Home > Humboldt County, Media > Sims lands job at Lost Coast Communications

Sims lands job at Lost Coast Communications

News junkies take notice: Former North Coast Journal editor Hank Sims has landed a job at Lost Coast Communications, operator of such fine local radio stations as KHUM, KSLG, and KWPT, and KXGO.

What this means for the future of his popular column, the Town Dandy, or his involvement with the written word in general remains to be seen.

Lost Coast Communications is owned by former Humboldt County Supervisor candidate Patrick Cleary.

This isn’t the first partnership between Sims and LCC.  Sims hosted a weekly radio show on KHUM in 2007 called Humboldt Review.

[Image source.]

  1. A thought
    February 11, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    Why should Lost Coast Communications limit itself to radio? It could go hybrid and publish an awesome weekly newspaper.

    I suppose Hank will just have an interview show or something like that. Waste of talent.

  2. anon
    February 12, 2011 at 12:36 am

    please tell me they are putting the Arcata Eye out of their misery and giving Jack a helping hand at the McVille Press…..congrats Hank!

  3. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 1:22 am

    Makes perfect sense, since the Journal never ever ever ever had anything negative to say about Cleary in the last decade…

  4. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 7:30 am

    What? Are you smoking crack 1:22? Didn’t you hear Cleary’s attack dog go after the valiant and noble Mr. Abate? Cleary is clearly on a witch hunt.

    I, for one, welcome our new hybrid news media overlord.

  5. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 7:35 am

    It shows Cleary is a decent man who doesn’t hold grudges against those who refused to treat his opponent’s drunk driving conviction as relevant news. It would be nice if Hank did a “Town Dandy” show on the radio with callers voicing opinions. His brand of snarky might work even better on the radio than in print.

  6. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 7:38 am

    Who is Cleary’s attack dog, 7:30? Surely you can’t be referring to Matthews’ interview of Abate.

  7. Mitch
    February 12, 2011 at 7:41 am

    A rare disagreement, PJ.

    It shows Cleary is a skilled businessman. Maybe he’s more, but this isn’t evidence.

  8. Decline to State
    February 12, 2011 at 7:42 am

    Congratulations to Hank! While I don’t always agree with him or always appreciate his snarky, egocentric attitude it would be a loss to the community not to have his input. I do hope he continues to write, it would be a huge talent to waste.

  9. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 7:45 am

    Jane, by that time it was old news. When someone is going to reveal heretofore secret and bad information about a candidate, don’t hold onto it for months and release it just before election day. Our local journalists dislike that sort of unseemly behavior as much as they dislike DUIs. You forget, our reporters aren’t totally dumb. They see jackass stunts by anonymous figures or groups every election cycle. It gets tiring.

  10. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 7:50 am

    How could it have been “old news” when the editor of the McKinleyville Press, nor any other newspaper reporter, had even heard of it until the documents were dropped off anonymously a couple of days before the primary, 7:45?

  11. Mitch
    February 12, 2011 at 7:55 am

    Anonymous 7:45,

    This will be my last comment on the topic, because I continue to feel very strongly about it, and I don’t want to end up engaged in another marathon waste of time.

    When you discover, less than a week before a primary election, that (1) a candidate has a recent DUI, and (2) there are questions about the way in which CHP dealt with it, and (3) the candidate’s supporters have known since it happened, and (4) they didn’t bother to tell the public, that is not “old news.”

    To be precise, it becomes a MUCH LARGER STORY. It remains unclear to me whether the story is simply about press incompetence or about the depth of corruption in the county. But it’s not old news. It never will be.

    Here’s a link to a Google search of “de la Fuente DUI”. You’ll see that every paper and TV outlet in his area was on the story immediately.

    http://www.google.com/#q=de+la+fuente+dui

  12. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 7:55 am

    Not complete disagreement, Mitch. I think Cleary’s decision to hire Sims was based on what is good for his company; but businessmen make decisions out of spite all the time, especially in hiring and firing.

  13. John
    February 12, 2011 at 8:09 am

    Watch out, Hank, you’re up against “hybrid journalism.” The alt-weekly is threatening to go all out and “[expand] the Journal website to create and link communities – communities based on location or common interests or other parameters?” The scope of their techno/webbo plans is on the scale of something from The Lawnmower Man 2 .

    http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2011/02/10/visions-and-hybrid-journalism/

  14. Shocker
    February 12, 2011 at 8:09 am

    Go figure. Just like the majority of the slack jawed yokels in Humboldt County, couldn’t actually move to the big town to pursue a real career.

  15. Dancing
    February 12, 2011 at 8:27 am

    Did any of you fools who think Sims has any business on the radio hear his interviews with the candidates on the radio…buffoon uses “um” like an adjective.
    In the long run this choice play nicely into the hands of those of us who are tired of LCC partisan bullshit…it will be easy to justify the withdrawal of advertising dollars now that they have fully embraced their position as the voice of the left.

  16. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Shocker @8:09,
    NAN is that you? Ah the bitterness and projection, living for what could have been. We can be grateful that some professionals stick it out up here for everything HumCo does offer.

  17. humboldturtle
    February 12, 2011 at 8:39 am

    “…will be easy to justify the withdrawal of advertising dollars now that they have fully embraced their position as the voice of the left.”

    Yup. We don’t need to reach 70% of the public, so we use KINS.

  18. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 8:55 am

    Lost Coast Journal?

  19. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 8:55 am

    Jane, by journalistic standards it’s old news because the incident happened months beforehand. If a reporter had stumbled upon, maybe it would have been reported, but that’s not how it went down. The person who sat on this news in an attempt to spring it at the last minute and sink the candidate made a huge tactical mistake because such behavior is generally despised by journalists. It’s just as unseemly as the DUI. If you’re morally impaired, I’m sure you think I’m full of ****.

  20. February 12, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Welcome to Humboldt.

    If elected officials, or those seeking public office, commit a crime and the local media elite fails to uncover it ASAP, it can never be considered news.

    If a private citizen uncovers the crime and alerts the media that person is wretched mongrel with evil motives.

  21. Goldie
    February 12, 2011 at 9:06 am

    I like this turn of events. I am going to wait and see what it sounds like.

  22. February 12, 2011 at 9:17 am

    Good news all around. Two class acts together makes, well, something even more classy. Looking forward to Hank’s new incarnation. Something tells me LCC’s web presence is going to blossom more.

