Sunday, June 04, 2006

Politics and More Politics

As expected, the Sunday papers were crammed with commentary on the upcoming elections. The Eureka Reporter and Times- Standard both had summaries of their ballot recommendations.

The Eureka Reporter got all their recommendations right. The Times- Standard got half of them right. Not sure about any of the other papers although we know the North Coast Journal chose not to get into recommendations this time around. I'm surprised the Humboldt Beacon didn't step up to the plate. Doesn't look like it from their web page, though.

Naturally, the letters to the editor were all about the election. I don't have enough interest left in me at this point to read each and every letter. One caught my eye, though, if only because it was only a few sentences. Problem is, I don't know just what the writer was trying to say.

The Eureka Reporter didn't put it online but, since it was so short, I'll go ahead and put it here:

Into the Measure T debate the words of John Dewey: "The corporation is a creature of the state: that is, of political action. It has no existence save by the action of the legislatures and courts".
-Tim Killburn, Eureka

That's it. I guess it's supposed to be some anti- corporate comment along the lines of corporations being created by the state but, other than that, what's the point. Anyone else get it?

31 Comments:

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

geist is the right recommendation? c'mon fred, jeff lytle is way more libertarian and pat higgins is way more progressive. geist only excels at duplicity.

 
At 10:48 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I've heard from more than one person that Lytle is a libertarian. But, he didn't really run a campaign to speak of, so it's hard to consider him a credible candidate.

Higgens is way more progressive? Why would I want to vote for someone who claims Geist isn't far enough to the left, as Higgins has?

I'll have to admit to having a grudging admiration for someone who takes heat from both the Left and Right, as Geist seems to. I take heat from both the Left and Right, myself, at times.

 
At 11:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Fred won't back a local Libertarian candidate, who will?

 
At 12:19 PM, Blogger Fred said...

If he'd approached me about it, I might have. I heard from other people he's a libertarian, not from him. He's not on my list of registered libertarian voters, but that list is years old so I guess I can't go by that.

He doesn't have a campaign web page, although he finally got around to filling out the free page the League of Women Voters provided on the Smartvoter web site.

Seems to me, he didn't really make all that much of an effort in his campaign although, to his credit, he did show up for the candidate forums.

I've gotten that way with a lot of libertarian candidates. I've known of some around the state who couldn't even tell me why they're running or what issues they're running on, and some of them have run for office multiple times. I don't see much reason to waste time on them.

Fortunately, we've had a pretty decent crop of candidates in Humboldt over the years. They usually do best when they run in non- partisan races and run on their own initiative rather than being asked to by someone within the LP.

I'll give Lytle credit; he ran on his own and showed up for the forums, but as I saw it, that was about it.

 
At 1:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

regarding the Times-Standard editorial on Saturday regarding Measure T, in particular:

####

In grabbing and taming the campaign finance tiger, we'd suggest starting with the money itself, which, after all, is the problem. For example, a voter measure or even a county ordinance could limit everyone to $250 per person or company per campaign -- with safeguards to ensure fair compliance by all.

####

the root of this is probably a local municipal ordinance, which I hope is true, because Greg Allen and Chris Crawford's fake $500 limit is pure spin to try and knock Measure T off the track.

The language of the fake $500 limit ordinance, which one or both of those guys (Chris and Greg) may try and disclaim, since both say they want to work with everyone toward writing an ordinance that accomplishes real election reform, even though the ordinance is already written(figure that one out).

So where is the language to Allen and Crawford's ordinance?

I have a copy, doesn't everyone else? Yes, No, maybe.

Go to Freds post from yesterday, (Measure T Makes L.A. Times) and see the comment posted at 1:07 p.m.
today, there you will find an excerpt to the FAKE ordinance.

Excerpts aren't fair you say, Well ask Allen or Crawford to put their copies on the table, they both damn sure have one.

Maybe I am out of line, maybe scrutiny before a local election is unfair.

More than that though, I could be strung out, an evil spammer, a dissent squasher, paranoid, one who makes death threats, my name could be really something evil, like GreeningEureka.

