In case you missed it, North Coast Journal editor Hank Sims gives his 2 pence on 5th District Supervisor candidate Ryan Sundberg’s DUI. He even touches ever so slightly on the major media failure to bring this important information to the voters.
Earlier:
Sundberg’s DUI (Humboldt Herald)
Sundberg DUI draws attention (Times-Standard)
I thought Friday was the favored day to release bad news to the press because fewer people read the news on Saturday than other days of the week.
The failure of local media to report this and to follow up on it is shameful. Hank spent a column excusing the media but nothing about why it wasn’t reported when it occurred or anything about the circumstances, the CHP report of how they were made aware of Sundberg’s drunk driving. Further, Hank’s assumption that Sundberg’s irresponsible personal behavior has no bearing on his ability to act responsibly on the public’s behalf is nonsensical.
Friday afternoon is the optimal time to release news you want to receive as little attention as possible.
The Friday, three days before the election, is the time to release last minute campaign smears.
Kudos to Hank Sims for having the class to not participate in dirty politics.
How is fact a “smear”?
Hank asserts, without presenting any evidence I can discern, that the revealer’s intent was ‘dirty’ politics.
Seems to me that misses one of the central maxims of dirty politics: it’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.
I really expected better.
A smear, by definition, must be unsubstantiated which was definitely not the case here.
Lets hypothetically say that this “important information” was brought to the voters earlier…would it have made a difference? Unlikely. There is plenty of time to grease the wheels of the spin machine in hopes of getting Pat elected in November.
Sundberg, it seems to me, never heard that the best disinfectant is sunshine.
Is is possible that this was “leaked” by the Sundberg campaign to get it out in the open too late to affect the June vote but early enough that it is old news for November?
PJ,
Possible but unlikely. If it was the Sundberg campaign, they would have been more likely to release it on Tuesday, which would truly have been too late to affect the first round of voting.
Do you really think you can keep this topic open till next November.
Is it an issue, yes, is it the only issue, not hardly.
If it was an opposing campaign they wouldn’t have waited until so late to leak it, Reasonable. That a Friday afternoon “leak” is the best way to get information out with the least damage is a well known political strategy and this leak in particular has the added benefit of the other side being blamed for “dirty politics.”
Come on, Hank does what hes told and Mrs.Hodge and the Arkleys are Old friends. News just isnt news anymore. There has to be a twist.
Echoing the comment above Hank makes a specious and inarticulate argument for his reasons for not running the story.
If it were rumor or innuendo it can labeled a smear, it’s not those things, it’s a fact. Sundberg drove drunk, reporting that isn’t a smear no matter when it came out. He’s a candidate for public office and displayed horrific judgment and calling it such is called speaking the truth, not smearing someone.
Hank made a tough call and makes a compelling argument in support of it.
I respect the fact that he shares the blame for not uncovering this himself.
Many people have known about the DUI for many months; it seems strange that the press didn’t report it until it was served up on a silver platter.
Some of you above are naive, some are just pretending. The fact that the basic charges might be true are irrelevent to the whole issue of- is this a smear ?
The last minute release is to have the voters hear the 30 second charge & not hear the five minute response & explanation. Otherwise why didn’t the culprit not give the packets to the media a few weeks ago?
And for those of you who claim this wasn’t the Cleary campaign people or that they just found out that day? You cannot possibly be that stupid.
Oh shut up HiFi, the man was drunk and behind the wheel. That fact was divulged a few days before an election you smarmy fuck knuckle. It was fact the night it happened and it was a fact the day it was divulged.
Sims tried to cover his own silly ass by making up some bullshit and claiming it would have been an ethical leap. Having NCJ staffers lecture others on journalism is like having Palin lecture others on the importance of teaching kids to use birth control.
One thing to consider — what proportion of the Sundberg voters would consider his DUI a big deal, or at least a big enough deal that they wouldn’t vote for him? I live in the 5th district, and I suspect that many of my neighbors see nothing innately reprehensible about driving after several drinks. (What is reprehensible to them is getting caught, or having an accident. Those cost money.) Also, listen to the questions asked, and the responses of potential jurors in DUI cases.
So true…
The Friday rule-of-thumb was written for national TV news and major newspapers, not Humboldt County journalism.
If the bad news is fantastically important, room will be made to fit it into Sunday’s paper. If the news is only moderately bad, you score Monday coverage (nobody reads the Monday paper). Unless the news has an interesting visual, forget about it getting on TV.
Help me out here. Are you suggesting he will drink while seated on the board of supervisors? The guy already said he has stopped drinking.
I’m sure the sleaze who went digging for dirt on Sundberg will have no problem paying for a PI to follow Sundberg everywhere to capture a photo of him drinking to disprove his claim. But, until you dig up that dirt, I’ll take the man at his word.
Sundberg would have been forgiven for the crime had he owned up to it, but he didn’t. The coverup may be worse than the crime. It shows poor judgement and a lack of trust in the voters. He just wished that it would go away.
His blood alcohol level requires jail time, and he didn’t even bother to show up in court. WTF?!
Help me out here. Are you suggesting he will drink while seated on the board of supervisors? The guy already said he has stopped drinking.
Huh? He was drunk behind the wheel, it’s a crime and demonstrates a remarkable lack of judgment. Who said anything about him drinking while at work, or do you know something we don’t?
I’m just curious. . .let’s say he’d been busted for child-molesting. Would that be irrelevant to his ability to hold public office? Or murder: would the fact he promised not to do it again make it OK? Of course the BIG question is: what if Cleary had a DUI?
The only smear going on is the smear on Sundberg’s opponents’ campaigns, Cleary in particular. A smear is an unsubstantiated public accusation. Saying that Sundberg got a DUI is not in any way a smear. It is a documented (substantiated) fact. Saying that a political opponents’ campaign smeared Sundberg with the leak is, in fact, a smear since there is absolutely nothing to substantiate other than suspicions. Hank Sims in particular smeared the leaker by assuming without any evidence that a factual leak of what should have been public knowledge was in any way a smear.
This reminds me of Palin’s campaign putting her pregnant teenage daughter in the world’s spotlight and then whining that her family was being smeared because people talked about it.
If you did it, you did it..Hank is not telling the truth. He was told by his boss to steer clear. What happened to reporting the NEWS.Not conclusions, just the NEWS. The news was ryan was driving drunk and got caught by CHP, another fact, at a .16 The news. and robbie is supporting a MODERATE like virginia. Come on if this isn’t posisitioning what is?
Are you so far gone in your partisan hatred, that you back fools like schmear & Walt saying that a one time drunk driving incident where nobody was hurt is the equivilent to murder & child molesting ?
And Sundberg did own up to it. I also believed he said he has stopped drinking totally.
No one said it is equivalent, HiFi. The point was that it doesn’t matter which particular crime a politician commits, it isn’t the crime but the lack of judgment they demonstrated by committing the crime. Good judgment should be a prerequisite for public office. Clinton’s BJ wasn’t a crime but it did demonstrate poor judgment. I didn’t vote for him his 2nd term.
And Sundberg didn’t “own up to it.” He got caught, he was exposed and he admitted it.
Hank Sims writes: “I could not see how it was relevant to the question at hand.”
Hank Sims also writes: “Drunk driving, especially at the level that Sundberg was recorded at, is an inarguably heinous act. “
So when Hank is given information (info that one could argue he should have had five months ago) that one of the candidates has recently committed an “inarguably heinous act,” Hank simply doesn’t feel that’s “relevant to the question at hand.”
Right.
So he makes the tough call, and leaves the voters to fend for themselves.
And 2:26? Ditto.