  23. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 9:17 am

    If, as you surmise (without any factual reason to do so since we don’t know who it was), the leaker sat on the evidence for months, how does that negate the voters’ right to know? Of what relevance is the motive of the leaker? It wasn’t a whispered rumor but court document supported evidence of not only a secret DUI but a failure to appear. For the record, there has been absolutely no follow up on this story. After the initial report in the T-S which raised questions about some aspects of the case, they just dropped it. Some of the issues which should have been addressed were why wasn’t he arrested and booked the night of the DUI, why wasn’t it reported by any media, why was the CHP waiting at his home, why was it kept such a closely held secret and how did they think they could get away with it? There are suspicious undercurrents to this story that should still be aired.

  24. February 12, 2011 at 9:29 am

    How many stories get a follow up PJ? Seems like a vast majority of stories don’t get a follow up in the “real” media.

  25. Jack Durham
    February 12, 2011 at 9:37 am

    Plain Jane,
    The DA’s office puts out a list of people charged with DUIs every couple of weeks. This is what you read in the TS, which publishes the list. However, back when Sundberg’s name should have appeared on the list, the DA’s office was having some sort of computer upgrade. So at least one DUI list – the one with Sunberg’s name – was never released.

    This isn’t as fun or sexy as a conspiracy theory. So forget about it and move on with juicier theories involving the dark, evil forces that lurk in the night.

  26. RAMDX
    February 12, 2011 at 9:44 am

    It’ll be great to still have Hank around, but I’ll miss his great writing.

  27. gulo gordo
    February 12, 2011 at 9:58 am

    I don’t know how Hank’s editorial voice will translate to radio, though if you think about it Olbermann does similar things but with shiny pictures to keep your eyeballs jumping.
    speaking of pictures, that new town dandy graphic is teh awesome. (mullet power!)
    But it needs to lose the cigarette holder. Maybe pinching a hand-rolled, yeah.

  28. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 9:59 am

    That doesn’t answer the rest of the questions, Jack. Especially the ones about why there was no follow up to the questions raised by T-S article which implied they were going to follow up with answers from the CHP since they couldn’t get a response to their questions over the weekend. The way the media treated the story was very odd, focusing on the assumption it was a political smear rather than news and STILL saying, “Nothing to see here folks, move on.”

  29. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Jack Durham,

    Oh, the list was never released. That explains why everybody in McKinleyville knew except you, right?

  30. Jack Durham
    February 12, 2011 at 11:59 am

    Dude, you should have called me. I could have scooped everyone and sold a few more papers. Or maybe nit, being that everyone already knew about it except for me.

  31. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    I Concur Jane.

    Self-censorship defines today’s media. We’re suckers for the ubiquitous “negative” label that editors misuse to make censorship seem credible…Sundberg’s excesses merited outrage and repeated front page coverage, ESPECIALLY because of the election.

    There’s little useful, hybrid, or alternative, about media’s proliferation of the popular dogma of optimistic bias…the tyranny of “positive thought”; its irrational exuberance, fake sincerity, and cult of artificial cheerfulness being imposed upon us because it increases consumption! Media’s reckless, complaint-free reporting feeds American’s massive empathy deficit, most recently illustrated in reporting on the homeless, the environment, and politics…all reduced to brief, snappy human interest stories.

    When we’re lucky, local media reports the “dots”, never bothering to connect them, nor express any outrage or dissent that’s LONG overdue in the New Gilded Age.

    To Hell with hybrid!

    Bring back relevant journalism and the stories that share, investigate and reflect a community’s outrage.

  32. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    “Sundberg’s excesses merited outrage and repeated front page coverage, ESPECIALLY because of the election. ”

    And yet the fact remains that this was reported, discussed even to this day in the blogs, during the entire time from just before the primary until the general election. And Sundberg still won.

  33. Robert
    February 12, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    I’m betting that this will be a lot like Elmer Fudd sings Wagner. Funny to listen to for a while, but not something listeners will want to waste much time on.

  34. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    It was reported as a smear on a back page of the T-S a couple of days before the primary and discussed on blogs which most people don’t read. We still don’t know why the CHP was waiting at his house, why he wasn’t arrested and taken to jail, and why this was treated as a non-story from the beginning. People scream for his blood when a drunk driver kills someone, but you want me to believe they don’t care if an elected official has a record of drunk driving?

  35. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    And Sundberg still won.

    Because Jane and her ilk are out-of-touch with voters. People probably reacted as much to the underhandedness as they did to their support of Sundberg’s platform.

    I personally voted for Sundberg because it was mentioned on the blogs that a certain unsavory political consultant was working with Cleary. So far, I’m happy to see Sundberg is acting as an independent thinker, not the stooge of a left or right political machine.

  36. Not A Native
    February 12, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    Pretty funny anon 8:36 believing that I’d not use my chosen pseudonym as a ruse. Guess you think I would do that because its what you do. Sorry, I’m proud to say I’m not scared of criticism and insecure like you are. Dog always smells his own first, don’t you?

    Anyway, I’ve never written that the majority in HumCo are slack jawed yokels, here only because they don’t have the ability to pursue a real career in a big town. Can’t say I disagree, though. Like others, I see evidence that supports the jaw assessment.

  37. Not A Native
    February 12, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    I’d hoped Cleary would win and airing Sundberg’s offense obviously would have helped that to happen. But its simply unfair to air it at a late date when he couldn’t reasonably respond and when other questions about the manner it was handled couldn’t be investigated. And practically, at that late date, it might have had the opposite effect. The principle of fairness is more important to me than winning. I think a lot of voters feel the same way. Sundberg doesn’t have a lifetime appointment. If he decides to run again, the whole incident should be discussed and explained. If that doesn’t happen, then I’d be upset.

  38. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    1:03 proves my point. His take is exactly what the media was portraying, a smear by an opponent, although there is no evidence that it was. They asked questions and reported no answers, which would have put a few questions to rest. Such as why was the CHP waiting at his house and why didn’t they arrest him and take him to jail? If the editor of the McKinleyville Press didn’t hear anything about Sundberg’s DUI, it’s a pretty safe bet that not many people did or Jack isn’t very in touch with his community.