 
At 4:14 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

The Dewey quote comes from a old debate about corporate personhood and from a line of thinking that can be reduced to (with some oversimplification) the following: certain rights are "natural," and so more likely fundamental and entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights, but that a corporation, being a creation of the state to achieve certain state purposes, can have no natural rights since it is itself not natural. Natural rights are of course those rights which we believe are inherent and thus not granted by the state, but merely recognized by the state.

 
At 4:32 PM, Blogger jaybyrdskynyrd said...

Anonymous 1:55 PM should I call you Michael Smith The Stalker of the Green Party? Your attempts to badmouth the Eureka Greens only succeed in making us smell your bad breath.

Setting a reasonable limit on how much people like your boss David Cobb can throw at politicians is true and just. You are not intested in truth and justice. Michael Smith is the one using bad tactics to disrupt our Eureka community and I've had it up to here with his lies.

 
At 5:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't recall the Humboldt Beacon taking a position on anything at anytime other than the importance of tea time, prayer, exercise, flowers and being nice.

 
At 5:19 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Eric writes, "but that a corporation, being a creation of the state to achieve certain state purposes, can have no natural rights since it is itself not natural.".

But it seems to me that every entity, whether it be an individual, private company or business, gets its power, and identity, from the State.

We can quibble about the particulars, but that's the way it is now. Perhaps that's the way it's always been; As someone pointed out here, earlier on, corporations are a product of government.

While I might agree there may be problems with that, SO WHAT? So is every other entity in this country.

A moot point, I suppose.

 
At 5:24 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

well,based on 4:32's comments,I would guess that the assaults on David Cobb are coming to an end,hmm.So, those the two new resolutions posted on the eureka greens website aren't divisive? Shaye Harty's getting slammed for failure to correctly register voters,I wonder how many sigs were gathered at that event by the proposers of that resolution?I guess its better to just do nothing,then to do something and make a mistake.I do wish that go green humboldt make their finances public,regardless of what state law requires.

 
At 6:44 PM, Anonymous wag said...

Did anyone listen to Chris Crawford on KMUD this afternoon 1:30-3:00, talking/taking calls about the No on T campaign? It was a little weird -- Allison Jackson was supposed to appear with him, but cancelled at the last minute. I only heard part of the explanation, which had something to do with her concern that she'd draw attention for her anti-Gallegos stand and it would distract from the T discussion. But then she called in to the show and (unlike her histrionic phone-ins to the Dikeman-Gallegos debate last week) she expounded with some authority on the problems with T. Too bad she didn't have the huevos to be there in person. Crawford could have used the help. He's stretched a little thin when it comes to cogent criticism of T, but he deserves credit for putting himself out in front. This vote is going to be as interesting Meserve's attempt to get re-elected this coming November.

 
At 7:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

mresquan said

####

I wonder how many sigs were gathered at that event by the proposers of that resolution?

####

He was referring to the FAKE
Eurekan Green Chapter bashing NoHUM Greens for registering voters.

To make a long story short, Greens are experiencing a slow steady climb in registered voters for the first time in a while.

I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I can say this, in Humboldt COunty Greens are up for the year, Democrats are up and amazingly enough, given the June 6th elections, the Republicans actually lost voters in the last six weeks.

The Greens picked up most of their voters in March-April. The Democrats, the last of April and throught the first 3 weeeks in May.

Again, though Humboldt Republicans are up a few dozen or more voters for the year, they definitly lost that many in the last few weeks of the May 22nd reporting period.

Decline to States have the biggest and most steady gains in Humboldt County.

Libertarians holding steady at 700 or so for a while.

 
At 8:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greens have lost for the last five years but have regained some momentum by Shaye and the push in Arcata. Look at the stats in Arcata over the last 45 days. Greens are up 20 in the 4th District over the same time period.

Republicans are down but much of this has to do with the Fortuna City Council elections (April) which have a heavy Republican plurality. Humb Co. elections purge voters who they receive returned ballot material.

Dems are up modestly (couple dozen) but Greens in Arcata have made the greatest strides of any party. Of Course, the "Party not to be a Party" is the big gainer.

