It’s Official…Congratulations Supervisor Bass.

It’s that Democracy again, laying down what’s what.

Newly re-elected Supervisor Bass…Still wondering what steps are we taking at our local level to fight climate change?  Will they be enough?  Will future Supervisors be called on to do more, or should we depend on State and Federal state governments to address this?

Nah…Enjoy your day, congratulations and we can work on those questions tomorrow.

Also, to Chris, Mitra, Adele, and all the other volunteers – you all were great and did great.  It was really a pleasure to have worked those consistently beautiful Spring 2014 Saturday and Sunday canvassing shifts you all set up.  You have bright futures and should be proud of what you accomplished.

You took on a well liked incumbent and came really close – and you did it with class, and positive energy.  Thanks for caring enough about your community to make the efforts you did.

Also, special heart-felt thank you to friend, family and puppies too for putting up with my time away and focus on the campaign.



50 thoughts on “It’s Official…Congratulations Supervisor Bass.

  1. Anonymous says:

    Newly re-elected Supervisor Bass…Still wondering what steps are we taking at our local level to fight climate change?

    See appendix u of the general plan Update, “draft climate action plan”

    1. Thanks 01.

      But as friend, supporter and paid consultant Richard Marks has said, no one cares about the GPU.

      So you are saying, Supervisor Bass should lead on something she had said was a real problem during one of the debates by following policy delineated in Appendix abcdefghijklmnopqrstU of a document one of her main supporters says we shouldn’t care about because no one cares about?

      That doesn’t seem like it will get the job done.

      What do you think? And now that you can be recognized as an individual, what do you think about climate change? Is it real, is it man-made? What do we do about it, or is Appendix U of the GPU going to be enough.

      Here are a couple of more good posts in the NYT. One by Eduardo Porter in the Economics section and the second column in a row by Paul Krugman.

      And here is the thing, the national dialog is talking about regulating end point sources right now. That would be more painful and expensive than making “organic” changes focusing on land use, transportation and daily life that we could do right here and improve life greatly.

      The cost? Understanding that staff planners have a job to do and letting them do it rather than outsourcing their job to you and the Chamber of Commerce.

      But I will put reading Appendix U on my tdl. Thanks.

  2. Anonymous says:

    you aren’t going to read it jon, because it doesn’t agree with your perspective. regardless of whether or not the gpu is a good campaign issue, it is still the law of the land. we are way below the 1990 baseline of carbon emissions in humboldt, by the way. it’s in Appendix “U”.

    community planning is supposed to start with the community jon, not the planners, btw.

  3. A01:

    Community planning SHOULD start with the community who elect supervisors who hire planners. We agree. Community planning should not start with the community who elect supervisors who hire planners then take it back to the community who will then be responsible for reading appendix U, showing up for meetings during their work hours, etc.

    Public participation as defined by Peter Childs, yourself, et. al. is private participation. No one should have to read appendix U other than lawyers et. al. That’s why we elect and pay Supervisors – to do the work of the people, to act as our representatives.

    Right now they are doing the work of people who want to make it easier and cheaper to build at the expense of other considerations. Oh, and to cease all that darn enforcement of codes et. al.

    I have no problem with simpler and easier building thresholds, but let’s not give up our community’s standards, hopes and dreams for them. And the community’s standards, and hopes for the future will not be found in Appendix U. We will depend on proactive leadership to protect these.

    Unfortunately Supervisor Bass has demonstrated that she will talk the talk of leadership on issues like climate change, but will not make it her job to think about what we as a community should do about it. I mean except for her contributions to Appendix U of the GPU.

  4. A1 says:

    When have I defined public participation? Have you read the appendix? You asked what they have done to fight climate change and I am just saying there is a section that they have adopted called the “draft climate plan”. So, there’s that. Seems like a good start, if you are a reasonable person.

    It is hard to respond to you because your so caught up in your us/them paradigm the facts don’t matter to you.

  5. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    Once again let’s the facts straight. The GPU is NOT the law of the land. The 1984 plan is the law of the land. The GPU has yet to be completed and has not been passed.

