’s the “they” in the story, from top to bottom…”

Sorry, but that is far from all you say. Had you phrased to suggest that the moderate candidates supported by the conservative establishment (whatever that is) and other non-progressives were swept into office you would gotten no grief. Other than it sounds silly, and is.

In the end do what you will. It’s your paper. Just don’t expect the moderates out there to like it or agree with you.

Aside: “Sator arepo tenet opera rotas.” Was stupid jibberish thirty years ago in my first of five years of latin as it is today.

Comment / By Hank Sims / Dec. 17, 4:34 p.m.

TRA: I’m talking “conservatism” in the original, Burkean sense.

Comment / By lines in sand / Dec. 17, 4:49 p.m.

anonymous 4:34, yeah well, it was probably the same thing two thousand years ago on pompeii as well, and they all got to enjoy their beaches equally without condo/retail sprawl. Otherwise, I’m agreeing with you more than not…if somebody calls themself a label, fine by me. I’ll decide for myself based on their individual actions per course, as well should everybody…is my only point.

Giving credit to the label game does things like what we saw in this past humboldt election…jars swapping labels to match their competitor’s product’s label if the other product is selling better…but the contents of the jar are the same.

Comment / By tra / Dec. 17, 4:54 p.m.

I think that brand of Conservatism is more or less dead. Today’s so-called Conservatives don’t seem particularly interested in the concept of individual liberty.

Comment / By Joel Mielke / Dec. 17, 5:17 p.m.

I suppose that “Not-Hank-Sims” would put Louis DeMartin forward as a “moderate.”

Comment / By Not Hank Sims / Dec. 18, 9:02 a.m.

Hank, Hank, Hank… “environmental non-profits” are you freakin’ kidding me?

Try environmental “for-profits”.

What do you think Baykeepers and EPIC do with their lawsuit money? Put is into cleaning the environment or put it into their lawyers pockets?

These front groups are nothing more the environmental extortionists. Plain and simple.

Better yet, why doesn’t some investigative journalist do the research and find out exactly where Baykeepers and EPICs lawsuit monies go?

Do you know any investigative journalists?

“I’ve settled on “progressives” and “conservatives.”

Hank, you can’t call one a “Progressive” unless they believe in progress.

Our local “progressives” should be called “Regressives” as they believe we should be moving back to the 1950s with one stop light and one grocery store and of course, one hardware store (Pierson’s) in his bought & paid for world.

After all the “Regressives” have proud history and not pejorative, as you seem to suggest.

Have you read Dr. “Commodore” Ken Miller’s Times Standard letter to the editor today? If you can translate that from cannabis into English, if would be much appreciated.

So Hank here’s a suggestion, in the future lets call them “Regressives” and “Moderates”.

Comment / By Joel Mielke / Dec. 18, 11:02 a.m.

“Try environmental ‘for-profits.’”

That’s not Hank’s job, Not-Hank-Sims, that’s the job of right-wing robots like you and Rose, who have been pushing this ridiculous notion for years with “witty” names like “Paykeeper.”

And get a new handle, for fuck’s sake.

Comment / By Not Not Hank Sims / Dec. 18, 11:54 a.m.

Let’s be fair: The Journal should refer to the left side as “liberals” and the right as “backward-assed, knee-jerk, right-wing troglodytes.”

This would be fair, and the Journal would be so much better if, as Not-Hank-Sims suggested, it were a partisan rag.

Comment / By Thirdeye / Dec. 18, 12:27 p.m.

With a few exceptions, an excellent discussion in this thread.

@NHS: Technically, our local lawsuit machines are nonprofits. Power hungry, divisive, self-righteous, blind to their own greed and venality, but still nonprofits.

I’m of the opinion that the election results are less about some embrace of laissez-faire capitalism than they are about revulsion toward the excesses of local “progressives.” Yes, conservatives were on the side that prevailed. But to construe the results as some manifestation of an upsurge of rabid teabagger ideology is a disservice. Hank wrote a pretty good article a few months back on the tendency of Humboldt activists to put obstructing perceived opponents above accomplishing anything constructive. One of the glaring flaws of the left since the late 60s has been its tendency to define itself in oppositional terms. Saying no to the naysayers won’t be a cure-all for what ails Humboldt County, but it is a step in the right direction and it is within our grasp.

Ideological conservatives are stuck in the antiquated notion that markets unfettered by government intervention are key to individual liberty. That was credible in the 18th century, when governments were based on hereditary aristocracy that owned the peasants and was clinging to power by stifling the merchant class. Governmental power was a means by which concentrations of wealth were maintained. The free market was egalitarian. British East India Tea Company, the target of the real tea party’s ire, was called a “crown” corporation for a reason. That situation was quite different from today, when unfettered markets have become means of concentrating economic power and are anything but egalitarian. The teabagger/neocon version of “liberty” is the liberty to become a despot based on economic power. For ordinary working people, that is no liberty at all.

Comment / By Joel Mielke / Dec. 18, 12:45 p.m.

Well said, Thirdeye.

Comment / By lines in sand / Dec. 18, 1:30 p.m.