In the last 45 days leading up to the 15 day close, the increase in voter registration was only 141.

People are not nearly engaged as some might think.

Mike Harvey

 
At 8:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

in the last sixteen months the green party lost 156 voters in arcata and in eureka there is only a 5 voter difference between then and now for the greens. eureka's share of the green membership in humboldt county is up while arcata's is down by 2 percent. get the facts at www.ss.ca.gov before you listen to another mike smith fantasy...

 
At 8:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you look at numbers from the 60 day close to the 15 day close. ss.ca.gov is the site look at activity from 4-07-06 to 5-22-06 (the last day to register to vote.)

This post was by Mike Harvey not a Mike Smith. What a moron.

Mike Harvey out for good!

 
At 8:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

mike harvey comments are of interest, especially his critique of Fortuna, and his notice of the Arcata Green push, thanks for that.

Anon 8:42 is just playing with numbers- for his own reasons.

Republicans, Democrats, and Greens show upward short term trens in Humboldt County that do not hold state wide. Republicans and Democrats statewide lost 200,000 voters, thats right, 200,000 voters from early January to Mid-April. I know there is alot of reasons for this, but Dems and Republicans in Humboldt, as well as the Greens deserve credit for not incurring this losses.

 
At 8:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

eureka greens picked up a couple of dozen voters in that time period. of course mike smith declares them evil so who cares about the stats.

 
At 8:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ps: On top of that, everything I referenced was activity over the last 45 days not last 16 months.

Mike Harvey out

 
At 8:56 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Fred - I was really just describing the argument. I agree on a philosophical level that corporations lack natural rights, but that's irrelevent as a practical matter if government has conveyed upon corporations the equivalency.

I think corp personhood does lead to problems as constituted by courts, especially since there is a more simple way to protect the "rights" of a corporation. The stockholders each have rights as owners of the corporation. Simply define the rights as theirs in the aggregate, and integrate it within the right to associate, which exists within the Griswold "penumbra" of the 9th Amendment, 14th Amendment, and the right to assemble.

Conservatives shouldn't object to a wholesale revision of common law. They certainly aren't hesitating to undo 900 years of common law with "tort reform."

 
At 9:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

of the 36 active green party counties in california, 30 saw voter registration losses up to 10% since prior state convention. www.cagreens.org. none of the other six gained more than 1%. greens are hurting statewide after the david cobb fiasco but according to various mike smith personalities the dynamic duo greg allen and chris crawford must be behind it all. what drivel from a man who only drives citizens away from greens.

 
At 9:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait a minute now fellow, your
the one putting that on Crawford.
Me personally thinks those voter reg things are of interest.

 
At 9:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you bet it is interesting how fortuna greens are blessed by the many faces of mike smith for years now. instead of growth we see massive decline. fewer fortuna residents are registered green now than at any time in this decade. www.ss.ca.gov. mike smith will have to show the rest of us what we can do to be such a failed blowhard too.

 
At 12:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Geist is by far the best Supervisor we have had.

 
At 12:40 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Are greens even legal in Fortuna?

 
At 6:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

now there's a thought. And ordinance to ban greens. How American of you.

 
At 7:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought that Crawford and Lewis got it pretty good with their show yesterday.

 
At 8:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you in part WAG regarding the show would have been better with Jackson on it. But disagree with your assessment of the debate. I think pissed off would be more accurate from what I heard and who would blame her. But be that as it may, I heard enough from the calls that make me think that T should be voted down in flames.

 
At 2:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of Gallegos's endorsers is Orange County DA Rackauckas.

Here's a little bit about him:

in 2002 the Grand Jury investigated him for corruption and reported, "the DA is Nixonian in the darkest sense of the word: paranoid, petty, partisan, secretive, retaliatory and arrogant. And though this was a civil proceeding, it's easy to conclude that the jury's findings demand a criminal investigation."

Rackauckas wife, a former DA who wrote a letter for Gallegos, was fired by the county CEO after she did not report to work for months when she was under subpoenaed by the grand jury.