  6. A1 says:

    Good call Mary Ella, the adopted GPU will be the law of the land but 1984 is the current standard. Meanwhile while we argue about whether a person should be able to build a second house on their TPZ land or whether we should increase setbacks for people who actually follow the rules and get permits, your lawless friends are actually wrecking the environment:

    “Deputies saw water was being diverted from a nearby creek and a large area had been graded and clear cut. They also saw that numerous trees up to two feet tall in diameter had been cut down.”

    But hey, let’s worry about those evil developers. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

    1. MOLA42 says:

      A1: 6:59:

      You once again bring out the guilt by association with the predatory growers.

      Predatory Growers are not my friends, nor have I seen any indication they are Mary Ella’s either.

      You’ve done this before and despite having pointed out to you what a snarky maneuver that is, you still do it.

      Your problem is you try to score points to win arguments and you accomplish neither. You haven’t said anything new in months (except for trying to imply your opponents were in league with Nazi’s and Stalinist’s).

      Please, develop a new sermon.

  7. A1 says:

    Mola, the question was, what has Bass done about climate change? One answer is, the climate action plan. This is not disputable. Can that be my new sermon?

    Where did I imply anybody was in league with Nazi’s and Stalinists?

    Your problem is you avoid the facts with your abstractions. Remember the little back and forth about smart growth? I noticed it got all silent when I posted the link about the lawsuit settlement with MCSD because the county overestimated the ability of the infrastructure, an argument I made. so…you’re wrong there about that. I submit that was a new argument and I won. You guys are saying to intensify the core areas, I am saying it doesn’t always work as well in real life as it does on paper. the county got sued and admitted, “In 2010, County planning staff overestimated the capacity to convey sewage in the current MSCD wastewater system. ”

    My argument was, “You are concentrating the impacts as well. The sewer, water, and roads were generally designed for the densities they were built at. Doubling densities works well on paper, but depending on the surrounding infrastructure, can be nearly impossible – as in cost prohibitive, and unbearable for the neighbors – read “quality of life”.”

    Now, how am I wrong about that one? It was just part of a freakin’ legal settlement.

    I even warned you in the beginning that I was not the one in over my head.

    “…it’s been dealt with by people smarter than myself already.” – MOLA

    1. MOLA42 says:

      A1 19:21:

      You won? I wasn’t aware there was a scoring system in effect here.

      Oh, and thanks for the warning. You are most gallant.

      Since your memory is most selective; the Nazi-Stalinist stuff came from a rather strange definition you cooked up (from Wikipedia) of Social Engineering. I’ll further jog your memory that you continued to defend and agree with that definition even after it was pointed out to you that the definition I found in Wikipedia had little or nothing to do with yours. You continued to quote and defend the definition (concerning the Nazi’s and Stalinist’s) as authority since it was (you said) the only definition you could find in Wikipedia.

      The rest of your reasoning skills unfortunately follows in the same manner.

      Since you are quoting (out of context) let me expand the quote you chose:

      “Your arguments have been answered and dealt with by people smarter than myself already” (I’m quoting from memory so the wording will not be precise).

      The silence you heard was the rest of us being tired of going over the same ground with you over and over.

  8. A1 says:

    You are projecting…

    Is that your version of an argument – “smarter people have answered you”.

    The reason I keep going over the same ground is because nobody seems to be able to answer. What do you say to the fact that smart growth is severely constrained and by lack of infrastructure and therefore not practicle in Humboldt County, as evidenced by the recent county-mcsd settlement?

    What do you say to the fact the current supervisors have (or will) adopted a climate action plan?

  9. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    So, let’s hear more about what you see as the outstanding features of this climate action plan.

  10. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    Okay, you aren’t comfortable putting actual ideas out for discussion. I think you need to look at that and ask yourself why, if you favor the plan and the ideas presented, you aren’t willing to talk about them.

  11. A1 says:

    IJohn asks what bass has done about climate change. I say they have or will adopted the climate action plan. Discuss.

  12. Mary, it’s clear that A1 does not intend to share his views on climate change. A1 why is that? It’s also something Virginia doesn’t like to talk about. May it be because if it is discussed a whole slew of her base may get upset?