  39. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    If Sundberg had been honest about it when he announced his candidacy, like he should have, it wouldn’t have been an issue a few days before the primary.

  40. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Actually Jane,

    I believe it was the Hankster himself who indicated that it was political operatives trying to use it as an October Surprise/smear.

    I agree completely (my local slack jaw dropping even further in surprise) with NAN @ 127.

  41. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Actually, 1:48, Sundberg was quoted in the T-S article:

    “Sundberg said the move is an example of “dirty politics.”
    ”They had to have known about this a long time, and then they wait until four days out from the election and smear me,” he said. “It’s not right.”

    Sundberg had a chance to respond to the charges, but his opponents weren’t given the same chance to respond to his against them.

  42. derchoadus
    February 12, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    Gongrats Hank.

    Now use yer 1337 5|<1z on their web thingie.

  43. Hank Sims
    February 12, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    Cheers, Derch! Reluctantly Drupalizing myself.

    THE PAIN IS EXCRUTIATING

  44. February 12, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    Sundberg had the nerve to say its not right? How about drinking and driving Ry? And what is the percentage of DUI’s that get to just go home?Then its miraculously caught up in a computer error so its not reported?

  45. Not an Expert
    February 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Well Hank, I for one will be interested to see what you and LCC come up with. Hopefully it doesn’t involve the nasty comments here–I’m slowly realizing that reading all y’alls comments in a huge waste of time. Used to be interesting, not sure what changed.

  46. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    Isn’t a “smear” a misrepresentation or outright lie about someone? How can a packet of accurate court documents be a smear?

  47. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    Jane doesn’t recognize the ethical implications. I rest my case.

  48. Ben
    February 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Oh, come on now, only the three or four people who comment on this blog could care less now about what happened in 2009. He accepted his fault and handled it as a life lesson and he is better for it today. Should he paint a red DUI on his chest for the rest of his life? He is and will continue to be a great Supervisor. My message for some of you is move on like everyone else has.

  49. February 12, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    Jane, I think you oughtta join me and get on Gallegos’ case if you care this much about law-breaking. Have you ever followed the drunk driving announcements in the TS? Look how many get reduced to wet reckless. Too bad MADD disbanded. There are way more serious issues, Jane, but you don’t really care – you are just as Hank identified those who brought the dirty trick to him – you wanted hank to carry your water, he didn’t. His reasons were sound. And it is over.

    Now how about the guys who keep getting released until they shoot somebody, and even then… what happens, Jane? Do you even have a clue?

  50. Ben
    February 12, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Hey, Smoke Monster, I don’t get your point. If Ryan was cited at home he would never have to go to jail, nor would anyone else. He certianly paid his price, 30 days of no drivers license and one year of HART. Again, this was a life lesson for him and he is better for it. Don’t you think we all could learn from our mistakes? A big person learns from their mistakes and are better for it and Ryan has shown that he has learned and qualifies as a big person and he has my respect.

  51. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    As I have stated before, Sundberg is still on probation so he hasn’t yet even served his sentence. He had the audacity to announce his candidacy 2 days after his conviction. Wouldn’t that have been cute if his announcement and DUI conviction were in the same paper? Guess he’s just a lot luckier than every other Joe Schmoe whose name is in the public record.

  52. Walt
    February 12, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    I’m with PJ on this one. When I was a reporter I followed a story of a DUI who killed two young girls and injured a third. He was a teacher and a repeat offender who had just broken up with his girlfriend. I interviewed the dead girls’ parents, and saw how this tragedy messed up their lives for good. For those who think a DUI is no big thing, interview the parents of someone killed by a drunk driver, or, like a neighbor of mine, had a daughter crippled for life by a drunk. To them it’s a big deal. Sundberg will get over it (maybe he’s forgotten about it already), but not those who are dead or crippled, and not their families whose lives are trashed.

  53. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    but not those who are dead or crippled, and not their families whose lives are trashed.

    Oh Jesus Walt, not you characterize him as a murderer. You really don’t see how immoral the extreme leftwing has become? Go to Hell.

  54. Walt
    February 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    I also interviewed the woman who was the local chairman of MADD, who went to every hearing for this case. Her son and his fiancee had been killed by a drunk driver on the way to her house for Thanksgiving. Another repeat offender, he got two years: one for each person he killed. She told a compelling story too, and went on to become national president of MADD. I learned a lot from covering that story.

  55. Walt
    February 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    6:34, I can set you up to meet my neighbor’s daughter. She’s a sweetheart, but she can’t stand or walk, and it’s hard to understand her. Talk to some of the victims of DUIs, and then tell me to go to hell for bringing it up.

  56. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    I have friends who were hit by a drunk driver, Walt. They lost their baby and their two older kids were seriously injured, as were they. One of their children has permanent, really severe facial scars. It’s sickening that someone could be convicted of VERY drunk driving, not just a little buzzed, and then announce his candidacy 2 days later. I really can’t believe anyone would have that much gall unless they had some assurance that the DUI could be kept quiet.

  57. Ben
    February 12, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    Just think, every person who has a DUI should be sentenced to eternal hell? Lets get real here. There are vicitmless crimes, like Ryan’s, where no one was hurt. He was arrested at home because someone from the bar called in his license number. Now if someone had been hurt, killed, etc. then this is a different story. The whole story here is it is Ryan and his opponents did not win at the polls and now want to win in the blogosphere, lots of luck. There are only a few people who follow this blog and they certainly are not the general population which does not, frankley, give a damn. So my message is, move on, but if you can not, you will by by yourself screaming in the darkness.

  58. Ben
    February 12, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    Another note: Plain Jane, your comments are certainly can not be considered centerenst. You have strongly held convicions that are not shared by most people. This is a big deal to you but not everyone else on this planet. So, I have tried to be rational in my responses, but that is hard to do when the replies are irrational comments. Again, you seem to say that anyone who has a DUI should be banned for life to eternal damnation! Check where you are on this one, it is not rational.