The teabagger/neocon version of “liberty” is the liberty to become a despot based on economic power. For ordinary working people, that is no liberty at all.

The conservative version of “liberty” is the liberty to become a despot based on economic power. For ordinary working people, that is no liberty at all.

The liberal version of “liberty” is the liberty to become a despot based on economic power. For ordinary working people, that is no liberty at all.

The progressive version of “liberty” is the liberty to become a despot based on economic power. For ordinary working people, that is no liberty at all.

The republican version of “liberty” is the liberty to become a despot based on economic power. For ordinary working people, that is no liberty at all.

The democrat version of “liberty” is the liberty to become a despot based on economic power. For ordinary working people, that is no liberty at all.

The left’s version of “liberty” is the liberty to become a despot based on economic power. For ordinary working people, that is no liberty at all.

The right’s version of “liberty” is the liberty to become a despot based on economic power. For ordinary working people, that is no liberty at all.

The muppet version of “liberty” is the liberty to become a despot based on economic power. For ordinary working people, that is no liberty at all.

Comment / By Joel Mielke / Dec. 18, 1:49 p.m.

Are you sure those are Lines in the Sand, and not Lines up the nose?

Comment / By lines in sand / Dec. 18, 2:01 p.m.

Yall are the ones talking about lines in the sand….nothing at all…just namecalling. There’s ten million people who would categorize themselves exactly the same way a local politico does in a hundred different categories, but would disagree with them about what action to take on an actual issue, depending on the issue. Money has no affiliation but to itself.

Comment / By lines in sand / Dec. 18, 2:07 p.m.

It’s wild kingdom…a republican/right/conservative will find themselves doing democrat/left/liberal things if it means that republican’s family is more likely to secure a healthy and prosperous future. This is all bullshit talk, look how easily one side can say they’re the other but it doesn’t mean squat. My republican neighbor isn’t going to benefit from the republicans in office making their loot.

Comment / By lines in sand / Dec. 18, 2:29 p.m.

Hank said “you might as well call them “the bad guys” and “the good guys.” “

that’s really the best comment made so far. Who’s calling themselves the bad guys? Look at how any affiliate describes themselves vs. their alternate.

What there is, unquestionably, is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That’s solid fact. Division is in wealth…there’s substance to that division, everything else is team tactics. Governments are bodies of wealth and activity based on it. Thirdeye says this pretty well…yet plays the name game himself…so…WTF???

Unprogram yourself!

Comment / By DaveE / Dec. 18, 5:50 p.m.

All 10 of these stories are pathetic! Nothing of note happened here for an entire year! These 10 stories were only news for the one day they occured! Must be discouraging to know you live in a 3rd world backwater and have to pretend to write about something interesting or important!

Comment / By Ryan Burns / Dec. 18, 8:08 p.m.

@Davee: Must be discouraging to be an imaginary character with nothing better to do than comment on stories you find pathetic and irrelevant. My condolences, fake sir.

Comment / By Joel Mielke / Dec. 18, 9:41 p.m.

Hee hee. Take that “Davee, you digital mountebank.

Comment / By lines in sand / Dec. 19, 10:03 a.m.

I’ll give it that the Journal’s campaign coverage was below sub-par. Like….really really poor reporting. Joel, Ryan and Hank love to be “snarky” on the internet, but exhibited none of that casual indifference in their actual reporting, and let some really newsworthy campaign tactics slide. The paper might as well have gone out of its way to print bumper stickers for the candidates.

Comment / By lines in sand / Dec. 19, 10:07 a.m.

predictable responses from the journal:

“that’s just because your candidates lost” (wrong)

“easy to say being anonymous on the internet” (irrelevant)

“what should we have done?” (like you don’t have a clue)

etc.

Comment / By Anonymous / Yesterday, 5:30 p.m.

“You can quibble with the specifics of this narrative, and plenty have, including this paper (see Cristina Bauss’ two-part exploration of the issue — “Roads and Redwoods,” April 8 & 15).”

Hank, do you mean Cristina Bias’s biased article that contained misquotes, mis-representations and lack of project opposition information? The article that completely ignores the SRG coalition and Intertribal’s stance against the project? Was/Is Cristina ignorant of these facts or simply just a racist?

Comment / By Jeff Muskrat / Today, 10:50 a.m.

You know, just reading all of the responses to the NCJ’s top ten of 2010 further supports the fact that this paper has lost touch with it’s readers, and in many cases with overall reality.

Withholding information from the public such as in the case with Hank Sims and the Ryan Sundberg DUI is just wrong. Don’t pretend to be all about people, art and politics when your “people” make an “art” out of railroading local “politics”.

It’s no secret that this rag has become a political tool for local political interests and to push an unsustainable development agenda. Just look at the avalanche of dissent opposed to this paper, mostly towards the Town Dandy(aka Hank Sims) in the weekly mailbox section.

It’s time for the community to take back the NCJ. Or start a real paper that truly serves the best interests of our community…

Comment / By Hank Sims / Today, 11:13 a.m.

Or start a real paper that truly serves the best interests of our community…

You already have it, Jeff! It’s called Humboldt Grassroots and it’s kinda awesome.