  13. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    Right. I don’t think a discussion is really what A1 is after. He appears to be more interested in an exchange of platitudes and slogans that precludes any actual discussion of ideas The climate plan, like the county’s ten year plan to end homelessness, is a boiler plate document that will meet basic regulatory requirements and lie dormant for years while business as usual continues. The county is not alone is avoiding any real discussion of the impacts of climate change. The federal government isn’t doing any better.

  14. The federal government is doing much worse thanks to the Republicans in Congress. That’s part of the reason why I became interested in local politics. We could do a great deal of important work here with the largely conservative notion that the best government is a local government. Seems when you get to the local level, the conservatives begin to argue that we should govern at the local level since the state and federal regulations have us covered. It’s confusing.

  15. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    As you know I have attended many meetings of the supervisors and planning commission. I remember one particular Supervisors’ meeting wherein the county economy was being discussed. One of the supervisors, I believe it was Bohn, said, sort of offhand, that “we all know that government can’t create jobs” and both Bass and Fennell nodded their agreement. There were at least a dozen county employees at that meeting, but the prevailing belief is that government jobs are bad, government shouldn’t be in the business of employing people (except for supervisors, apparently) and that we must all look to the private sector for our salvation. I have worked in the private sector and in my experience they are not that efficient , hate unions and have no regard for their employees. Government jobs, when they still existed, were good jobs that provided good incomes and people in those jobs had safety protections and sufficient income to spend and help support the local small business that are so important to a healthy local economy. But their line of thinking was in step with the economic policies that are now standard cant for both Republicans and Democrats and that have led to the weakest recovery from a serious recession within living memory and resulted in a trickling up of what wealth there is so that more and more of us are struggling to get a share of less and less.

    I think local solutions are really the way to go, but I don’t look to the Board of Supervisors for innovative thinking. They are going backwards in my view and the only really intelligent member of that board, Mark Lovelace, is now isolated and made ineffectual by the bad decisions of the electorate. I am, therefore, not optimistic about their ability to deal with climate change or homelessness. Until there is some persistent effort to get people involved in their own governance, we’re stuck in an environment that is deteriorating on almost all levels.

    1. Mary, just so you know, the “government doesn’t produce jobs” is a tried and true conservative talking point. It’s something you will hear over and over on right wing radio, etc.

      That’s their narrative and it rings true to many people.

      ” I have worked in the private sector and in my experience they are not that efficient , hate unions and have no regard for their employees.”

      I’ve spent a great deal of time in the private sector and public sector now and it all depends on how you measure efficiency. Conservatives of course will measure it largely by money – and they will externalize things like if their workers have to then depend on public assistance for additional food or health care for their family.

      They also won’t pay attention if the family can ever afford to buy a home with the income they are getting.

      But as long as payroll is met, taxes are paid, and the company is running in the black – then we have ourselves a “job creator” that is also supporting those government workers.

      Where I disagree with you is we can never, ever say one person is intelligent and another isn’t, imho. My Supervisor, Virginia, is exceptionally intelligent, we just fundamentally disagree on policy.

  16. A1 says:

    I think the climate is changing, although I haven’t noticed anything personally. I was surprised to learn that Humboldt is producing much less co2 than its baseline year of 1990.

    1. thanks A1, I disagree that any one individual will be able to experience climate change. We have to be paying attention to other metrics. But that’s an interesting take.

      If it is changing, is it man made? If so, what should we be doing about it (I mean generally, not Appendix U)

  17. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    I guess we can disagree over the meaning of intelligence. Is it intelligent to believe and avow things that are demonstrably untrue, such as government doesn’t create jobs?

  18. A1 says:

    How can you disagree that any one person will be able to experience climate change? If nobody will experience it, who gives a shit, it won’t affect anybody. I am sure people have an effect on the climate, not sure of the degree. I wish we had better data on sunspot activity and it’s relationship to temperatures.