The grand jury report also described how a veteran homicide prosecutor was fired by Rackauckas when that prosecutor blew the whistle on his bosses unethical behaviors.

Is this starting to sound a little familiar?

The grand jury also wrote, "Of great concern to the grand jury were those deputy district attorneys and even members of the [DA's] management team taht expressed fear of retaliation should the confidentiality of their testimony be violated."

Authors of an article about this topic expressed it best when they said, "Alarms should go off when good prosecutors fear their own boss."

Alarms should also go off when DA's who have been investigated by grand juries in their respective counties come to each others assistance to assure another term.

 
At 3:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No kidding!

I googled the lady that wrote that editorial after reading your post. Holy sh-t! this is what I found:



Eight months ago, an offended Orange County District Attorney Anthony J. "Tony" Rackauckas strenuously denied the existence of a grand-jury investigation into corruption allegations at the DA’s office. A couple of months later, Rackauckas admitted the existence of the probe but claimed it was a "routine" administrative audit undeserving of public attention. Late last month, we learned not only that Orange County’s top law-enforcement officer is fond of employing misleading media spin, but also that he is, indeed, corrupt.
1. On June 26, the Orange County grand jury rocked the local legal establishment when it declared that Rackauckas routinely abuses his awesome prosecutorial powers to protect friends and punish perceived enemies. According to the grand jury’s fact-filled, 100-page report, "Office of the District Attorney: An in-depth investigation," the DA is Nixonian in the darkest sense of the word: paranoid, petty, partisan, secretive, retaliatory and arrogant. And though this was a civil proceding, it’s easy to conclude that the jury’s findings demand a criminal investigation.
To those who read the Weekly, that description is hardly news. We’ve chronicled Rackauckas’ numerous ethical lapses since he took office four years ago. What’s impressive is that the grand jury—historically a panel of 19, mostly lethargic citizens who avoid the county’s uglier controversies—had the courage to investigate the DA and then report its disturbing findings.
For that public service, the 2001-2002 jurors haven’t been applauded, but rather ridiculed. Rackauckas accused them of political bias. Editorial writers at The Orange County Register questioned the jurors’ integrity and proclaimed the panel was uninterested in discovering the truth. In Register reality, the truth is the DA "may have done some things wrong," but the public should be, as the Register is, "generally pleased with the job he is doing."
The spin didn’t end there. Both the Register and Rackauckas argued that the report would have been more favorable had the jurors received "the complete story." Neither mentioned that it was Rackauckas who hampered the grand jury’s duties. Consider this: when the grand jury subpoenaed Deputy District Attorney Kay Rackauckas, the DA’s wife and a key player in office mischief, Rackauckas claimed he couldn’t locate her. Sources tell the Weekly another key player the grand jury sought—deputy DA Susan Schroeder, the wife of Michael Schroeder, the Orange County Republican Party bigwig and key Rackauckas defender—did not testify.
To their credit, the jurors were not amused by the MIA deputy DAs. They noted, "The grand jury requested the assistance of the district attorney’s office to locate the two witnesses, both of whom are extremely close to the district attorney, and were informed by the district attorney’s office that they were unable to contact them."
Kay Rackauckas went to extraordinary lengths to avoid assisting the grand jury. She took months of personal leave from her six-figure job and then, after she failed to return to the office, was quietly fired on May 27 by Orange County CEO Michael Schumacher. There has been no official explanation.
According to the grand jury report, Kay Rackauckas’ absence was an illusion. While they were searching for her, she was using a taxpayer-paid cell phone to call in orders—at times highly questionable if not unethical—to more senior prosecutors, records show. Despite her relatively modest management experience, the jurors found that the DA’s wife "was left, in large part, to her own devices." One of those devices was to convert part of the DA’s public offices and resources into a de facto campaign headquarters for Stephanie George, a personal friend and fellow deputy DA who was a winning Superior Court judge candidate in 2000.
But the biggest question emerging from the grand jury report is a question neither the Register nor the Los Angeles Times has asked: Why was Kay Rackauckas—a public servant sworn to uphold justice—afraid to testify?