Spin, spin, spin. Moderated for the truth.
So a candidate has the poor judgement and irresponsibility to drive drunk, in fact very, very drunk, putting lives at risk, but his poor judgement and irresponsibility in that area has NO BEARING on whether we might expect poor judgement and irresponsibility in other areas?
If he had killed someone during his drunken drive, no doubt Hank would have thought different. But when you think about it why? Because Sundberg got lucky? A drunk driver who kills someone while driving drunk made the exact same error of judgement as a drunk driver who got lucky and didn’t hurt anyone. So why would we treat the “lucky” driver different that the “unlucky” one? Perhaps Hank could explain.
Well said, Reasonable. I have asked that same question many times but never gotten a rational response.
“…exact same error of judgment…”-wrong.
Please explain.
Sundberg could have released the news himself. No one, including his Atty showed up for the hearing. That seems careless for someone who knew he was going to announce for supervisor in a few days.
When the press decides when to release actual news i.e. relevant facts because they think they know what is best for us, the press becomes part of the story as opposed to reporting the story.
Bad call, Hank.
There are varying degrees of intoxication, it’s not all exactly the same.
Yes, Lodgepole, there ARE different levels of intoxication, and Sundberg blew a .16, which is twice the legal limit. Achieving this level of intoxication in a DUI test requires pounding down 7 or 8 drinks in a row shortly before driving.
My point is, that the poor judgement shown by Sundberg, in driving at .16, is the same level of bad judgement shown by anyone else who drives at .16, including drunk drivers with .16 BAC who kill someone in the process. I trust I have made the point clearly enough this time.
In addition to the poor judgement shown in driving home while staggeringly drunk, he compounded his mistake by not disclosing it to the full voting public (aka “cover up”), then whining about having the facts after they had successfully hidden them for months. Since when is breaking the law and hiding the info WHILE running for political office acceptable?
He knew it mattered, or he wouldn’t have told Duffy-for-DUIs and Mostranski. Who helped him cover it up? Who was hiding the ball? CHP? DA’s office?
God bless you people for continuing to ask the questions that need to be asked.
Enough of the B.S.
A DUI is minor as far as ‘activities’ I have seen Sundberg and members of his imediate family partake in. I was amazed that this guy was even running for an office let alone being taken seriously.
So your point is…Someone who drives home drunk and arrives safely is guilty of killing someone?
Should only sin free people be eligible for office? That would leave a lot of talented people on the sidelines.
Lodgepole, I made my point quite clearly. Your strawman argument is pathetic.
I never said Sundberg was guilty of killing someone, I said he made the *same poor judgement* (driving at .16, staggeringly drunk) as others who wind up killing people (because they were driving while staggeringly drunk). He ran the same risk, he just got lucky.
HumJane, what the fuck is wrong with you and people like you? Sundberg chose to drive when he was completely smashed, was arrested and then didn’t show up for court the same week that he was due to announce that he was running for public office. He then hoped that it would all go away, and what dip-shits like you are howling about is the timing of the reporting about it.
Only “sin free people?” No.
But I think its reasonable to at least reject people who have not yet completed serving their probation for a vey recent crime that put lives at risk (driving very, very drunk.
I mean if we don’t even care about very recent convictions for life-threatening crimes, isn’t that setting the bar just a little bit low?
“..he just got lucky.” It couldn’t have anything to do with driving skills.
Pathetic strawman is my specialty.
Oh, the old “but I’m a very careful driver when I’m drunk.” Often accompanied by “I do it all the time… and I only had that one accident.”
Driving skills, eh? That’s just the problem, no matter how “skilled” you are, at .16 reaction time and judgement are shit. Yup, he got lucky.
“Pathetic strawman is my specialty”
I noticed.
Oh the old “but I’m a very careful driver when I’m drunk.” Blah blah blah…
It’s your specialty too.
Well, Lodgepole, you raised the issue of driving “skills,” as if skill is going to be of any help when you’re sloshingly drunk at .16 BAC.
The facts remains:
Sundberg showed very bad judgement by pouring 7 or 8 drinks down his gullet and then going for a spin.
He put his own life and the lives of others at risk by doing so.
This happened only 6 months ago.
He has not even completed the sentence for his crime.
Again, I’d have to say we’re setting the bar pretty low if we’re willing to elect someone who has recently committed a life-threatening crime.
Yes, I used the word “skills” , then you proceeded with your “pathetic strawman”.
I believe this DUI is just what Sundberg needed. He is well on his way to proving he has the chops to be a good politician.
Like no other politician has eluded scandal.
He will fit right in.
Bad Boy!
Yeah, let’s argue about arguing, rather than address the point of contention, namely that Sundberg’s DUI shows evidence of very poor judgement, raising questions about his overall level of judgement and maturity, and therefore (un)fitness for office.
Why are there people on this blog trying to make it out like it’s no big deal to drive with .16? A Hoopa Tribal Chairman was removed from office after being drunk in public. I’m not even sure that he was arrested. A Karuk Tribal Council member was removed for assaulting his wife while under the influence. Obviously this is an issue that is taken very seriously in Indian Country. I think we should take it seriously when we decide who to vote for. Especially when it was so recent.
Here’s the message future candidates can take from the NCJ reaction to the Sundber’s DUI: if you hide relevant information from the voters until the Friday before the election, any reports of the facts would be a smear.
The way this is going, he should be a Rock Star by November.
Smear is such a overused term.
Especially in this case.
Face it. The guy is a loser and a lush. Do we really want him as supervisor? Yuch.
Well I don’t think there’s any reason to call him a loser and a lush. “Drunk driver” covers the issue pretty well. Calling him names, or making unsubstantiated allegations about his drinking habits (“lush”) just puts him squarely into the “victim of a smear” role, which is right where he wants to be, right where his spin doctors want him to be. So, don’t smear him, just point out how he besmirched himself.
He got caught driving drunk — very, very drunk — just 6 months ago. He blew a .16, he endangered lives by driving in that condition, and he has not yet even completed his sentence of probation. These are all FACTS, and those facts are what matter. The rest is spin.
If Sims weren’t so defensive about withholding facts about a candidate’s criminal activity, he might be more embarrassed about the fact that this was known to a great many politically active people by early April…but not to Wear, Sims, Hoover and whatever moron runs the McKinleyville Press, or any of the reporters who are supposed to be covering crime or politics (sometimes together) in Humboldt County. Where were they? And why haven’t they followed up with more detailed investigations?
Newspapers are supposed to print the facts – report the who, what, where, when, and, by informing the public, perform the service of allowing people to become informed citizens.
On this one, the T-S actually had the moral high ground because they didn’t decide to withhold factual information about a candidate when it became available. The rest withheld relevant factual information about a candidate, despite the candidate admitting the conviction once he was directly questioned about it.
Final question: Did Judy have any say in the NCJ decision?
Another reason the Humboldt Herald is keeping investigative journalism alive in Humboldt County, despite the efforts (or lack thereof) of the journalists above.
I agree with much of what Anonymous 12:35 a.m. has written above.
Still, Kim Wear, editor of the Times-Standard, deserves credit for running the Saturday article in the e-edition about Sundberg’s DUI the day after she apparently became aware of it and also for keeping the related thread on the Topix Eureka Times-Standard Forum right up to the present moment.
I believe that she has been criticized for what she hasn’t done rather than being acknowledged for the considerable good she has done.
Someone call Jeff Muskrat and Jason Robo, I smell a boycott!
Kim Wear may be a saint and a genius. I have no idea.
The Times-Standard is a disgrace. Of that I’m confident.