    Re: government creating jobs- I think they are saying that the money for those jobs has to start in the private sector via taxes, so if you create a job that we all chip in $10 each for, there is no gain, just a transfer of wealth. Not sure about that, but I do believe you have to have more people paying taxes than receiving, if I am doing my math right.

  19. suzy blah blah says:

    we can never, ever say one person is intelligent and another isn’t, imho. My Supervisor, Virginia, is exceptionally intelligent, we just fundamentally disagree on policy.

    -actually, the best measure of intelligence is whether or not you agree with suzy.

  20. suzy blah blah says:

    -it doesn’t take much intellect to see that Mary’s comment, in part, is an attempt to kick the uppity suzy.

  21. A1 we can’t experience it because it occurs in geologic time, if we are lucky. It certainly seems like things are haywire right now, but our individual experience of climate is not a sufficient metric as we are inherently prejudice. For example, I will remember unusual days as significant but maybe not those days our of the ordinary. Human memory is a fallible thing. However, things like a species’ or an ecosystem habitat moving north in the Northern hemisphere might be one indicator. Or the melting of the polar ice caps over time.

    Or the increased level of C02 in the atmosphere to levels we haven’t seen in millions of years.

    These are the type of causal and evidential metrics we should be looking at. (And re sunspots activity, I think that is more George Noory (or Art Bell) and less Michael Mann.

    Re Government jobs…Mary, A1 I think is close on the thinking on that. I think it misses the point, but its a right-wing truism. Kinda like “Fair and Balanced”. It actually makes since if you look at it through the right’s filter. They feel they are the victims of left-leaning media that keeps reporting on all this left-leaning reality. FOX represents a chance to see and hear reality as they expect it to be given their world view. In that sense it is “fair and balanced” the media does hire professional journalists that do try their best to leave their biases at the door (as we all have them) and report the news. At least as I understand it. I think you would know much more on the subject than I.

    Also – sbb – I think you caught me in another lie. I did comment on your intelligence a couple of times on SoHum Parlance. I think it was quite favorable, because as much as we disagree, you are a challenge to exchange type-words with.

    A1 – so finally, and again, what measures would you propose doing as a society to address climate change if it is indeed real and caused by humans. I mean real policies that we could enact tomorrow if half the Republicans would see the light as Henry Paulson did recently?

    Follow up – outside of appendix U or including it, what should we do locally?

  22. A1 says:

    Well Jon you go off on these wacky rants about right wing and fox news based me saying I hadn’t noticed anything personally. I wasn’t denying anything, just making an observation. I am aware these things are slow to change, but if you watched Al Gore’s show, that is not the way climate change was portrayed at all. I brought up sunspot activity because the sun has the greatest effect on the temperature of the earth, as in, that’s where all the heat initially comes from. To me it’s seems logical and likely that changes in the relationship between the sun and the earth (i.e., sunspot activity) has a major effect on the earth’s temperature. I have personally observed this for example when it is night time, it gets very dark and the temperature decreases on that part of the earth. Again, this is not to deny anything, but I think it is something to think about. I haven’t made a study of this, but I believe there is at least some evidence relating sunspot activity to the the temperature of the earth. More sunspots = warmer. I don’t know who George Noory or Art Bell is.

    I don’t understand your paragraph as it relates to my thinking on government jobs. We certainly need a public sector. We need a private sector. It is not as simple as public=good, private = bad or vice-versa but go ahead and paint me with whatever brush you need to make your point that I am a fox news (which I don’t watch) – tea party (which I am not part of) patriot.

    I don’t know what to do about climate change but I am certain anything done here is purely a symbolic action that will not do anything in the global sense. If you believe Co2 is the thing, lower it, right? I know one way to lower our co2 output 500 metric tons per year, decimate the timber industry. At least that’s what happened according to appendix “U”. So it seems like we are already doing our part, maybe the rest of the world should follow suit?

    Only problem is, that industry just moved to where there are less (or no) regulations so I wonder what the net effect, globally is? Do you think the mill in Chile or Argentina is reporting to CARB their co2 emmissions or has air scrubbers or whatever they were doing around here with that first chlorine free mill we had for a while?

