Friday, June 02, 2006

"Kaitlin, You Ignorant Slut!"

(ok, I broke with tradition and changed the title. Not that I found anything wrong with the title I used earlier, but, as the comments reflect, I had the quote wrong. I used "cheap" slut, which apparently wasn't the way they said it on SNL. See comments for details).

I was hoping I'd hear something along that line from Chris Crawford during the Time- Standard's webcast debate on Measure T. Not really anything against Katlin, I'm just getting a bit weary of the upcoming election and the back and forth on all the issues. I figured a little excitement in the Measure T debate might revive my interest.

This stuff gets old after a while, even for me.

But, I felt I had to check out the T- S web cast of the Crawford/ Kaitlin debate. Pretty neat how they did that. I found it hard to really pay close attention to it, and have only watched about half of it, so far. I don't know if it's because it's on the computer that made it hard for me to follow, or maybe just other things on my mind? Wonder how many people actually watched it?

Just a couple minor observations:

  • Nothing in the debate, so far, that I haven't heard already.
  • Kaitlin seemed to me to be the more aggressive and more attack oriented of the two.

One question that Chris Crawford didn't answer was something along the line of why a business or corporation would use money for political campaigns when it's supposed to be for the business or shareholder's profits. I'll take a crack at that one:

They might well have to. As I mentioned here earlier on; When you have a government that controls so many aspects of your business, and can either make or break you, it makes sense to support candidates and issues that are in you and your shareholder's best interest. If you don't do politics, politics might certainly do you.

Seems to me businesses, whether corporate or not, have every reason to be involved in the political process, monetarily or otherwise. I realize sometimes they get involved in politics for what many would deem nefarious purposes. That's going to happen regardless of how many finance campaign reform laws are passed.

BTW; For those of you that are interested, our very own Bob Doran (humblogger) is one of the media panelists in the debate. You can finally see what he looks like in the first segment.

57 Comments:

At 9:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris Crawford, the worst campaign manager in the history of Humboldt County politics!

 
At 9:28 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

I don't think he's a bad campaign manager per se, though I think he's taken a wrong approach to this campaign. When he was on my show, he seemed kind of testy even though my questions for Kaitlin were a bit tougher. Hadn't made up my mind on the issue at that time, and I kind of wanted to provide some balance. He reacted to what I thought were softball questions with a little bit of testiness. I also think he shouldn't have broadened the appeal of his argument a little bit.

I talk about it a little bit in my no on T piece, which I've just posted onto my blog becaus I don't know if the Eye is going to be able to publish it.

 
At 9:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice headline Fred. Unfortunately Kaitlin is somewhat more expensive, what with all the dollars donated to the Ohio election recount sucked into her purse.

 
At 9:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kaitlin, you cheap slut!.

Yeah, what happened to her?

She looked good back then...

But sister's seriously let herself go.

All I gotta' say about the webcast is "Woof!"

 
At 9:56 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Well, that was productive.

 
At 11:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

measure t really sucks, but chris crawfords skills do indeed leave much to be desired. where were the tv and radio ads, why wasnt there fundraising?

 
At 12:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You diminish your credibility when you use terms like "cheap slut".

 
At 12:25 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

anon 12:17 - Fred means it in irony. It's a reference to an old Saturday Night Live skit.

 
At 12:27 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Except Fred, I think the term was "ignorant slut."

Doesn't that sound nicer? ;&)

 
At 12:53 PM, Blogger Fred said...

You might be right, Eric. Maybe it was "ignorant". Glad that at least you remember where that came from. Ok, show of hands: How many people remember that old Saturday Night Live piece that my title came from?

I just got an e-mail from a blog viewer that felt it was really offensive. I guess she didn't ever see the old Saturday Night Live (when it was actually funny) piece with Chevy Chase and Jane Curtin where they did the spoof on the old 60 Minutes, Point/ Counterpoint.

I thought it was a riot, and heck, Point/ Counterpoint was actually funny in its own right although it wasn't supposed to be.

Anyway, I really meant no offense, and quite honestly didn't think it would seem offensive if someone read beyond the title.

Hey, anyone remember the names of that older guy and the bucktoothed gal that did Point/ Counterpoint? It was a lot of fun watching those two have at it.