Either staffers knew about the DUI and neglected to tell the readership, or staffers did not know and need to explain how they managed to miss a public record for five months. The disgrace is made worse by the claims from some that this information was well-known within the Sundberg camp, and by Jill Duffy’s acknowledgement that she knew about the DUI.
Further, the TS story ran INSIDE the Sunday paper after they found out on Friday, not on the front page. It was not referenced on the home page of the TS web site until it climbed to “most read” despite its initial placement off the front page.
There are only two possibilities I can think of regarding each local paper that covers district five. For each such paper, the first possibility is that it is sufficiently incompetent that its existence simply prevents a competent paper from taking root. The second is that it has staff corruption that prevented it from doing the job a newspaper should do.
In either case, none of the papers can be trusted, and none of the papers SHOULD be trusted. They’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not worthy of anyone’s trust.
We really wanted to post on Reckless Ryan — something like, “Bon-Bon drives Swerving Sundberg to drink (even more)” but we’re not allowed to make fun of Rob-Rob’s pets.
Mud-flecked hugs!
In the spirit of this new found super morality, we should investigate all future candidates. Lets go back & get their kindergarten citizenship record.
No three strikes for this crowd, one strike & yer’ out for life! Unless, of course, you’re a liberal. Then we must have compassion.
Did I say “super morality”? I meant super hypocrit morality. How many of you made a mistake somewhere in your life?
And what about all the rumors of Larry Glass’s background? No in-depth reporting by Heraldo on that one eh? Wonder why? From what I hear, he makes Sundberg look like a choirboy!
Ha! I love it Hi-Fi. We area a bunch of Quakers here!
Hify makes a good point, whether you like it or not.
Yeah, because what someone did in grade school is as relevant as someone getting a DUI a few days before filing to run for supervisor and who hasn’t even completed his sentence yet.
I know what you did last summer Plain Jane!
It’s nearly impossible to miss the privileged attitude that spews from Hi Fi.
Sundberg is supposed to be in court regarding a 0.16 DUI the week he announces for Supervisor. Hi Fi thinks voters who feel we should have been told are saying “one strike & yer’ out for life.”
As if not getting to hide your DUI from the public while running for Supervisor is like being sent to prison for life. And, for people in the “in” crowd, Hi Fi may be exactly right.
Do tell, HiFi!
I notice Heraldo has tagged his post “5th district, media, crime.” Heraldo, you may need to add a tag for “mediacrime.”
Strike one, DUI
Strike two, ignore court appearance
Strike three, blame the messenger
Ed he got a DUI, the rest is your imagination.
I mostly agree with Ed only I would call the failure to appear a ball since it is POSSIBLE that it was his attorney’s fault. However, I would call trying to keep what should be public knowledge a secret strike 2 and blame / smear the messenger strike 3.
Strike two resulted in a bench warrant, the strike stands.
Plain Jane said it well.
Sundberg is an ostrich. He appears to have hoped that it would all just go away. If he really cared about Humboldt County he’d pull out of the race.
Regardless, the cats out of the bag. We’ll see how much the voters care in Nov. The rest is just arguing for the sake of arguing.
If anyone reading this has evidence that a staff member of any local newspaper was told of Sundberg’s DUI prior to last Friday, I hope they’ll add it as a comment here. Same if anyone knows of a staffer’s being previously offered a rumor to check out the court records.
That people are actually defending a guy who could very easily have killed them or a loved one in the commission of his crime is a crime itself.
titan,
People are sheep.
If left to their own devices, people might get the point.
But when “newspapers” present the information as though it is nothing but a political smear, and when other “newspapers” don’t present the information at all, and when “the TV news” doesn’t present the information, most people probably just think to themselves, “it can’t be that serious.”
That’s why Humboldt has a media crisis, and why it should fire its newspapers.
And the left is wondering why it got its ass kicked at the polls.
This is not a left/right issue & we have seen that movie over and over. People get fed up with Bush and Obama gets elected. Now they are fed up with him and Reps are back in the mix, it will go on and on like that.
But driving drunk is pretty plain and simple AGAINST THE LAW. I have a big problem with someone who says the charges are irrelevant here, that it’s how and when they were revealed that is the issue. Let’s see if you still say that the next time he drives drunk & maims or kills someone you know, because I guarantee you this wasn’t his first time, and most likely won’t be his last.
The left consistently gets its ass kicked at the polls because the right owns the media.
Clinton was impeached because the right owns the media, and it turned his oval office blow job into an international crisis. Bush was elected because the media would not report his refusal to show up for military service.
People are sheep.
The media is owned.
Democracy might as well be dead, if it isn’t.
And I’m going to have a drink, as soon as noon comes around.
I keep forgetting that Bush wasn’t elected.
Bush took office because the media would not report his refusal to show up for military service.
Too bad the Anderson Valley Advertiser couldn’t put out a Humboldt edition. Hank has the perfect platform but is too afraid to use it. It’s not a smear if its a fact! Wouldn’t want to offend anybody, eh’ Hank. I’d sure like to see what Marcy Burstiner’s take is on all this and Hank’s response. Meanwhile we have blogs filling in the gaps for our journalists
Just to be clear, I am the Anonymous who participated in the extensive discussion of Sundberg’s DUI over the weekend and who elsewhere in the Herald drew attention to Hank Sims’ self-exculpatory editorial.
I am not the Johnny-come-lately “anonymous” who called Sundberg a “loser and a lush.”
I think a person who uses language like that invites comparison to the object of his derision.
Mitch, you have a painted a largely-accurate (and depressing) picture of what is going on in local media.
If only your pallette included at least some shades of color instead of only black-and-white!
Kim Wear and the Humboldt Herald (our own beloved Heraldo) are two splashes of color in an otherwise depressing picture. If you fail to acknowledge the choices they made and the price they paid, you are actually encoouraging them to leave the picture entirely.
When I wrote “…the choices they made and the price they paid…,” it was a little over-the-top, I’ll admit.
I think the influence of the Rev. Jesse Jackson on American culture may have made me do it.
1:24,
Sometimes you take out your palette and realize that your choice is between dark charcoal gray and jet black.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the choices they made and the price they paid.” I’m not sure I want to know.
The TS staff might have redeemed itself by a percent or two if they’d given the story front page coverage on Sunday, with an editorial describing the situation, pointing out what was known and what was not, and apologizing to its readership for not having discovered the situation on its own.
They didn’t.
Tom Sebourn expressed sympathy on his website for Sundberg, accepting Sundberg’s claim that his failure to appear was the fault of his lawyer, who made a mistake.
I wrote this comment to Tom:
“Don’t feel sorry for Sundberg because of his lawyer, Tom. That lawyer is sharp. They don’t pass out law degrees at Stanford to dummies. I’ve met him and I’d have to say he is among the two dozen most intelligent people living within the borders of Humboldt County.
If he didn’t appear, he had a reason.
June 12, 2010 1:57 PM”
WIFY–assertations must be given proof.What are you saying about Larry. If you have balls like you always say! Let us hear it, or SHUT up with that stuff..
To: Anon 2:17. Who are you talking to and what are you trying to say? What is “WIFY” and who is Larry?
I posted a comment at 2:01 p.m. based on my understanding that Ryan Sundberg is being represented by Greg Rael.
Its always noon somewhere…
HiFi, Rose and other right-wing nuts are painting a picture of Sundberg as the victim. If they repeat it enough, by November, half of the voters will believe in the “Sundberg witch hunt.”
And there’ll probably be a nice investigation by the Sheriff to figure out who “smeared” Sundberg.
And the Journal will tell us all that the behavior of the anonymous leaker was reprehensible.