    1. A1 – Somehow it’s like you are perceiving what I write so much differently from what I write.

      I never said or implied you are denying anything in the above. I think you answered honestly and I responded why I think you might be mistaken – in my opinion, which I like to believe is informed by standard thought on science. And not to balance the scales of debate, but my expertise (from long ago, admittedly) is in science – chemistry specifically.

      Al Gore’s show had some sensationalism which the right will use over and over to diminish it, but it was also very informative and did sound a clarion call that main stream politics had not at the time. The significance of that film was not the science, but a former Presidential candidate was behind it.

      I don’t understand the night and day analogy nor the idea that we do studies. That’s my point – we as individuals can’t do the studies that will in and of itself help us to “believe” that climate change is happening. Maybe that’s your point too.

      And if you read my writing, I have never said private=bad. Private=good=necessary. What I’m advocating for is that public=good=necessary. That is the heart of the argument on FOX and right wing radio. Please let me inform you of this as I did listen to it ….for…..years…… Government = bad. That’s part of the reason I’m so careful not to say the inverse.

      Where you are right is here “I don’t know what to do about climate change but I am certain anything done here is purely a symbolic action that will not do anything in the global sense.”

      That’s an important point and I’m surprise more haven’t made it when I do my type words. I’d argue though that it’s more than symbolic. If we were able to change the development paradigm to something closer to Eureka, Kneeland and Arcata 1890 rather than 1980, it would be symbolic and an instruction manual of how rural communities shift to the world’s new realities – while thriving.

      Because if we enable the public sector to help plan for the future rather than growing parcel-by-parcel and econimic-boom by boom, we can shape how we want to live – and that will have a great deal of benefits from the environment to affordable, livable and pleasurable housing for seniors where it needs to be.

  23. A1 says:

    OK – “If we were able to change the development paradigm to something closer to Eureka, Kneeland and Arcata 1890 rather than 1980, it would be symbolic and an instruction manual of how rural communities shift to the world’s new realities – while thriving.”

    The infrastructure isn’t there, which has been something I have been saying many times. You guys keep missing that for some reason. The water, sewers, and roads were not built to achieve those densities you desire.

  24. The problem is plumbing? That’s the reason we have to keeping expanding our asphalt and concrete footprint? Doesn’t that seem odd to you?

    Seems like if there was a will we could figure out a way to live closer together. Are you sure that the leaders in mckinleyville really want to live that close together, and isn’t that the problem, not the plumbing.

    1. MOLA42 says:

      It seems to me the argument is whether to shoot the “plumbing” out into the countryside or up grade the already existing infrastructure.

      Which leads back the the real argument: More city infrastructure or more suburbia.

    2. A1 says:

      Well, the counties housing element was going to stick the mck ratepayers with a 3 million dollar tab. The developers pay for their own infrastructure. They use septic tanks in the hills, not city sewer.

      Or, maybe the citizens don’t want their densities increased to urban levels:

      At the Valentine’s Day hearing, resident Ron Coffman summed up a lot of people’s concerns when he testified “We do not appreciate the systematic dismantling of the McKinleyville Community Plan”

      So what if people don’t want to live the way you think they should?

      The problem is plumbing, roads, power lines, etc. You see, when they build things, they size the infrastructure according to the maximum potential density. When you go and double that density after the fact, the transformers may not be large enough to handle the loads. The gas lines may not be adequate. The water system can’t carry the capacity, the storm drains aren’t large enough to carry the water, and the sewer lines can’t carry the crap away. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but there can be major financial obstacle s to infill in already developed areas, especially at the anemic rates of growth here. If you truly want to do massive infill, you should start a foundation to fund the massive infrastructure undertaking that will need to happen. Probably the first million studying where the problems are.

      Think about it in terms of your house, as if you tripled your density. If you want to put in 3 refrigerators, 3 stoves, etc, you would probably discover your electrical panel needs to be replaced. Now if you want to add parking for six more cars, you will have to figure that out somehow. Add in 3 more bathrooms and your water pressure won’t be up to snuff and your hot water heater wouldn’t keep up. Your tenants or Co – owners are all going to have capacity issues. Also, maybe your neighbors would not appreciate the influx of traffic and fighting for parking.