 
At 1:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

my guess is chevy chase would
just sneer and mumble "slut",
who knows tho, i was just a snotty
nose kid. I do know it isn't unusual for people to justify their
own remarks with inaccurate and often incomplete justifications.

My guess about Measure T is that say what you want, but if the vote is close, Greens will push Measure T over the top.

In Humboldt County, 4293 Greens are registered to vote, that is 5.43% of all registered voters in
the county.

But wait, the Eureka Greens, all 8 or 10 of them, are voting NOT.

Let's just say all 623 registered
Greens that live in Eureka follow
those 8 or 10 "Eureka Greens", including everyone damn one of those Democracy Unlimited people.

Things look good for No on Measure T huh?

Oops, what about Arcata, and the 1376 Greens registered there. How
many of those guys are going to vote no except for Greg Allen. That
guy will tell anything, but I am telling you the Arcata Green Vote
for Yes on T will be 80% or better.

So how are the NOT guys gonna deal
with that Arcata voting bloc.

After all the Arcata Greens are the 2nd biggest Green bloc in the
county.

Unincorporated Greens are the biggest. Yep. 2124 Greens running around the sticks of Humboldt.

Do you think they are going to follow Chris Crawford and Greg Allen to the polls?

Those two guys, Chris and Greg, had
a brilliant plan, lets throw the unconstitional argument out there along with our fake 500 limit.

All the while forgetting about those guys in the sticks.

 
At 3:49 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Which assumes that all Greens march lockstep with their Party leadership, which may or may not be true.

If even most of them do, I'd consider that not something to be proud of. I'm proud of the diversity within the Libertarian Party.

We may be lockstep with the leadership on some issues, but when fairness is an issue, that comes first.

 
At 3:49 PM, Blogger Brian Morrissey said...

I am almost sure the quote was "Jane, you ignorant slut" and I am pretty sure it Dan Aykroyd on Weekend Update segment.

 
At 3:55 PM, Blogger Fred said...

You might well be right about "ignorant". I could of sworn it was Chevy Chase in that skit, though. Then again, I get those two mixed up, even now.

Seems to me they had a name for that segment, too. It wasn't Weekend Update (although it might have been part of the WU), it was something else, although I could be wrong on that, too.

Maybe something like, "I'm right, you're wrong..", or some such? I can't remember.

 
At 4:05 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

It was definitely Akroyd. He did is so well.

Boy did I have a crush on Jane Curtain back then!

 
At 5:27 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Ok. Once again I have it wrong.

 
At 7:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SHANA ALEXANDER - Jack Kirkpatrick, I think... 60 minutes, took opposite sides of hte issues,,, then SNL did the take off, with them getting madder and madder and resorting to name calling - It may've been "Jane you ignorant slut," but it might have been "Shana you ignorant slut!" And Fred is right it was hilarious - one of those things you never forget...

The first fair and balanced.

 
At 7:14 PM, Blogger Fred said...

That's it! I didn't remember the "Shana", but I kinda remembered the guy named Jack. I did a search, a little while ago, looking for who it might have been. Saw the Shana name but wasn't sure that was it. But it was Jack Kilpatrick, if memory serves me correct.

Well done with the recollection, 7:05!

 
At 9:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unincorporated Greens are the biggest. Yep. 2124 Greens running around the sticks of Humboldt. Do you think they are going to follow Chris Crawford and Greg Allen to the polls? Those two guys, Chris and Greg, had
a brilliant plan, lets throw the unconstitional argument out there along with our fake 500 limit. All the while forgetting about those guys in the sticks.


anon 1:40 may as well put up a giant neon sign saying "hi, my name is michael smith and I'm out to destroy greg allen."

try lifting a finger in fortuna before you lecture the rest of the county on how to replicate your non-success there in sticksville.

 
At 10:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred: Dave's not here man! Tell me you do not remember that either.

 
At 11:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris Crawford is the real grassroots guy in this race. The Measure T bots are part of the organized left, they are part of the machine, the opposite of grassroots. The worm has turned. Being grassroots, he has a tougher time, less money, for one thing.