  59. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    You make a lot of assumptions without any evidence to support them, Ben. First of all, how do you know someone at the bar called in his license number? Maybe it was someone who saw him weaving and called it in without even knowing who it was? Furthermore, your assumptions that people don’t give a damn because he was elected presumes that most people knew anything about it and the fact is they didn’t. A back page story accusing his opponents of smearing him with the DUI doesn’t give it the importance it deserved and, like you said, not many people read blogs so how would they know? I personally am happily surprised by Sundberg’s performance since taking office, especially in his appointment to the Planning Commission. That doesn’t mean that I think people on probation for serious crimes should be running or elected to public office. There has been no investigation of the coincidental oddities in the story and that is in itself very suspicious. I think there were strings pulled to keep it quiet and that he was given special treatment. But keep repeating that everybody but the local newspaper editor knew. It’s very convincing.

  60. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    It is YOU who is being dishonest and irrational, Ben. What is it about people not running for public office while they are still serving their sentence for a serious crime that bothers you? What part of serve your sentence first is “eternal hell and damnation?”

  61. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    Jane,
    How did the people not know about it? It was brought up in at least one debate that was televised.

  62. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    Which debate was that, 7:24?

  63. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 8:06 pm

    devolve!

  64. Anonymous
    February 12, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    It is quite interesting how easy it is to whip people into a fury on here without even necessarily meaning to. Didn’t mean to hit a sore spot earlier, NAN – I’ve been victim to it myself, whichever name i choose or don’t choose to hide behind. And, um, PS – I am happy you feel secure in your NAN-avatar-self.

  65. February 12, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    Ben,who gets cited for a dui at home? It is my understanding he was finally pulled over in front of his house and they just let him go inside,most people would be taken to the county jail, booked,fingerprinted,mugshot,etc. How can you try to argue that? Furthmore yes in my opinion all drunk drivers should be treated much worse in our society.Anyone arguing first offense is somehow different from #2,3… is irrational IMO.Everyone,literally everyone over the age of 21 knows drinking and driving often kills/injurs innocent people whether first time or fifth.

  66. Ben's Assistant in Charge of Logic
    February 12, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    Right on, Ben. Here, let me summarize for the clowns out there.

    The newspapers didn’t need to cover the incident, because everybody already knew. The editor of the McKinleyville Press would have run with it, but he didn’t know. Too bad, dude, it woulda been a scoop.

    Mean people wanted to smear Ryan — a great guy — by giving public court documents to reporters just four days before the primary. Except for the fact that everybody knew (except the editor of the McKinleyville Press), this would have been terribly unfair, because Ryan — a great guy — and his friends, people like Jill, the great Fifth District Supervisor — what a great gal! — had successfully kept anyone from finding out. Good work, Jill! Fortunately, as we know, everybody already knew. It was even in a TV debate, which unfortunately did not exist, but that doesn’t really matter, because it was in a TV debate. See?

    Ryan — hey, what a great guy! — was justifiably outraged that the DUI that everybody knew about… well, everybody except the editor of the McKinleyville Press… was going to be used as a smear. People were going to imply that he’d been driving drunk, and that’s really nobody’s business. See, everybody already knew… well, everybody except the editor of the McKinleyville Press… so giving the information to editors of local newspapers might lead them to, ummm, remind everybody of what they knew, which, as is completely obvious to everybody but the clowns, nobody cares about.

    That about covers it.

  67. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    February 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    I believe this to be a healthy hiring for LCC. This is a positioning hiring move for content control, and a smart move it seems on face value. Time will tell though.

    Ben
    February 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    Oh, come on now, only the three or four people who comment on this blog could care less now about what happened in 2009. He accepted his fault and handled it as a life lesson and he is better for it today. Should he paint a red DUI on his chest for the rest of his life? He is and will continue to be a great Supervisor. My message for some of you is move on like everyone else has.

    Response: Fair and typical response; yet, he has only been supervisor a short while, so lets give the guy the slack he needs to do the job right the first time and not 4 years of flip-floppings or blaming poor decision makings on being a rookie supervisor green and freshly elected. “IS’ and “WILL” are not absolute, especially when based on character. The guy deserves his chance to shine as an elected official regardless of the DUI. Hell, I am sure many other people (elected or not) have done more sinister things in life than our current supervisor, but alas, people have a right to still be outraged (afterall, did he not know he was running for supe and not know how to not drink and drive? – see, it is still a mind game).

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  68. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    February 12, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    Ben’s Assistant in Charge of Logic
    February 12, 2011 at 9:04 pm
    Right on, Ben. Here, let me summarize for the clowns out there.

    The newspapers didn’t need to cover the incident, because everybody already knew. The editor of the McKinleyville Press would have run with it, but he didn’t know. Too bad, dude, it woulda been a scoop.

    Mean people wanted to smear Ryan — a great guy — by giving public court documents to reporters just four days before the primary. Except for the fact that everybody knew (except the editor of the McKinleyville Press), this would have been terribly unfair, because Ryan — a great guy — and his friends, people like Jill, the great Fifth District Supervisor — what a great gal! — had successfully kept anyone from finding out. Good work, Jill! Fortunately, as we know, everybody already knew. It was even in a TV debate, which unfortunately did not exist, but that doesn’t really matter, because it was in a TV debate. See?

    Ryan — hey, what a great guy! — was justifiably outraged that the DUI that everybody knew about… well, everybody except the editor of the McKinleyville Press… was going to be used as a smear. People were going to imply that he’d been driving drunk, and that’s really nobody’s business. See, everybody already knew… well, everybody except the editor of the McKinleyville Press… so giving the information to editors of local newspapers might lead them to, ummm, remind everybody of what they knew, which, as is completely obvious to everybody but the clowns, nobody cares about.

    That about covers it.

    Response: You forgot to cover the part where people get smeared by mean people all the time and that many of these victims are regular, good standing citizens who won’t fall for the local public employees’ abusive political agendas and shenanigans (The Mean People, no really!!!). Ya, time to re-summarize reality cuz these local elected officials and public employees have no problem being much more worse and mean than for whom you cite as former serving innocent little virgins acting in the capacity as elected officials. Let’s face it though, who can blame the mean people when they get “showed-up”, because they get all vigilante to protect their control and political dark secrets.

    JL

  69. honest abe
    February 12, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    Honestly, it really shouldn’t be a left or right issue. Can someone drink and drive and be a good Sup? Yes. Lets take the extreme example of Ted Kennedy. I realize that this example will be troubling for some, however the DUI is not the entire issue here. It is the apparent cover up and Ryan’s avoidance of the issue that bothers people. Seriously, how many people have driven after having more than two beers in an hour? My guess is most people have, but are not honest about it.