And most of us will go “baa-aaa-aaa”.
Anyone from Dell’Arte read this thing? You folks really need to bring “An Enemy of the People” up to date.
At least this guy wasn’t doing something horrible like selling weed to potheads.
Or worse yet, stealing wrinkle cream.
It’s pretty appalling that Hank Sims compares a candidate being on probation for DUI to a candidate who is gay–distinctly not a crime. Really offensive.
The crime is the 2 foot high stacks of charged police reports in the da office, that include dui’s, domestic violence, all manner of misdo and felony crimes, that there simply are not enough personel to process in a timely manner. Criminals know they can violate their “summary probation” several times before even having to remember what the f@@@ they were doing 8-10 months ago. That his was charged and actually made it to court is a miracle, and no one was even trying to time it with the election. That would require a level of sophistication the da office does not possess. Vote for Allison Jackson for District Attorney.
@ 2:54
BRAVO!
absolutely spot on!
if sundberg had been caught in bed with an underage prostitute they’d be painting him as a victim of a vicious smear campaign and casting unsubstantiated allegations at larry glass or president obama.
those asshat reich-wingers exhibit all of the ethics of a parasitic real estate sales team.
Thanks, Anonymous 5:16. Now I have been able to identify the feeling in my gut when I read that passage. Something said “this ain’t right.”
I’m a gay non-criminal.
That’s right. A gay non-criminal.
I live within the law and encourage others, even heterosexuals, to do the same.
What does that make me, Hank? Some kind of Freak?
Vote for Allison Jackson…so her right-hand man can explain why DUI’s no longer matter?? Or maybe they just mean “DUI’s don’t matter for OUR FRIENDS.”
With JIll Duffy as apologist in waiting, it will be harder now than before to explain why we should believe the AJ for DA team is comprised of ethical and intelligent people that we should trust more than the Gallegos team (even knowing how incompetent and corrupt he is!). Not as much of a distinction between them at this point as there was at the beginning of the campaign.
You know one of the most boring things about you Heraldo? You don’t work on the weekend. Must be a demo thing, since you helped invent it according to Chris. With so much going on, you have to save it for a Monday, or a Tuesday, or what was the name of that song? Oh yeah, it’s fine…Don’t you believe if a rumor that started that P. Lavalley, and M Jones were going to run against each other for Mayor of the City of Eureka, you would run it….where have you been, Heraldo….of, yeah, it must be the weekend and we DON”T work!
Hi-Fi made a statement from what he heard from Larrys past he was way worse…What is Hi-Fi talking about..He who asserts must prove..Read the posts above..
After erroneously calling the release of a proven DUI a smear, HiFi smears Glass with what he admits are rumors. Is he too ignorant to see his own blatant hypocrisy? Wanna bet he’ll justify it with the Sundberg “smear?”
I am not now, nor have I ever been, Anonymous 6:56 p.m. And you don’t begin to know how glad I am of that!
Plain Jane, here is a friendly-like invitation to wander over to Tom Sebourn’s blog. He wrote about his sympathy for Sundberg, because he seems to have bought the story that Sundberg’s attorney is inept. Ha! The back-and-forth there is between a poster who says the attorney is a genius and a poster who said one DUI in 15 years is no big deal. You gotta go check it out. I can’t wait to see what you write!
Thanks, 9:13. I did, although what caught my interest was Tom’s statement, “I am not big on bashing politicians for traffic violations, being seen at sex clubs, having a wide stance, being caught with a hooker, a DUI or a pot ticket. I would if they were vigorous in condemning others that break those laws. That is called a hypocrite.” I care more about judgment than hypocrisy.
You must have missed last weekend. We’re not afraid to post smoking hot news on a Friday night.
Che-rae Heights has a big advertising presence in all the local print media. Don’t tilt that windmill!!
oops, my bad…followed by oh well..
The recent pre-election disclosure of Ryan Sundberg’s DUI arrest and
conviction is quite disturbing, not due to the fact that it’s timing made
it appear to be a “dirty trick, but according to a source at the
Times-Standard, a series of technical glitches resulted in a two month
lapse of their “on the record” (a complilation of arrests and
convictions). So, here is a candidate, seeking a office of great trust and
responsibility, who manages to escape public scrutiny (or so it seemed)
and does nothing to make public, what SHOULD have been a public record.
This DUI would normally have been printed in the Times-Standard over six
months ago, giving the electorate plenty of time to ascertain the
relevance of these quite serious charges. Mr. Sims questions how this
drunk driving conviction “might affect any vote Sundberg might be expected
to make”. When we elect representatives, do we not attempt to examine the
totality of their life experience: education, public service, levels of
responsibility,and yes personal integrity? Do we not vet our candidates to
try to determine their judgement so that they will vote responsibly. As
reported in the Times-standard article, Mr. Sundberg evidently shared this
criminal record with a choice group of supporters who were quick to
“forgive and forget”. What is wrong with that? The rest of the electorate
was kept out of the loop.
hear hear.
Sundberg looks like the product of “a choice group of supporters,” and whether they advised him not to address his arrest publicly, or he just put his head in the sand, he doesn’t show much promise as a leader.
He shows potential as a front man for “a choice group of supporters” though, don’t you think?
Did Sundberg ever tell the general public even the names of those “choice” supporters?
If he actually is a puppet, shouldn’t the voting public of his own district learn who is pulling his strings?
I hope he makes a public apology for not telling his supporters earlier. The apology would be better late than never.
But if he was really following advice to remain silent, I hope he reconsiders who he thinks he should listen to.
Mitch, you’re absurd. If that’s the standard, something unfortunate can be found in anyone’s background and we can all pound our fists and demand apologies. Uh huh.
The guy stopped drinking. That’s more than 99% of other DUI people do. I’m satisfied. If Cleary’s camp makes this the issue, he will lose because it speaks nothing to Cleary’s abilities.
5:58,
I’m not asking for him to apologize for the drunk driving, though I suppose that would be nice. (I guess I thought that went without saying, so I didn’t even think about it.)
I’m asking for him to apologize for not telling the voters of the fifth district that he’d pleaded no contest to a DUI and was therefore on three years probation.
I don’t consider giving up drinking to be an apology. Once you’ve been caught driving at 0.16, I’d say giving up drinking is just a survival strategy for one’s own benefit.
I’m curious whether others here feel an apology would be appropriate, and whether I’m being absurd.
An apology would be a nice change from what he said previously, which more or less externalized any responsibility.
I happen to be one of the voters in the 5th District who somehow missed being one of “everyone” who knew about it.
The fact of the DUI with a .16 is bad enough. How he has handled it since it has become public is not acceptable for someone seeking elective office.
And I agree, Mitch, saying you’re going to give up drinking, under the circumstances, doth not an apology make.
Richard Salzman must have bought the drinks for the hapless Sundberg and then made a discreet phone call to his many secret agents in the Sheriffs Dept just as poor Sundberg stumbled out to his vehicle. So sad!
The latest I’ve heard (and all I have are rumors, given the contemptible state of the local press) is that the reason CHP met Sundberg at his house was that he’d had a collision of some sort.
It would probably be best for Sundberg if he’d just explain what happened to those of us who are not Jill Duffy.
Mitch’s version does not involve Salzman, so let’s stick with mine. So sad!
OK, Prickly, fair enough.
Salzman didn’t just buy Sundberg drinks, though.
Through his mystical “proggie” gifts, he actually used his mental powers to inject Sundberg with alcohol at the exact locations that would register high during a breathalyzer. All without Sundberg realizing.
He then got on the proggie-phone to send out a proggie Level 5.