  25. MOLA42 says:


    So we are down to the nut of the issue: What do we (as a county, not individuals) want? If the only thing that stays the same is there will be change; then how do we reasonably and intelligently accomplish this change?

    You want the sewer lines (or even the septic tanks) to run wild. Others appreciate that infrastructure wears out and when replaced can be beefed up.

    So, do you want a county that is suburb from Mckinleyville to Rio Dell and beyond or do you want a county where the majority of it’s population lives close to transportation and infrastructure services?

    You appear to be on the sprawl side. Very well.

    Others of us don’t agree with that. Also, very well.

    Have I mis-stated your position?

    1. MOLA: I learned that in the first week of debating these good folks. They will use the lack of growth as a reason to not plan to grow.

      One option is to enjoy the back and forth or I’ve found the “message discipline” to keep up with their well honed arguements is you have to focus on “pattern of growth”. Because that is what is important and bad economy or good at some point we will grow again.

      For the record though, Tom Grover is an unabashed sprawl fan.

      1. MOLA42 says:


        Well, I foolishly thought I would boil down the essentials of the arguments to their essentials so we may have a clear idea of what we were fighting about.

        Alas, instead I fell into the deep waters of hyperbole never to be seen again.

        A1 bores me because as soon as you pin him down on one spot he squawks and bounces to someplace else. He can not be truly engaged.

        If we are to learn anything from each other we need to talk, not press talking points.

        1. A1 says:

          we’re not fighting, are we? neither one of us wants sprawl. how funny, i feel the same way about you. try to talk about the policies without the rhetoric, and away you go.

  26. A1 says:

    I don’t want anything to run wild. I agree when the lines wear out, they should beef them up, if that is in the plan. Too bad the services districts operate on a 50 year plan and the county on 5 for their housing element, 20 for the general plan. Makes it pretty tough to do good infrastructure planning when they switch the zones up every 5 years to meet their housing goals, doesn’t it?

    I do not want a county that is a county that is “sprawl” and you have ventured back into hyperbole. There will never be sprawl from McKinleyville to Rio dell, because we have a general plan that concentrate s development in the core areas close to transportation and infrastructure, protects open space, provides for no net loss of ag land, preserves working forests, provides wetland buffers, streamside setbacks,etc.

    Read the plan, somebody please read the plan. Maybe we could talk about the policies you feel don’t fulfill the above?

    So yes, you have mis-stated my position.

    1. A1 -still waiting for an answer to this. If it’s in the plan, why not “protect agriculture and timberland for the long term”. Again, I don’t think it’s on the 70% who didn’t even vote to have to understand the context and language in the plan.

      Could you please answer what Virginia and Ryan did not want to discuss – why not leave that language in there if it’s in the plan? Should we not discourage resource conversion? Virginia and Ryan both voted on that language but many industry folks were against it. Why take the time to go back and change it if it’s in the plan and/or that language doesn’t matter.

      You’ve been to meetings A1 where the language is discussed – even the Guiding Principles for goodness sake. There is so much there that may or may not make an actual difference to Planning Department policies. I won’t be enlightened from reading it and it won’t prove one way or another to me if we are doing what is right as far as planning. Unless of course I get a degree in planning, spend 4 years our on construction sites, etc, oh, and it would help to get a law degree too.

      So please, let’s keep it simple. Let’s agree on fundamental principles and let the professoinals do their work. If we the public try to do their work, both the public and it’s directives and the professionals and their ability to do their work will be diminished.

      Which is exacly why you’d like us the public to debate the elements instead of the direction of the elements.

    2. MOLA42 says:


      Okay, I’ll bite. What DO you want?

      If growth is inevitable and you don’t want sprawl and you don’t want to develop city services to meet that growth then what do you want? Is there a third path? Such as, let’s rebuild infrastructure a little here and sprawl a little there? Or is it, “The heck with it, let’s just see what happens?”

      As for hyperbole… I merely gave a name to what you have been pushing for over the last few months. Now that it has a name, sprawl, you appear to have hopped on over to the other side. Something tells me you won’t stay there long.