  70. Ben's Brain (Out gettin' a beer)
    February 12, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    Ben’s Assistant in Charge of Logic: “Ben, ya still out there, guy? Ben?”
    Ben: (crickets)
    Heraldo: “Hey Ben, you DID see the post a month ago that reviewed the numbers of hits the Herald got in 2010, right? Over a million?”
    Ben: “Yeah, each one of those three or four godforsaken liberals posted 250,00 times each.”

  71. The Challenger
    February 12, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    Ben @ 6.54 PM writes “Just think, every person who has a DUI should be sentenced to eternal hell? Lets get real here. There are vicitmless crimes, like Ryan’s, where no one was hurt. ”

    So to Ben, the key thing is that “no one was hurt” and that makes it “victimless.” Not so. Driving in that impaired state he COULD have killed someone; it was only by the grace of God that he did not.

    If I loose a random shot down a crowded street, or into your house, or into your school, not aiming at anyone in particular, does that make my actions a victimless crime just because I was fortunate enough not to hit anyone? Driving drunk is just the same.

    Or maybe it’s OK in Humboldt County to drive drunk as long as you don’t hit someone?

    Personally, I think that if you drive drunk, your vehicle ought to be seized and sold at auction, just like they do for dope growers and dealers.

  72. E. Percival Ne'er-do-well Esquire III
    February 13, 2011 at 7:53 am

    I like Rose’s take on this, lets blame it on Gallegos……….

  73. Sharon Letts
    February 13, 2011 at 7:57 am

    Really HATE anon blogging, but hate whining more. Only here for a second to support Hank and Patrick. While it’s difficult to envision Hank away from the Journal, I’m excited to see what happens with LCC’s site. Mike D. and I once chatted on how nice it would be if social networks/web sites could be a catalyst for sharing everyday stories of the region – filling gaps the weeklies and dailies just can’t afford to cover any longer. With the immediacy of live radio combined w/a strong web and social network presence, I see more people coming together to make a stronger community. Good luck Hank, and thank you Patrick for looking to the synergistic future.

  74. Ben
    February 13, 2011 at 7:57 am

    The consequences are different if you kill someone than if you fail the breath test. Am I hearing that some of you want the ultimate punishment for any level of problem? Somehow this thread seems to me like arguing with a teenager, very little logic and a lot of emotion.

  75. February 13, 2011 at 8:05 am

    Am I hearing that some of you want the ultimate punishment for any level of problem?

    No, you are creating a straw man argument.

  76. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 8:12 am

    jane, it was whichever debate they had after the primary at Azalea Hall. i don’t know the date and time and i can not provide a link. i was there. somebody asked if either candidate had a criminal record and sundberg responded that this question was directed at him. he explained that he made a big mistake and got a DUI. he also went on to state that in the long run, it was a good thing since he has removed alcohol from his life.

    there was no cover up, maybe jack didn’t know about, but alot of people in mckinleyville did. maybe he should have put out a press release, maybe he was embarrassed and just hoped it would go away. either way, it was in the paper, it was on TV, and it was on this blog as well as others. it was well known by November.

    i can see the argument that it could have changed the primary, but probably not. the person who sent it to the media should have sent it closer to the time the absentee ballots went out if they wanted more damage, but then they risked wearing it out by election day. also, higgins was doing considerably better than expected and they were probably worried that if they waited until after the primary, cleary might not be in the run off. hence the hasty last minute drop off. i suspect somebody got some polling data and got worried. not to say cleary knew anything about this, because he ran a clean campaign. i heard he wouldn’t play to the DUI thing to win, which is honorable.

    sundberg is proving himself to be a just what was advertised – a moderate.

  77. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 8:15 am

    You seem to be deaf, Ben. What people are saying is that drunk driving is a serious crime and drunk drivers shouldn’t be rewarded by being elected until they’ve completed their punishment and proven that they can abstain from drunk driving, at least until they are off probation. Drunk drivers who announce their candidacy 2 days after being convicted, keep it secret and then blame their political opponents for smearing them when the information is leaked obviously aren’t taking responsibility for their behavior. The media was complicit in the cover up, since if “everyone knew” some of them must have known as well. Ex-sheriff Philp endorsed the guy. Did he not know about the drunk driving conviction and probation? The good ole boy network couldn’t operate with such impunity if we had a press that practiced journalism, but that might hurt their bottom line.

  78. E. Percival Ne'er-do-well Esquire III
    February 13, 2011 at 8:28 am

    “i heard he wouldn’t play to the DUI thing to win, which is honorable.”

    Think you might want to look up the definition of honorable………

  79. February 13, 2011 at 8:32 am

    At the time I felt that the right thing to do was to report on the DUI. It was news, and the source doesn’t matter, but I chalked it up to disagreeing with Hank. Somehow I moved on with my life.

    And I hope to see Hank at the Humboldt Drupal Users Group meetings , where the Sundberg DUI will not be an issue.

  80. Mitch
    February 13, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Joel, don’t you have the tints backwards? You put the red tint over your left eye and the blue over your right. Or are you trying to bring them both back to the center?

  81. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 8:44 am

    jane, the point is people knew about the dui and he was still elected. nobody is saying it was not a serious offense. if the people agreed with you he would not have been elected. he won, move on. i know it is a futile discussion with you jane because you never waver from your positions.

    later.

  82. Ben
    February 13, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Well, Jane, the voters do not agee with you. It was public knowledge and he won the election. If the majority of the public agreed with you, then he would not have won. Your seem to have an unbending opposition to Ryan and this is just your excuse rant about the DUI. Enough said.

  83. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 9:07 am

    Repeating the lie that “everyone knew” when they voted for him doesn’t change the fact that they didn’t, 8:44. It’s a bit early to judge Sundberg’s abilities as a supervisor, but so far he seems to be doing a good job. That doesn’t change the fact that he got special treatment, a media cover up and then falsely accused his opponents of smearing him.

    The day you waver in your opinions, you can criticize me. But then, you’re anonymous so each post is your first, right?