A Level 5 alert is pretty rare. It’s a bit like a fire siren, but for proggies instead of volunteer firefighters.
Everyone at Local Solutions and Democracy Unlimited says five Hail Gallegos’, drops whatever they were doing, and goes to an emergency meeting, with heavy facilitation and consensus building.
And that’s how the proggies got CHP to Sundberg’s house.
It’s a little mysterious how the meeting got CHP on site so quickly, because to tell the sad truth, nothing ever gets decided at a proggie meeting, and five minutes isn’t even long enough for a proggie to say “hello.”
Sundberg really needs to come clean and just lay out what happened. Everyone screws up in their life, but this was serious, compounded by the non-court appearance, the excuses and the silence. This can’t be fun for him, either. And it appears that he is a decent guy, although I wouldn’t vote for him for supervisor.
Judging by the absence of continued chatter here, maybe it’s true that Sundberg can just remain silent and people won’t care. Prickly summed it up: So sad!
Why don’t you freaking get off this topic.
Because it strikes me as freaking important, for a lot of reasons.
The Board of Supervisors is the governing body for Humboldt County, and is in charge of the local government, which is, I believe, the largest employer in the County.
Because we live in a democracy, we get to vote for the people who will run that government. That means that if the government is not running well, there’s no one to blame but ourselves.
Ryan Sundberg has not challenged any of the following:
– he drove drunk with a blood alcohol level of 0.16, indicating he had seven or eight drinks before getting behind the wheel;
– he missed a court appearance, causing the judge to issue a warrant for his arrest;
– through six months of campaigning, he did not tell the voters about this.
Has it really come to the point where the voters don’t find this disturbing enough to demand explanations?
Has it really come to the point where the press just can’t be bothered?
This man is running for a position from which he would employ thousands of people, and control what is probably the largest budget of any entity in the County.
That calls for good judgment and a recognition that in a democratic government, people are entitled to information that a private company might keep private.
But he didn’t bother to tell voters that he’d driven dangerously drunk, been caught, had an arrest warrant issued, and is now on parole.
The Times-Standard didn’t think the news merited page one. Hank Sims didn’t think it was “relevant” to voters. And many of us don’t seem to care.
The next time you look at County government and wonder what the fuck is going on, look at yourself.
The man followed the protocol, sent a lawyer to represent him, paid his fines, followed the rules. Why are you beating this dead horse? Seems the general population thought it was handled fine and voted for him.
Indeed Mitch, well said. So when do we get a look at the CHP report and/or police report? TS? Hank? Anyone?
8:20,
The general public was never told the story.
The general population didn’t know.
The lack of follow-up on this story is appalling.
In a way, the mystery is actually giving the story legs. The longer the mystery lives, the harder it is to forget the incident.
Answering the unanswered questions would help put it to rest.
I’m hopeful that Sundberg will agree to a debate where concerned voters can ask him directly about this on-air but not holding my breath. It seems likely that this is the reason he avoided the radio debate rather than the ludicrous excuse of Cleary owning the radio station.
I think the biggest story here is the lack of a functional local press, but it would be a miracle if the local press covered that.
I think the second biggest story here is the disconnect between people and government. We’ve all been taught that politics is bullshit. We are encouraged not to remember that, bullshit or not, the results of the campaigns determine who runs our governments at every level.
Our local government has major problems, and that is due to poor performance by the Board of Supervisors, which controls the hiring and firing of the department heads. The board is just five people, yet the voters don’t seem to recognize the importance of finding five supervisors who MAY agree with them on the issues but MUST be honorable, if government is to work.
And PJ, I’m one of the people who think that it was disgusting to conduct a debate on KHUM when KHUM is owned by Cleary. Completely disgusting.
“something unfortunate can be found in anyone’s background and we can all pound our fists and demand apologies. Uh huh.
The guy stopped drinking. That’s more than 99% of other DUI people do. I’m satisfied.”
This DUI is not in his “background”. He is currently serving probation for it.
As an prospective employer, as I am as a voter, I would say this is a big deal. And the applicant’s plea that “I quit drinking”? Why should I take that at face value?
I would agree with you if a KHUM employee had been the moderator, Mitch. Since that wasn’t the case, I don’t see why it mattered which radio station was airing it with an independent journalist as moderator.
I can understand your point, Jane. But I disagree.
It’s not as though there weren’t other ways of doing the debate, and a candidate complained.
This is not the KINS listeners thread.
The Anonymous who posted his message on June 14 at 5:58 is so wrong. SO WRONG!
He says “The guy stopped drinking. That’s more than 99% of other DUI people do.”
No. Sundberg CLAIMS he stopped drinking.
LOTS of “other DUI people” CLAIM to stop drinking.
CLAIMING to stop drinking and
STOPPING drinking
are not repeat NOT THE SAME THING.
How could anybody capable of tying their shoes not understand that?
Heraldo, at 8:36, may be right. On the other hand, the mysteries may be so terrible that keeping them secret is Sundberg’s only hope of avoiding jail. For example, do we know if Sundberg did a hit-and-run on his way home? Was any property damaged or person hurt? And if there was, how would the general public know about it, since we are being treated as if we have no right to public information about certain very special people. Oh, also, how can I apply for membership in this exlusive club where I don’t have to obey the laws or pay penalties like the little people do?
12:26,
Call Hank Sims: (707) 826-2000
It’s rare that the bullshit running the local press is exposed so clearly. I’ll make as much noise as is necessary, until I no longer feel it’s worthwhile.
Thanks to bloggers like Heraldo, it’s possible to have a voice even if you don’t own a press.
Bump.
People quit caring Mitch.
Let’s chat about something else. Seen a lot of free Buju Banton graffiti. The man won’t let Buju eat ital food in jail, so he loses 40 pounds! Whey dem plan fi duh wid im? Dem wanna kill Buju. Buju inna lock up fi cocaine conspiracy. Rasta Man no tush coke.
Uh…
No matter what Buju said about gay people or whatever the speech charges are against him, he doesn’t deserve to be set up on a bullshit drug charge and get starved half to death in jail because he won’t eat some white boy chicken and eggs shit. At least he could get treated humanely.
So there, bump.
Mr. Nice,
I really like you, just in case you haven’t figured that out. And that’s the case even if you’re a 90 year old retired Mormon librarian from Salt Lake who has an unusual way of passing the time.
But I don’t think the issue of the media highlighting one sides’ trivial offenses while ignoring the “heinous” offenses of others is going to go away.
I think it is this area’s core issue — and it may be the core issue for most rural areas. A lousy press means inefficient governments (or worse) can remain in power. Inefficient governments mean inefficient services. Inefficient services mean no respect for government, which means Norquist gets to drown the baby. And IMO we need the baby.
I hope Banton is not guilty, and I hope he gets out.
I agree that the local press makes a big deal out of minor bullshit while minimizing the crimes committed by the inner circle. It’s that divide between rich and poor thing.
Wait. Buju Banton encourages his fans to torture and murder gay people – and Mitch is OK with that? Seriously? I can understand subtleties and complexities, if need be, so Mitch, why don’t you explain just exactly what you meant at 3:26.
I don’t wish prison on anyone except people guilty of direct intentional physical violence or causing intentional financial harm to multiple innocent people.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Banton was framed on the drug charges.
What I said was “I hope he’s not guilty and I hope he gets out.” I didn’t say I want him performing in Humboldt, and I didn’t say I’m OK with Banton’s stupid bigotry. If he shows up, I’ll protest. But that doesn’t mean I want to throw him in prison to rot.
If you understand subtleties and complexities, I don’t think that should sound too unreasonable.