      1. A1 says:

        I think things are fine, if a little slow. I’m not as worried about sprawl as I am the economy or the environmental and social impacts of the mj trade. There is hardly any growth, and the way the plan is written, there won’t be any sprawl, just like there hasn’t been for the last 20 years.

  27. A1 says:

    jon, maybe it allowed them to keep some of their supporters happy while still protecting ag land? i know, that never happens in politics.

    1. Woah. That’s awesome. We have for the first time in history shut down our insatiable hunger for resource conversion. Our electeds and their staff will be empowered to protect ag and timberland for the long term based on the policies, standards and elements in the GPU.

      In a cruel twist of fate, those wishing to encourage resource conversion, have had the wool pulled over their eyes by the very supervisors they supported in the elections.

      Wow. I really should read that language sounds like no net nonsense and all awesomeness to me.

      Or, it could be that the language to protect agriculture and timberland or discouraging resource conversion was too clear and threatening to those who wished to have a little more freedom with their private property rights.

  28. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    On Thom Hartmann yesterday, a woman called in to talk about a CPR-like groups in her community persuading even pro-environmental people to join an anti-planning movement. In the discussion, it was noted that the Koch Brothers are sponsoring these groups around the country and they are becoming politically involved even in school board races to gain political control of land use regulations. I haven’t done any further research on this as I have a part time job and it’s really eating into my free time, but I wondered about the connection with our local big funder of anti-land use regulation. Are the Arkleys part of the overall and enormous Koch Brothers empire? I don’t know but I wonder. I have done earlier searches of the CPR movement, and it is a national movement, particularly active in Florida.

    1. I run out of time too Mary Ella. I wish I could have heard that segment. Very interesting.

      I don’t know if we have any national money coming in here. I think not. Maybe HumCPR has connections, I don’t think so though – they have plenty of interest here and I’d wager they are even staying clear of Arkley money. Their coalition depends on getting many people who would otherwise listen to Thom Hartmann.

      But thanks for the heads up on Thom’s show. I’ve been trying to record his shows and was wondering why he is never on at 12. Seems he moved again to 3?

  29. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    He;s on KGOE now from 9 to noon. For some reason, there was a shakeup in the progressive schedule. Thanks to the Supremes, it’s next to impossible to track sources of donations and funding now. When Hum CPR made its move into Southern Humboldt, it was clear that they had plenty of money and they knew where to spend it. And an internet search at that time indicated that it was part of a larger national anti=planning movement. I think you are being a little naïve in imaging that everyone is behaving honestly and aboveboard.

  30. Thanks Mary Ella for the schedule update. KGOE’s website was not helpful. I’m hoping to get back to having some time to listen to Thom.

    Whatever they are doing Mary Ella, it’s working. I just not the one who can define who is being honest and aboveboard. I will depend on our public interest media for that.

    What I can do is to try my best and work with others to make sure our politics is as honest and aboveboard as possible.

  31. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    It is easy to be deceived and taken advantage of. That’s the goal of most advertising, including political advertising. I read somewhere that when advertisers figured out that some prospective buyers felt a little uncomfortable with this vague feeling that advertisers were trying to take undue advantage of them, they developed a new meme in which the consumer (otherwise known as the victim) was too savvy to be taken in by the bells and whistles of ordinary marketing, so they were going to be totally honest this time. The old appeal to vanity approach, you could say.

    Personally, I have a basic rule of thumb that I learned from the old Mork and Mindy. When Mindy suggested to Mork that someone wasn’t telling him the truth, he replied – well, he’s never lied to me before. Funny but also profound So I give everyone the benefit of being truthful until I find that they have lied to me and thereafter I never take their word for anything. I take some things as a given: if the government officials or persons in authority who honor authority figures tells me there’s absolutely no danger and I shouldn’t worry about GMOs or Fukushima radiation or spraying Roundup on the dandelions in the grass at Lazy J,, or that we can continue our consumptive lifestyle forever and the environment will be fine I don’t believe them. I think a healthy skepticism is applicable in many real life situations.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s