  84. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    February 13, 2011 at 9:44 am

    Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 8:15 am
    You seem to be deaf, Ben. What people are saying is that drunk driving is a serious crime and drunk drivers shouldn’t be rewarded by being elected until they’ve completed their punishment and proven that they can abstain from drunk driving, at least until they are off probation. Drunk drivers who announce their candidacy 2 days after being convicted, keep it secret and then blame their political opponents for smearing them when the information is leaked obviously aren’t taking responsibility for their behavior. The media was complicit in the cover up, since if “everyone knew” some of them must have known as well. Ex-sheriff Philp endorsed the guy. Did he not know about the drunk driving conviction and probation? The good ole boy network couldn’t operate with such impunity if we had a press that practiced journalism, but that might hurt their bottom line.

    Response: Ben is actually telling it like it is in a way – Too many Americans defy the laws because they feel the laws are weak and so it has become common practice to break laws knowing which laws are higher in probability to yield an arrest or citation. Of course, enforcement is also an adjustible practice when defining or separating out of the equation “who” who will be cut-loose free……There are no “equal protections for laws and citizens” when local government is so corrupted by protecting its dark secrets.

    JL

  85. Timh
    February 13, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Jane,
    It was published before the November election, that is a fact.

  86. February 13, 2011 at 10:28 am

    Who “Knew about it?” It was not publicized. I can’t believe that grown-ups are trying to minimize drunk driving. What hypocrisy. When it’s the other guy it’s time to crucify. But when it’s your guy it’s a “Victimless crime” ? The percentage of non-alcoholics that are arrested for DUI is unknown. But who is not able to manage staying sober when they know they have to drive? Alcoholics that’s who.
    It was probably the wrong decision to make, but I can totally understand Sims not wanting to be “played” or “manipulated” into publishing it at that critical moment. But hey, if any of them had done their jobs as journalists they would have known about it and reported on it much earlier.
    And there was absolutely special favoritism involved. No one, but no one is not arrested when caught over the limit. What’s the story here? “Oh, he was at home so……”
    I congratulate the guy for dealing with his alcohol problem. Step one is the hardest of all.

  87. Timh
    February 13, 2011 at 11:16 am

    You do know it was published in June, right? Anybody with any interest could have written my words, letters, taken out ads, hired the goodyear blimp, or whatever to get the message out for 5 months before the election. Didn’t happen, so now it is a coverup? That is a pretty wacky position to take.

  88. awake and listening
    February 13, 2011 at 11:20 am

    Moviedad asked: Who “Knew about it?” It was not publicized

    Sundberg answered a question about the DUI at the debate at Azalea Hall. Several posts have confirmed that. I also confirm it.

    This blog had hundreds of posts about the DUI that went on for days.
    After the June election, Hank wrote about his reasons for not reporting it. The DUI was well publicized, well exposed and common knowledge to anyone paying attention. People had this information months before the final election.

    Why did Ryan win anyway? Perhaps because of the shrill, judgmental attacks on this blog. Perhaps because people can recognize the work of Salzman and his followers and that turned them off. Perhaps because reasonable people know that EVERYONE has made terrible mistakes at some point and the real issue is what you learn from the mistake.

    Ryan has quit drinking altogether. Will the sheep who think they lead the left learn from their mistake? I doubt it.

  89. February 13, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    I guess you had to be at the right place at the right time. I just can’t help but wonder what the situation would have looked like had someone like, say…..Larry Glass, or some other “enemy” of the right had found himself in that situation. Prolly wouldn’t matter where you were then, you would have known about it.
    Sure is a load to keep hearing that: “The people have spoken.” when in reality it is the non-reportable donations from business interests that won the election. Citizens United is just getting started.
    By the way, the left have no leaders. At least none that we know about.

  90. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Hank is old news.

    But he, and the TS, made a bad-call and we now have a supervisor who will be on probation his first term, another laughing-stock for outside observers of our entrenched good ol’ boy development community.

    It was news that merited front page exposure and follow-up…just like the TS provided for Charlene or Chris’ “victimless faux-pas”.

  91. Claire Voyant
    February 13, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    The hiring of Sims by Cleary just seems like more of the Old Boy Network supporting their old boys.

  92. Happy Medium
    February 13, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    The hiring of Sims by Cleary just seems like a great idea. With Mike D on the mic and Hank on the web KHUM will rock even more.

  93. jackdurham
    February 13, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    Ummmm… the news about Sundberg was in all the newspapers and reported on TV and radio five months before he was elected. By reading the comments above, one might get the mistaken impression that the DUI was kept a secret until after Nov. 3.

  94. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Which newspaper was it reported as anything but a dirty campaign smear, Jack?

  95. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Jane, all of the newspapers failed to acknowledge it as dirty campaigning.

  96. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    “Sundberg said he was surprised the information was brought to the attention of various media outlets only recently, because he has always been honest about the incident with his supporters. The documents were dropped off at other media outlets Friday, and information from the documents appeared in an online blog Friday night.
    Sundberg said the move is an example of “dirty politics.”
    ”They had to have known about this a long time, and then they wait until four days out from the election and smear me,” he said. “It’s not right.”

    From the only T-S article on the issue, no mention of them trying to contact his opponents to give them an opportunity to comment on his accusations.

    http://www.times-standard.com/ci_15238861?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com

    “When you’re as creaky and jaded and world-weary as I am, there was no mystery as to what was happening here. The tipster told us that he was someone “who helps journalists do their jobs,” but it was pretty plain that the opposite was in fact the case: He wanted journalists to help him do his. This was a calculated smear job, aimed for maximum impact. ”

    From the NCJ’s only article on the DUI, aside from Burstiner’s column which discusses it from a journalistic ethics point of view.

    http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2010/06/10/dui-or-dont-i/

    Now which newspapers didn’t report it as a smear?

  97. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    Ahh, I understand your confusion Jane. When sentences are contained in quotation marks and the words are attributed to someone, in this case Sundberg, it means the claim came from the person who was interviewed, not the reporter. It doesn’t mean the reporter or the newspaper publisher agrees with the claims made by the people being quoted, unless an editorial is written to that effect. No such editorial exists.

    In journalism circles, interviewing Sundberg is called getting the other side of the story. When a crime is reported, a reporter likes to get the accused person’s perspective, as well as the victim’s perspective. In this case, there was no specific victim to interview, but reporters could speak to the accused. This is generally considered ethical behavior for a journalist. I can see why you’re confused by this foreign concept.