Add environmental crimes to that list, and I think it’s complete. But I may have left some things out.
OK, I did that list too quickly. I’d very much like to see Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Kissinger and Yoo in prison, even though they managed to remain hands-off the physical violence they caused. And I think threats of direct physical violence (a kidnapper telling a victim to get in the car if they don’t want to be shot; a mugger saying give me your money or I’ll shoot you) rate prison, too.
And there are probably other reasons I could justify throwing someone in prison. But not smuggling cocaine.
5:37,
Thanks for returning the topic to its proper place, the media’s utter failure to tell the voters of the fifth district that one of the candidates is on probation for a 0.16 drunk driving incident only six months ago, around the time he announced his campaign.
talk about Yoo
OK, Mitch. I think I understand your complexities and subtleties.
Now let me ask you this. If a man can stand in the street and call on his followers to torture and murder gays there, does that bear any similarity to a man who stands before hundreds of thousands of followers all over the world and encourages them to torture and murder gays all over the world?
Is either of these actions a crime? Inciting to riot? Conspiracy in furtherance of a felony?
Other?
Neither?
Does Buju Banton have the special privilege of shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater?
5:51,
I don’t know. There’s a lot of space between protesting someone’s performance and thinking they should be jailed for it. Your hypothetical is very loaded, in that it changes “fans” to “followers,” slipping in an implication that people are listening for instructions on what to do.
If Banton wants to sing his hate speech, I think he’s within his rights unless and until someone connects it to a particular violent incident. “Within his rights” doesn’t mean I think he should get an audience. I think he should be protested, the same way I think white power groups should be protested, Jew-hating singers should be protested, misogynistic idiots should be protested, etc…
In Banton’s case, it’s difficult for me to say whether he’s “within his rights”, because Boom Bye Bye was tied to an assassination and specifically names approaches to killing and hurting people. But it’s not clear that it caused the assassination, it was more a celebratory anthem sung in approval.
In a hypothetical decent society, protests and simple consciousness would have discredited his views to all but a sad radical fringe of haters, so his impact would be near zero.
But the last thing I want to do is defend Banton. I just don’t want him framed and imprisoned on drug charges.
In a hypothetical decent society, we wouldn’t have Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck on the air, we’d never have been presented with Bush as a Presidential victor, and we wouldn’t have soldiers in Iraq and probably scores of other countries. We wouldn’t have people addressing Republican women about how climate change is a scientific fraud. We wouldn’t have Supervisorial campaigns allowing staffers to try intimidating Supervisors. We wouldn’t have people upset about the BP spill, but equally upset that the other rigs have been delayed. And we wouldn’t have given all our money to the banks as a thank-you for their screwing us.
Also, in a hypothetical decent society, the newspapers would not need to be shamed into covering candidate DUIs when the public records were handed to them on silver platters. But here in Humboldt, it’s not sufficient for an anonymous tipster to inform the newspapers. We need to rely on an anonymous blogger to post the anonymous tipster’s true statement. This is not a hypothetical decent society.
In a hypothetical decent society, we wouldn’t have Bush and Cheney and Yoo & Co. legitimizing torture and other war crimes.
In a hypothetical slightly-less-than-decent society, Bush, Cheney, and Yoo would be waterboarded a few hundred times, then imprisoned for life.
In the actual society we live in, Yoo teaches law at a prestigious law school, Cheney makes big bucks giving scowling nonfactual speeches, and Bush retires to clear brush on his fake-ass Texas “ranchette.”
If Bush and Banton both have to serve time, I hope they get to be cellmates.
Especially if Bush has a wide stance.
The TS finally did a followup! But it must be in the legal notices, because I haven’t got to them yet.
So here’s a question.
If no local press covers this, and most people don’t read blogs, and your neighbors don’t talk politics, how are you supposed to find out that one of the candidates for the top County governing body is on parole?
Are voters just supposed to go to the Courthouse before each election?
I had lunch with a group of nonpolitical friends the other day, one lives in the 5th district. Not one of the five had heard anything about Sundberg’s DUI.
That’s because it’s not “relevant”.
Quick correction — Sundberg is on probation, not parole.
This appears to be the case.
Thanks, Heraldo. My bad.
Advocating rape Ed?
No, cap. Bush raped Iraq, and he belongs in prison. Every day he remains free represents advocacy of rape.
Bush is a war criminal, but he did not rape Iraq.
American soldiers raped Iraqi women and posted the videos online. Female soldiers in the US military are raped by their male counterparts. Female recruits are raped in US recruiting offices. These are real crimes that stem from the illegitimate war in Iraq.
Bush should be jailed for his crimes, but I don’t know if rape is one of them.
Fair enough. Apologies for any offense given.
And I should add I’ve always been extremely uncomfortable when people who should know better seem to think that prison rape is an acceptable and humorous part of our society’s punishment for criminals.
Anyone who thinks rape is a form of justice needs to wise up.
Castration, on the other hand, would be appropriate.
“The TS finally did a follow-up”
Really? Where? I’m having trouble finding it. Perhaps someone could post a link.
tra,
Sorry. That was sarcasm.
Oh…Too bad.
“That’s because it’s not “relevant”.
I don’t know which they were the most outraged about, that Sundberg got a DUI and kept it secret or that the news media decided for them that it wasn’t relevant.
If we’re going on a spree of off-topic comments, let me be the second or third to join it. Heraldo is right right to remind us that rape is an act of agression, not a political metaphor. Heraldo is right to say rape is not an instrument of justice.
Heraldo is wrong about castration as a punishment for rape. The death penalty would be more effective, because a dead rapist cannot rape again; but a living and enraged rapist who has been castrated will hate all humankind and will act in accordance with that hatred. So the majority of experts in penology tell us.
No. “Penology” is NOT what you think it is.
2:41 is right that castration is not likely to be an effective treatment to prevent rapists from re-offending. That’s because rape and other violent sex crimes are mostly about violence and control, and not really about “hornyness” (though I suppose some “date rape” cases are, in part, about hornyness combined with selfishness on the part of the offender, and often drunkenness as well).
A policy of castration of convicted rapists might have some deterrent effect, and it certainly seems like a just *punishment,* but I have a feeling it wouldn’t make it past the bar against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Then there’s the problem of individuals who might be wrongly convicted…castration is pretty “final,” so if someone was later shown to be innocent of their crime there wouldn’t really be any remedy for them.
So castration probably isn’t much of an answer, and even cutting off the offending appendage wouldn’t necessarily help. Not to get too graphic, but sexually violent criminals would simply use some other object to violate their victims in order to cause pain and gain the sick feeling of control they seem to crave.
I think serious prison sentences for rape, child molestation and other sex crimes, followed by mandatory treatment/supervision for an extended period of time, is the best hope to reduce recidivism by these offenders. (Of course a death penalty would eliminate recidivism for those who received such a sentence, but the death penalty has its own problems, most seriously the problem of those who may be wrongly convicted and therefore executed despite their actual innocence).
It’s a sad fact that many people in prison today are serving far longer sentences for non-violent drug crimes than your average rapist or sex offender gets. Priorities, people…let’s get them straight!
So who or what owns the North Coast Journal these days?
Does anyone know? Judy Hodgson mentioned in a column that she’d been selling parts out.
Groundhog day. Who owns the Journal? Who controls it?
If Hank is now a minority owner, with Judy and RA owning the rest of the NCJ, does Judy channel RA’s wishes to Hank, or does Hank now get a direct line from the big A?
Anonymous 7:44′s comment is the first I’ve heard that RA may be a part owner of the Journal? Does anyone know if that is true?