Interesting, though, Measure T will cost this county lots of money, and no one seems too concerened, the T-bots claims of pro-bono assistance to defend their ridiculous position is astoudingly dense, pro-bono attorney's are worth what you pay for one thing, and the County will have County Counsel defend it, and if they can't the County will have to hire "real" outside help at ridiculous per diem charges.

The T bots are fraudulent, unethical, disingenous,, and downright, well, you could say dense or just outright stupid.

 
At 5:34 AM, Blogger Fred said...

10:15 wrote, "Dave's not here man!".

Cheech and Chong

 
At 9:03 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Anon 11:32 - As a lifelong leftist I can tell you that "Organized left" is a contradiction in terms.

 
At 9:17 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

How many signatures has Crawford and No on T collected for their contribution limitation plan?Where can I add my name?And lastly,does Nancy Flemming's version of a contribution limitation jargon,$4,000 from Kramer from 8 different pockets, fall in line with No on T's proposal?Crawford dodged that question at the debate in Arcata on Tuesday.

 
At 9:29 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Signatures aren't circulating for any campaign contribution limits yet, if they ever will be.

First, parties interested will have to agree on what the contribution limits will consist of. That, in and of itself, will likely be a herculean task.

Should parties come to agree on what form the proposal will take, as Crawford suggested, there should be enough support in the county that the Board of Supervisors could put it on the ballot without the need for gathering signatures.

As for myself, as I've said here before, I'm sympathetic to contribution limits but, while I won't likely oppose proposals along the line that I've heard so far, I'm pretty certain I won't actively support them.

Minorities in any given issue already have a tough enough row to how, simply by nature of being a minority. Contribution limits assure that they'll always remain at a financial disadvantage since they would be prohibited from taking advantage of a wealthy contributor(s).

 
At 9:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sounds like mresquan really wants to help, not just talk? why doesnt he pitch in and collect sigs?

 
At 11:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Freds comments just show how bogus the NOT campaigns $500 cap was just bullshit. The people running the campaign don't even all agree with the idea. It was just a decoy all the way along. After this is over Crawford won't do shit but he will try to blame the T people if his "idea" doesn't move forward. Why do they need the T people involved before they can propose the idea to the Supes or on the ballot?

 
At 12:28 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Nope. Wrong 11:35.

No matter what proposal is made, somebody or some group will oppose one or more parts of it. We're not talking about the NOT campaign coming up with all the details by themselves. More than just NOT will have to be involved.

Even with numerous parties involved in the creation of a campaign limit ordinance, you can bet one entity or another will say the limit is either too large or too small; it should apply to certain groups or individuals and not others. You name it.

It will be much along the line of the quibbling over who got how much money and how in any of the current campaigns [which we've quibbled over here].

How you could suggest otherwise is beyond me.

Sure, Crawford and company could probably write something up and present it to the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting. But without widespread support they'd be going back and forth with the details with everybody for months and the Supes might never feel comfortable with placing it on the ballot.

 
At 1:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The funniest part of the NOT's $500
dollar limit is that Greg Allen did
circulate to the few right extremist politicos in Humboldt County an advanced version of a county ordinance, designed to derail the HCCR effort.

I want to clarify that I am not saying he is the primary author of the fake ordinance, because Greg and his cointelpro prone crowd often give him credit for authorship, or NOT, depending on the scenario, after all, that it what they are trained to do.

Allen and his crew have a documented history of circulating fake petitions to kill community issues with wide support, which shouldn't be a suprise, since this tactic was advocated for by COINTELPRO administrators, especially on college campuses, during the 1960's.

Does Chris Crawford have a comment on this?

By the way, Allen is currently burying another issue, Police Review, with his petition campaign in Eureka and Arcata.

More on that fake campaign later.

 
At 4:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A $500 limit is ridiculously naive and ignorant of the costs of campaign materials and advertising. Any limits just hand the elections over to those who can afford to pay their own way, like a Michael Huffington, it completely eliminates the common man from the ability to get his message out in a campaign.

Limiting corporations from donating prevents them from being able to defend themselves from attacks, and stupidly worded and conceived initiatives.

I was always a proponent of initiatives, many states don't have them, and it seemed to be a way for people to step up when the legislature would not - it has instead become a tool of special interests, and special interests have become far worse, far more corrupt and far more dangerous than the "corporate" influences they seek to replace.