  98. Stating the obvious
    February 13, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    The only potentially valid beef is with the Journal, but Hank’s column explains it. Maybe “smear” is a bad word choice. “Dirty politics” is completely accurate. Political reporters grow tired of dirty politics, and Humboldt is rife with dirty politics.

    It seems even a political consultant caught falsifying letters to the editor has no trouble getting future work, and even being lauded by bloggers who aren’t anonymous. When people who demonstrate unethical behavior are held up and celebrated, I don’t blame reporters for passing when the latest dirty trick comes their way. (I don’t know who handled the DUI thing, I’m just sayin’.)

    Next time, give the information to reporters at the time it happens, not as an October surprise. And Jane, please take a college course in ethics.

  99. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    Except they didn’t bother to get his opponents’ side of it, didn’t even mention trying to contact them. They let his unsubstantiated accusations of a smear against them stand. How is that ethical behavior? Hank didn’t even do that much work, just decided it was a smear.

  100. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    You should read Burstiner’s column about journalistic ethics, STO. Or do you think she needs to take a class rather than teaching it?

    http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2010/07/01/not-reporting/

  101. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Jane, yes, I would never take a journalism class from Burstiner, judging by what I’ve seen of her columns. Viewing her faculty webpage, she looks on the young side and her listed credentials are “stints” at two publications and a website. There was a time when journalism professors worked 30+ years in the field and viewed teaching as a retirement activity. But I suspect HSU can’t attract that caliber of candidate anymore.

    I chalk this incident up to Hank not playing along with an October surprise. It’s possible for a reporter to have just as much disgust for the motives of the informant as the person who is the subject of the news tip.

    And, don’t forget — like Burstiner apparently did — that the Journal is a weekly. It doesn’t report on every news story. Hank would have known the Times-Standard was given the information too, and known the Times-Standard would report on the story well before the Journal went to press. What insight could the Journal add to this story that the Times-Standard didn’t already cover? None. At best, he could make a snarky comment in the Dandy. Oh, wait, he did that.

    And, he even explained it.

    An anonymous tipster sent us a note and some documents Friday at 3:45 p.m. — shortly before quitting time, well after last week’s paper went to bed and just a few days before Tuesday’s election.

    The Journal doesn’t street until Wednesday. So, this political dirty trickster failed to factor in publication dates for his October surprise. I hope he doesn’t get paid for this type of stuff because he’s a rank amateur. As is, the Herald parroted the political hack’s information and the Journal linked to it from its blogroll, which isn’t a normal blogroll. It actually links up each new article for all to see on its own website. I don’t see that you have any room to complain.

  102. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Except they didn’t bother to get his opponents’ side of it, didn’t even mention trying to contact them.

    who would they go to, Jane? obviously if one of the campaigns wanted credit for it, it would have been in the form of a press release, not an anonymous package.

    jack durham makes a good point, the way you are made it sound earlier, people could not have known about the DUI and it would have changed their vote. it is undisputed that it was reported in the media five months before election day and he was still elected, your position seems to be something along the lines of, “it wasn’t reported the way i would have liked”

    this is an OK position to have, you don’t need to come up with a bunch of loony theories to justify it.

  103. jackdurham
    February 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    It wasn’t characterized as a campaign smear in the McK Press in the June 2010 article. If you read that article, you would have known that Sundberg had a DUI. When Cleary was asked to comment about the DUI, he declined and said “It’s not something I plan to be talking about.”

    So the DUI was out there for the public to know about. Being that Sunderg plead no contest, there wasn’t any question about guilt. It was what it was.
    There were also five months for people to express their moral outage, write letters, etc.

    Unless I’m mistaken, there was a single letter that mentioned the DUI. Maybe two letters?

    I don’t know to what extent it was a factor in how people voted. But it’s silly to suggest that somehow people were kept in the dark before they voted in November.

  104. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    If Sundberg’s opponent didn’t consider it to be a campaign issue, methinks you can sit down now. You lost. Get over it. The more you beat the drum for non-issues, the more you fail to understand what matters to voters, the more you will LOSE.

    Wait, so, yeah, keep talking about the DUI!

  105. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Jane seems awful defensive. Did you deliver the package, Jane? Wait, I know your public answer. I think I’ve deduced who you are now. Thanks, this thread has been educational.

  106. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    LMAO! Keep making assumptions, 6:27. I didn’t lose anything. My district didn’t have an election for supervisor and, as a matter of fact, every candidate I voted for WON, 6:27. :P

  107. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    Jane, then why do you beat a dead horse?

    Oh, that’s right, you support candidates who don’t mind horses being beaten.

  108. Ad infinitum
    February 13, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    Anonymous 5:33: As is, the Herald parroted the political hack’s information …………………..

  109. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    You are too clever by half, 6:38. Some people, myself included, believe that an honest and free press is the backbone of a democracy. When the media lies or tells half truths, they deny us the information necessary to make good choices. I have made that point repeatedly on many threads so, if you were half as obsessed with me and my motives as you appear to be, you would have already noticed that fact. It really isn’t about Sundberg per se, since I didn’t have a dog in that fight. I thought Cleary would have made an excellent supervisor, but it looks like Sundberg is going to pleasantly surprise. The issue is special treatment for the connected and the shoddy journalism that allows it to continue without consequences.

  110. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    You know, journalistic ethics.

  111. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    No one lied Jane. You’re having a really tough time grasping the facts surrounding this. I’m sorry the October surprise didn’t work and Cleary didn’t get elected. Move on. There will be other October surprises to relish.

  112. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    I was speaking of journalism generally, 7:29. However, you are making assumptions again since neither you, nor Sundberg, nor Sims know who leaked the documents or their motivation. It could have been someone who works in the court who was angry that it was all hushed up, someone with strong personal feelings about drunk drivers in general, or maybe it was the CHP who cited him. It could even have been the Sundberg campaign as a way to get it out there with the opportunity to deflect the blame onto his opponents for smearing him. The fact is, not a single local newspaper did their job on this, just made assumptions and allowed Sundberg to smear his opponents without a response from them. And we still don’t know why the CHP was waiting at his house or why he wasn’t booked.

    False assumptions reported as fact are lies.

  113. Timh
    February 13, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    The Sundberg campaign leaked it themselves! That reminds me of the scene in The Princess Bride where the guy drinks the poison. I would love to hear your thoughts on 911, Kennedy, and Obama’s citizenship, among a number of other things.