I think the confusion is caused by the fact that Arkley owns the printer where the NCJ (and many other local publications) are printed. If he has any direct ownership of the NCJ, that’s news to me.
Mitch, you might try just giving them a call and asking who the owners are. I think you’re more likely to get an accurate answer from Judy H. than from the blogoshpere-at-large.
They don’t even bother to print the truth, tra.
Why would I ask them a question?
You know, when I first moved to this area in 1993, one of the first things I read in the Journal was a piece by Jerry Partain that basically said if a logger murders a protester, it’s the protesters fault for being in the logger’s way. At the time, I remember thinking it was one of the single most disgusting essays I’d ever encountered, and I remember being amazed that something like that could be printed by the “alt weekly” style paper. I’d come from Boston, where the alt weekly papers tended to be more idealistic and moral than the dailies.
I’d thought the Journal’s morality had improved since then. I was wrong.
The NCJ still runs a lot of good in-depth stories, for example this week’s cover story about the Sun Valley workers getting booted from Samoa.
I think if you called Judy H and asked about the ownership, you’d get the truth from her. Perhaps I’m being overly optimistic, but I just don’t think she’d lie about something like that. It’s worth a try.
I understand your dismay with the NCJ’s reporting (and lack of reportinig) on certain issues, especially the Sundberg DUI. I’m pretty disgusted with this as well. And Hank’s often sneering style seems to fit his “town dandy” character more and more.
But there is a lot of good along with the bad, and I’d still rather have the NCJ publishing than going out of business. A few more bad judgements like the Sundberg DUI story, and I may have to re-evaluate that conclusion.
mitch-
you need to put it in perspective.
partain’s claim ti fame is his office work with one time senator s.j. hayakawa.
remember THAT jackass?
nightly news routinely showed him sleeping on at his desk on the senate floor.
and his (in)famous quote:
“the panama canal is ours! we stole it fair and square.”
that’s partain’s idiotic ideology in a nutshell.
4:48,
The best thing that can be said about the Partain essay is that it came after the murder, as an attempt to justify it.
Sims decision came before the primary, and must have played a role in stealing the informed vote of at least a few fifth district voters. I’d be able to let it go a bit more easily if he hadn’t had the nerve to write a piece praising himself for his decision.
Actually SN no longer owns the printer.
Yes, Mitch. Rob Arkley owns the Journal. You’ve cracked this case wide open.
Anonymous,
There’s ownership and then there’s ownership, 7:42.
At least you seem to feel it’s a case that could use cracking. It is.
I seem to remember the NCJ being the first print media to touch the BofA lawsuit. If you are talking about “ownership” I’d say you have a better case for the TS being “owned” by Arkley. How about the TS wimping out by not endorsing a 4th district candidate?
Mitch, do you have a longstanding personal beef with the NCJ?
Anonymous 8:03,
My only prior beef with the NCJ, longstanding or otherwise, is its amorality with respect to gay-bashing singers. In fact, Hank Sims has been quite kind to me in the past, which makes me wish it had been someone else who pulled this out of their ass.
The case is this: based on my limited experience with Hank Sims, he is neither stupid nor irresponsible. The decision to withhold public information about a serious candidate DUI is both, and it does not fit with his behavior in other, far less serious, situations.
While non-stupid people sometimes make stupid decisions, and non-irresponsible people sometimes make irresponsible decisions, there are often hidden explanations that go beyond brain-farts.
I’m a fifth district voter, and I care about democracy and what has happened to the free press. I’m sad that others don’t seem to.
So now that you’ve repeated yourself for a week, what are you asking the NCJ to do? You are the moral compass of the 5th district. Lead us.
And I don’t remember any local publication showing “amorality with respect to gay-bashing singers.”
Anonymous 8:14,
They could start with an editorial apology to their readers for letting us down. They could go to out-of-town papers and perhaps j-schools and print their responses to an editor’s decision to withhold information as they did. They could find out what was involved in this major press failure of all local press. They could run one or more cover stories on the incident.
As for their amorality with respect to gay-bashing singers, Anonymous, perhaps the problem is you are morally blind.
The local press could also make a few calls and follow up on this story. How hard is it to see a CHP incident report?
One or more cover stories? Is there anything important left to say on the issue?
Mitch, you need to start your own paper where you call people out on their moral failures, whether they be driving drunk or singing reggae. We’ll call it The Lonely Gazette.
It’s a little too easy for you to call someone morally blind. May point to some lack of vision on your part. I know, I know. No one is more pure than Mitch. Oops.
What does Mitch do, again?
Ah the mystery, may it last til three weeks before election day.
8:34,
I’m haven’t made any claims to moral purity, and I’m not making them now. You’re the one who has brought that up now, twice, as if it’s a disease.
I have a few beliefs, though. I think candidates should tell people when they’ve been caught breaking the law. I think newspaper editors should report on candidates breaking the law, and not decide for us it’s not relevant.
I think writing about singers who have thrown the mothers of their children into walls on public streets, without mentioning that fact, is disgusting. And I think saying that it’s OK for loggers to drop trees when protesters are in the area is disgusting. I would have though those were pretty mainstream opinions.
I also have some less mainstream opinions. I think taking advertising money from thugs who sing murder music is disgusting.
Mitch, you seem to think only you can point out the ills of the world. Believe it or not the rest of the world can make informed decisions. Of course all those things are abhorrent. But so is your schtick.
In your world, every article on Bill Clinton would begin:
“Bill Clinton, who had an affair over a decade ago, bought new shoes today.”
Please run for public office, Mitch. Please.
maybe you’d like to try again 9:09, this time with relevance.
Anonymous 9:09,
(Last response.)
Actually, I don’t think the Clinton affair was news. See what I mean — you’re morally blind.
Thanks, Ed. I *hate* people calling me morally pure.
9:22 was not me Mitch. But whoever it is, thanks for keeping the topic alive.
The only aspect of the Clinton affair that was news, as well as all the other sex scandalists regardless of their party or sexual preference, was the poor judgment it demonstrated. People with good judgment don’t play sex games in the office with status seeking bimbos, no matter what their little brain tells them.
9:30,
Now we’re talking! (I lied before.)
The introductory Mitchism course costs $299, but if you act before midnight tonight I’ll throw in intermediate Mitchism (how to be kinda an ass) as well. Just send a check. Indulgences are $199 each, if you order at the same time.
Mitch, the fact that you can’t see that an affair and a DUI have similar moral implications proves your blindness. Too much hate in you. Learn to love, man.
Well, PJ, I’ve always wondered about the argument you’re making. I’m really uncertain about it.
If “poor judgment” turns an action that would not otherwise be newsworthy into something that is newsworthy only because it might leak and blow up in the press, doesn’t that mean that the press can turn anything into “poor judgment”. Isn’t that what happened to Clinton?
Sex panics are a great control lever used by the right against pols they dislike — they work because you can almost always catch a male politician in a sexual indiscretion if you invest enough resources.
Jane, would you be interested in a course development contract? I need someone to put together some CDs, fast. Won’t need much.
I wonder if the 9:30 comment I was replying to was taken down by Heraldo. Heraldo? Or perhaps my 9:34 was in response to my own fantasy of having a religion. Either way, $299 will get you membership.
9:36,
How many multi-car collisions were caused by affairs last year?
Now we’re having fun again. Mitch, let’s party!
How many families were destroyed by affairs last year?
I took down the Mitchism comment at 9:30. Sorry for the confusion
Mitch, if you turned it into a religion rather than just a run-of-the-mill self-help scam, the donations would be tax deductible for the converts and would have many tax breaks favorable to you as well. Who was the famous TV evangelist who built a TV network with tax free donated funds and then privatized the proceeds when he sold it?