I also used to sign initiative proposals so they could qualify for hte ballot. I will not be doing that any more. I have seen what a fallacy they have become.

Many of these things are worthy of discussion - that doesn't mean they need to become law, mandated without regard for the consequences, or in Measure T's case, the constitutionality of the thing.

We need less laws an less regulations, we are slowly squeezing ourselves to death.

 
At 4:18 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

I certainly will gather sigs if necessary.I work well with the HCCR folks,and from the sounds and looks of it, they would be spearheading the operation.During the debates,Chris Crawford has said specifically that the No on T committee was behind a contribution limitation ordinance with a spending cap of $500,but with Fred's comments here,Rob Zigler's views on limitations,and No on T supporter Nancy Flemming lying about her donation cap, evidence shows that this proposal on whoevers part it is,was probably set up to deter voters away from supporting T because something better was coming.My guess is,that Crawford will probably use Flemming's case,as evidence that a $500 cap,or any cap won't work.Plus he has to get to work on getting Mike Jones reelected.Has the limitation worked in Arcata?Be honest.But,hell yeah,I'll get sigs if needed,T passing and strict contribution limits will certainly benefit everyone.

 
At 5:51 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Anon 4:17 - Yeah, how could we decide how to vote if we don't see lawn signs plastered all over the county? It'd be very confusing.

Anybody using his/her money to bury an opponent would probably lose - especially in this county. The self-funded multi-millioinaires certainly haven't fared well either on the state lever or national level. I doubt they would do much better on the local level.

 
At 6:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and that is the point, eric, the system works, People are not stupid. (Most of the time)

There is no need for government to muck things up.

 
At 6:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The funniest part of the NOT's $500 dollar limit is that Greg Allen did circulate to the few right extremist politicos in Humboldt County an advanced version of a county ordinance, designed to derail the HCCR effort.

yes people its even more of the lets suckerpunch greg allen show starring michael smith!

didn't the same green party michael smith is so in love with already endorse the $500 cap? just like the eureka greens he hates so much? arcata greens too?

isn't the cap almost an exact copy of a law in arcata which victor shaub's city council approved almost 20 years ago? was greg allen even in town then?

are the aclu rightwing extremists too? what about clmp? human rights commission? is everyone against michael smith?

too bad this trash gets dumped on poor fred. stickville mikey can't get his ducks in a row before opening his yapper.

 
At 8:27 PM, Anonymous Ohwell said...

Police review is buried, says Michael Smith (Anon 1:02).

The Eureka Times-Standard would seem to disagree. Link

As would The Humboldt Sentinel. Link

Several organizations as well as more than 50 people also seem to exist above-ground with their support for police review. Even Smith's friend Mark Konkler is on there. Link

What Michael Smith is really upset about is having his ass handed to him in The Arcata Eye. Talk about dirt on his grave! Link

 
At 10:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Charles - we are all very impressed with your HTML abilities. How about if you go get a life now.

 
At 12:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

didn't i see this same stuff before, its like a replay of humboldt-forums, mike smith shows up and all the sudden the crapola level is cranked up to stinky.

 
At 1:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

for more discussion on the fake $500 limit, go to freds post yesterday (Measure T Makes LA Times) and see copy from the fake $500 limit (posted at 1:07 PM today) Allen and Crawford will try to push on the public, unless, one or both wash their hands of it, which my guess is, happened about, yesterday.

 
At 5:41 PM, Blogger Fred said...

So Mike's opposed to the $500 dollar limit?

 
At 6:44 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

I wonder if Arcata would be able to recuse itself from a countywide contribution limitation ordinance,since it already exists there.Speaking of Arcata,they are considering creating a charter. Fred,what's your thought on chartered cities vs.general law cities?Myself,I think that chartered cities probably are better protected from state bureacracies,plus according to our state laws,IRV isn't implementable in general law cities,and I prefer the idea of voting for the mayor,plus establishing the duties of the city manager.But,I must be missing something about it,since cities sometimes are weary about creating one.

 
At 8:10 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

my question to Fred,at 6:44 goes out to all bloggers.