  114. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    God you guys are a dumb as rocks. There is just as much evidence that Sundberg did it to himself as there is that one of his opponents was behind it. Maybe it was Gallegos or someone in his office. There are so many people who would have had more access to those documents than anyone in the Cleary or Higgins campaigns. Maybe someone did it for personal reasons. These are ALL ASSUMPTIONS because there is no evidence linking it to anyone, but don’t let the lack of facts get in the way of your smears. It was Cleary, it was Salzman, it was friggin Plain Jane! FFS!

  115. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Oh, nice. After you’ve exhausted all attempts to make an issue of this, now you blame Sundberg as a last resort. There is no level you won’t stoop to Jane. You are truly devoid of morals.

  116. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    I didn’t blame ANYONE for leaking it. I was merely listing people who COULD have done it, which is just about any one. You are the ones who are placing blame without any evidence and twisting what is posted. Is your defensiveness on this issue a personal matter which is clouding your ability to comprehend or are you just an idiot incapable of understanding what is posted?

  117. Jack Durham
    February 13, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    Jane didn’t read my previous comment.

  118. Ryan's Nagging Conscience
    February 13, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    Plain Jane: 10
    Opponents: nothin’.
    Plain Jane is killing ’em – Humboldt County’s own Annie Oakley, coolly blowing the barrels of her pistols after shootin ’em dead with inconvenient facts.
    Unanswered Questions:
    1) Why wasn’t Ryan Sundberg booked, like every other person in Humboldt who is cited for a DUI?
    2) Why did Ryan Sundberg say nothing whatsoever about the DUI publicly, until asked?
    3) How is it that his name never appeared in the Times-Standard, like every other DUI arrestee, even after they corrected their new system of DUI listings?
    Inquiring Humboldt minds want to know.

  119. Mitch
    February 13, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    Jane,

    Please be careful or your head will explode. You’re in an Alice in Wonderland world on this subject, and nothing sensible you say will be acknowledged as sensible by your partners in dialog. I recognize your plight from sad experience.

    Look, I think everyone who is going to form an opinion about this has already formed an opinion. People who are open-minded enough to be swayed one way or the other have already been swayed.

    I wish Ryan Sundberg well. I hope at some point our area develops a functioning press.

  120. Kale Estanoche
    February 13, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    I agree with Mitch @9:09 on all counts.

  121. Owltotem
    February 13, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    This one functions, skippy usually covers local events better than any one at the TS and Heraldo breaks the news quite often (you know the local reporters read it to chase stories). I love it, now go read the frog story :)

  122. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    I don’t subscribe to your paper and haven’t read the article you mentioned so I’ll just have to take your word as to the fairness of the coverage, Jack. Did you check with the CHP and find out why they were waiting at his house and why they didn’t arrest him? Did you or anyone quoted in the article speculate about the identity of the leaker and their motive? I don’t know many people in your district, but no one I have spoken to knew about his DUI even after the election. None of the newspapers (apparently) knew anything about it until the leak which was months later, but Sundberg and his fans claim “everybody knew.” Are you that out of touch with your community that no one thought to mention it to you before June, Jack?

  123. Plain Jane
    February 13, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    Of course you’re right, Mitch; but my head isn’t anywhere near exploding. I’m just checking in periodically to keep them spinning. They’re much less fascinating but a lot funnier than the history of India video I’m watching.

  124. Jack Durham
    February 13, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    Assuming “everyone” in McKinleyville knew about Sundberg’s DUI before late May/June except me, then yes, I’m out of touch with my town. However, I don’t think “everyone” knew about it. I think it was a small circle. I never received a package, a phone call or email about it. I read about it in the TS, or on a blog, at the time.

  125. Anonymous
    February 13, 2011 at 10:10 pm

    Don’t bother responding Jack. I think Jane is trolling us at this point. Facts don’t matter. She’s in her own little world.

  126. Anonymous
    February 14, 2011 at 12:17 am

    Jane, you rock!

    Well done.

    Had Sundberg received his front-page, handcuff dues, I wouldn’t have read this far.

    The antagonist-hypocrites should be ashamed. Hard to believe they’re adults.

    The “other side” of the story has already been told by thousands of victims and the tonnage of laws they inspired…Hence, the front page news, followups, and editorial disgust mysteriously absent.

    Will he, and his appointees, vote to benefit the entrenched goons that funded him?

    Is history any indication?

  127. February 14, 2011 at 8:47 am

    I personally am glad that a Native American is representing the fifth District. I have no grudge whatsoever with Mr. Sundberg. I enjoyed listening to him this morning on Dennis Huber’s Monday Morning Magazine show on KMUD.
    No one is suggesting that Sunderg should have forced the police to arrest him. Or that he should have refused the special treatment he was afforded. That would be against human nature. But come on, there was special treatment. The story was buried. It had an effect on the election. Basic facts #101. It happened.
    The real issue is this small group of posters who seem intent on rewriting the whole thing according to their limited point of view.
    I read the Times, the Journal, Savage Henry, the Jack, I would love to carry the McKinleyville press in Willow Creek….point is, I’m pretty informed usually and I hadn’t heard about it. No one I know knew about it until after the election. I don’t live in Humboldt County, so like Jane says: “I don’t have a dog in this fight.” Just admit that the man got a pass and move on. Oops, sorry….I mean ‘move forward’.

  128. Anonymous
    February 14, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    Judy Hodgson is very selfish and mean.

  129. Anonymous
    February 15, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Eventually, when enough people let this go and “move forward”, special treatment for insider’s candidates will cease.

  130. Anonymous
    February 15, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Many would also have rejoiced to have the first female U.S. vice president in 2008.

    Will she become president in 2012?

    Has our first black imperial-president really done a better job bailing out the Bush banks and continuing the Bush wars?

  131. Mitch
    February 15, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Anonymous 1:16,

    No.

    You betcha.

  132. February 15, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Ditto!

  133. bluelakguy
    February 15, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Good-by Hank, we will miss you, to quote Shakespeare: “you do your job fairly”. I hope that you will keep us informed in print and on line, I don’t have time for to AM radio.

    Best Wishes,
    Frank Onstine

  134. The Last Word
    February 15, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    Hank is an egotistical putz who thought he was God, and got kicked in the ass. Do you think he learned anything?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s