Telling the truth about Tony Rackauckas can come at a cost. Just ask Michael Jacobs. The tough, veteran prosecutor had endorsed Rackauckas’ DA run in 1998 and was rewarded with the top assignment in the homicide unit. Cordial relations didn’t last. Jacobs became frustrated with Rackauckas’ ethical lapses and lack of professionalism. Afraid the misconduct would continue unless confronted by outside authorities, Jacobs shared his concerns with state investigators in 2000. Then, according to the grand jury, someone in the DA’s office left the equivalent of a horse’s head in Jacobs’ bed one night. Several local news reporters anonymously received official DA office "confidential" files containing negative and highly personal information on the prosecutor. The message was clear: speak out and you’ll be publicly punished.
The threats didn’t work. Jacobs refused to back down and Rackauckas eventually fired Orange County’s most acclaimed homicide prosecutor. A wrongful-termination lawsuit is pending.
If challenging Rackauckas can be painful, becoming his pal is advantageous. The grand jury documented in impressive detail dozens of cases when the DA used his position to aid friends and contributors in law-enforcement matters. In two key cases, for example, jurors determined:
•Tony Rackauckas didn’t know millionaire Newport Beach businessman Patrick Di Carlo before 1998. That changed as soon as Rackauckas launched his candidacy. Di Carlo—who admits that organized crime cops have for years considered him a mob associate—invited Rackauckas to his Harbor Island estate for dinner and a sleepover; raised thousands of dollars in campaign contributions; and even paired the soon-to-be DA with his son as a potential business partner in a Las Vegas-based corporation. When Rackauckas won, Di Carlo hosted and paid for an elaborate private celebration. In 2000, Di Carlo asked the DA to block the organized-crime unit from investigating his business activities. Rackauckas complied. The officers cried foul; Rackauckas placed them on leave. Signaling his contempt for his officers, Rackauckas bought Di Carlo a $600 Glock handgun and helped secure him a concealed weapons permit. Remarkably, Di Carlo says he wanted the gun to protect himself from the DA’s agents. Rackauckas told the grand jury that he and his new friend "talk on the telephone several times a week and go to lunch together anywhere from once a week to once a month."
•Rackauckas had no experience handling consumer-fraud prosecutions, but that didn’t stop him from rescuing Newport Beach billionaire George Argyros in his struggle with the DA’s prosecutors. Without explanation, Rackauckas met privately with Argyros’ attorneys and then overruled his staff’s position that his political benefactor had personally directed the massive fraud scheme against approximately 11,000 local Vietnamese and Latino apartment tenants. The shakedown allegedly netted Argyros more than $33 million during a three-year period. The grand jury ruled that the DA had "not paid proper attention to a possible appearance of impropriety" in the matter and should not have been privately negotiating with his powerful friend.
•The DA created and refused to disclose information about a partially taxpayer-funded "charitable" foundation that glorified Rackauckas while giving official-looking law enforcement badges to Di Carlo and other businessmen who contributed money.
In any other major metropolitan area, a carefully researched and well-written 100-page rebuke of the DA’s ethics might spark a public backlash or prompt an apology or resignation. But this is Orange County and—though the last grand jury did its job—there is no guarantee that any other legal body will do theirs.
Initially embarrassed by the report, Rackauckas’ arrogance and claims of invincibility seem to grow each passing day. In a June 27 memo to staff, the DA was upbeat, confident and "proud of this administration’s accomplishments."
Meanwhile, there are sure to be dedicated, law-abiding local prosecutors who are biting their tongues and have yet to come forward in public about Rackauckas’ abuse of authority. We know because the grand jury also issued an ominous warning: "Of great concern to the grand jury were those deputy district attorneys and even members of the [DA’s] management team that expressed fear of retaliation should the confidentiality of their testimony be violated."
Alarms should go off when good prosecutors fear their own boss.



Seems like Paul isn't the only crooked DA. No wonder this guy supports him. They are both corrupt.

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

Very pretty design! Keep up the good work. Thanks.
»

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

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

 

Post a Comment

<< Home