 
At 8:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

county law is for county elections. measure t will not touch any city council election. thank god.

 
At 12:37 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

I believe that according to measure T every election within the county jurisdiction would be covered, including municipal elections. Don't know whether that provision will be upheld, but it is in there.

 
At 1:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope, I think you are wrong, but that is the problem with Measure T - it is like Swiss Cheese, full of holes, moldy Swiss Cheese, stinks to high heaven.

 
At 1:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow Eric - welcome to the legal battles over T if it stupidly passes.

 
At 4:03 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Here it is:

"Section 7. Statement of Law.

The Prohibitions in Section Five shall apply to all municipalities, districts and special districts in which the jurisdictions are located wholly within the geographical boundaries of Humboldt County, California."

http://www.votelocalcontrol.org/ordinance_text.htm

Always helps to read the text, no matter which side you're on. Incidently, section 2 is brilliantly worded, and will probably save it from a first amendment attack. It is taylored specifically to dicta in Supreme Court cases in which even judges like Renquist said they would uphold campaign finance reform. It's going to be hard for Arkley's attorneys to beat it on that basis.

 
At 4:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric - you're a nut if you think that section is going to save this.

Sorry this is not about candidate finance reform and that is why it will fail.

It's not about non local because it allows alot of non local.

It's not about no corps because it allows corps.

It is easy to beat in on that basis.

 
At 5:40 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

anon 4:12 - I think you misunderstand me. I'm talking about a court challenge, not the election. You're quoting almost right from my opposition piece.

But if it passes, as I suspect it unfortunately will, it will survive a first amendment attack because the wording comes straight from Supreme Court decisions as to the "exceptions" they would allow.

the best challenge will be a 14th amendment equal protection approach, but even that has an uphill battle because corporations are not members of a "suspect class" of discrimination, meaning that the law need not prove a "compelling government interest" but only a "rational basis" for the discrimination. That's a much lower threshhold.

The section I pasted was in response to another poster about another topic. Read section 2 of the proposed ordinance. That's very well written.

 
At 8:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Horsesh-t Eric. Just because the language allows exceptions does not mean that it can pass the test. It can't because it is only based upon 1 HSU poll and the fact that it allows some corps not others as well as lots of nonlocal groups contributing will make fall flat on its pathetic face.

Go back, pull your old con law book off the shelf and read it buddy.

 
At 12:48 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Anon 8:17 - I did say that it might be vulnerable to an equal protection clause attack - your second sentence there raises two separate issues.

And what you're missing is that if the voters pass it, they also pass the findings. The HSU poll is irrelevent, because it doesn't matter by which criteria the voters make the findings, which are de facto legislative findings which the judicial branch may not interfere with. Because the legislature created of the initiative process in California, the electorate findings are per se legislative findings. That's the brilliance of the writing.

Now, there may be some law out there that allows the courts to disregard such findings since it's not really a conscious act on the part of the electorate, I don't know. It's not my area of practice. But if not, it will survive a first amendment attack.

The 14th Amendment provisions, both equal protectoin and due process, may be another matter.

 
At 1:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

county laws simply don't apply to incorporated cities. the measure m gmo ban wouldn't have applied to arcata, which is why they passed their own. the county medical marijuana cultivation/possession numbers don't apply to eureka, which is why activists want to pass a eureka law to do so.

 
At 1:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric - the legislative findings have to be based upon rationally based evidence. This is not like findings with respect to a CEQA petition. The voters may no more impinge on the first amendment than can the legislature - go read Bellotti again.

 
At 1:45 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

May be true. I don't know.

 
At 2:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What was with Bob Doran's caustic and nasty write up on the supes? Seems like he liked Bonnie but no one else. I never read his music reviews - are they also nasty like that?

 
At 3:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a liberal, I am getting tired of folks like Bob Doran (and lots of others) being so caustic and nasty about those who they disagree with. Now thats not to say you can't get mad once in a while, but this is a mindset of divisiveness - its a new wave of either your with me or you must be assasinated. Frankly, it stinks. Hopefully, this election may bring in some new blood and will show those who like this way the highway

 
At 7:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
»

 
At 11:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love your website. It has a lot of great pictures and is very informative.
»

 

Post a Comment

<< Home