Brilliant, Jane! I’m giving you a 20% raise, effective immediately. (You will be tithing that back, right?)
And now that we have your attention…
A candidate running for the local Board of Supervisors in the fifth district was arrested for driving under the influence in December. The candidate had a 0.16 blood alcohol content, indicating he’d had seven or eight drinks soon before getting behind the wheel. No local press covered the incident at the time. The candidate told at least one of his endorsers but never made a public statement about the DUI. Nor did he make a public statement after a bench arrest warrant was issued for “failure to appear” at his January court date.
The story was provided to the TS and Heraldo by an anonymous leaker the Friday before the Tuesday election, well after many absentee ballots had been returned, but with many absentee ballots still out.
Heraldo posted the information. The TS ran it as a page two story on the Sunday before the election. The NCJ put a link up briefly, if I remember correctly, but then promptly took it down. Hank Sims then ran a column explaining his decision.
You can find the column by clicking at the link at the very top of this thread.
9:46,
I’m sure many families were destroyed by affairs last year. I’m not arguing in favor of affairs. But I don’t see risking the destruction of your marriage and/or family as being of the same moral significance as risking the lives of innocent bystanders. Do you?
And that’s the difference between John Doe having an affair and a high ranking elected official having an affair, Mitch. Elected officials should be held to a much higher standard of judgment in part due to the power they wield which can be twisted by blackmail into dire consequences for innocent bystanders. A politician who has already shown a serious lack of judgment, even though it may not be an impeachable offense, shouldn’t be re-elected.
We are way down the bunny hole now…
Decision to drive drunk affects people possibly. Bad decision.
Decision to have an affair. Guaranteed effect. Worse decision. If you have ever loved or been loved, that’s an easy one.
But again, let’s not get hung up on morality. You seem to be incapable of forgiveness, Mitch. You seem to think that people cannot experience true regret and repentance, whether it be Sundberg, local media, reggae singers or adulterers. Try forgiveness. It will take a lot off your brain.
Are we on topic anymore? What was the topic?
mitch. you’re not voting for sundberg. we got it. let it go.
10:17,
Yes, we’re down the bunny hole.
I agree with you that forgiveness is incredibly important. Usually, one of the steps that precede forgiveness is an acknowledgement that a trespass has taken place. It’s possible — even necessary — to forgive without that acknowledgement, but it takes longer.
What regret or repentance do you believe has taken place with respect to any of the issues you mention?
The topic is the failure of the local press to inform voters about a serious incident involving a local candidate for the Board of Supervisors.
Oh barf. Let’s get it over with and forgive the media in advance for current and future failures to report pertinent information while holding themselves up as the go-to place for election news and even warning readers that Hank is “watching you.”
10:26,
First, I have no idea who I’ll vote for as Supervisor.
Second, I don’t think the issue is the DUI. I think the issue is the continuing lack of coverage of the DUI.
I do enjoy the NCJ it actually does some good reporting independent of the other local media on some issues, even controversial ones, but….
I perused a recent issue of the NCJ and found 3 full page color ads for local casinos. The NCJ derives a sizeable portion of their ad revenue from casinos and local related businesses. Perhaps Mr. Sims judgement in this instance was a bit clouded by his desire to see his publication survive. He made the not so courageous decision to sit on the story (and then weakly justified it imho) but it displays a human failing and does not make him an evil person.
Perhaps those of us on the left need to start/support our own local alternative media and stop complaining about the corporate media.
Sundberg’s misadventure will cost him the election now, that is why he tried to keep it quiet, isn’t it?
have a peaceful day,
Bill
Mitch, how much more coverage does it need? It appeared on the Herald, the TS and the next issue of the NCJ after the news broke. The election isn’t ’til November. Cleary will win because of this. Justice served. Who doesn’t know?
RYAN SUNDBERG HAS A DUI. MAKE YOUR JUDGMENTS NOW.
Start your own blog/paper/soap box/rooftop. Barf indeed.
Read on back the thread, 10:38, to where Plain Jane talks about meeting five friends, not one of whom knew about the DUI.
You think Cleary will win because of the DUI. I’m not so sure.
How has the NCJ covered the story? They ran a Town Dandy column praising themselves for not taking part in a “smear,” that’s how.
How has the TS covered the story? With a single page two story that left major questions unanswered.
Heraldo did the job the press claims it does, but I’m sure the majority of Humboldt voters have never heard of the Humboldt Herald. (Sorry, Heraldo, it ain’t your fault.)
If voters don’t educate themselves, that seems more like a problem of uneducated voters. If people are unaware that it’s important to consume news, how is that the fault of Heraldo, the TS or the NCJ?
Kudos to Heraldo for running the story, but your lament that not enough people know Sundberg is a drunk seems weak. Learn about who you’re voting for, people.
How would they know about the DUI? The major issue seems not to be with the NCJ or Heraldo, but with the TS who usually runs every DUI arrest. Why did they not in this instance? Maybe I should care. But it’s hard to at this point.
If the daily TS failed, they failed. But I’m over it. They’ll hopefully do better next time.
Anonymous 8:14 doesn’t remember the case of the singer who came to Eureka with a suitcase full of “kill the queers” and blood on the tips of his boots?
It must not have been on his radar or on his list of concerns. Maybe he is indifferent to human suffering. Chances are good he hasn’t heard of bullying or genocide.
What a happy little world he must inhabit!
(sigh)
To be clear, I wrote the comment at 10:57.
The person who posted a “(sigh)” at 11:00 was probably the person I had been addressing at 10:57.
Namely, Anonymous 8:14.
Or was that already obvious?
I imagine I was impinging into his happy little world and a sigh was the only response he could muster.
Anonymous @ 12:51, you may be the longest-standing “Anonymous” on the Humboldt Herald.
But until you choose a blogonym explanations like yours above are mostly useless. No one takes the effort to see between the muddy lines to separate one “Anonymous” from another.
Thanks for the helpful hint, Heraldo!
I’ll think it over.
If I choose a “blobonym” as you suggest, will I be able to choose my very own avatar?
If highboldtage (10:33) is correct, it’s not a left/right issue.
Any advertising-supported press would be subject to the exact same temptations.
Yes! Chose your own avatar. Go to WordPress.com and sign up for an account (or a blog if you’re feeling feisty) and upload your very own pictorial representation.
Of course, if you’re simply interested in a unique avatar rather than one of your own choosing, leave a unique email address when posting a comment. Even if you choose to be “Anonymous” you can have your own avatar by leaving an email.
The McKinleyville Press has a little more on the DUI, but no new information from CHP or Sheriff Gary Philp, who endorsed Sudnberg.
From the McK Press:
Has anyone in the Fifth District or in the local MSM media learned the meaning of the word “recidivism?”
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “recidivism” as “a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior especially relapse into criminal behavior.”
When alcohol abusers tell other people, “I made a mistake and it will never happen again,” our ears should perk up and we should ask ourselves, “What did he just say?”
Alcohol abusers are notorious liars. Pardon me. Recidivists. Any honest adult who lives in Humboldt County can tell you so.
Sundberg goes further. He says we shouldn’t expect him to talk in the future about his abuse of alcohol in the past, in the present, much less in the future.
So why on earth would anybody vote for him, knowing this is his attitude?
Where did you get that?
A ‘no contest plea to a DUI charge’ is not admitting guilt. Seems he is willing to admit guilt in public, but not in court where there might be actual consequences.
Sundberg says, “I take full responsibility for it”. A no contest plea is not “taking full responsibility”. A guilty plea would be “taking full responsibility”.