Home > Shane Brinton > Send Shane to D.C.

Send Shane to D.C.

Arcata City Councilman Shane Brinton is taking a trip to Washington D.C. on invitation from President Obama.  But the last minute-ness of it all makes it a spendy ride.  Brinton is reaching out to supporters to help him get there and back without breaking the bank.  His letter below.

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

I am writing to you because I have been offered a fantastic opportunity and I need your help to take advantage of it. A few days ago I received an invitation from President Obama to attend a reception at the White House in honor of young elected officials from around the country.

There will also be a three-and-a-half hour policy briefing with senior White House officials. We will be briefed on housing, immigration reform, innovation, energy, and the economy.

How could I turn down such a cool opportunity? I just purchased my plane tickets using a credit card. It came to $1,300! Many of you know there is no way that I can afford this with my income, but I was encouraged by friends to go for it, assuming that I would be able to raise the funds from our community. That’s why I’m reaching out to you. Can you please help me take advantage of this exciting opportunity?

Contributions may be sent to: 1166 I Street, Apt B, Arcata, CA 95521. As an elected official I am not legally allowed to accept gifts of $420 or more.

For those that wish to donate online with a credit card, I have a PayPal account:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=F63RDLDZ9PAQJ

Solidarity,
Shane Brinton

  1. tra
    June 14, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    I’m a bit surprised that it’s legal to give hundreds of dollars to an elected official for their personal use.

    Not that I think Shane’s vote is up for auction or anything — I’m confident that he’s got way too much integrity for that. But you’ve got to admit it that this sort of arrangement does look a bit weird.

    If you’re having trouble seeing why, imagine that the person soliciting the funds was, say, Virginia Bass, and the people giving the funds were a whole bunch of Arkley family members and friends. I suspect that in such a case this blog would have a very different view of this kind of solicitiation.

    I suppose you could say this is not all that different from candidates getting campaign contributions — but in that case the contributions (at least those of $100 or more) have to be reported to the public. In this case, I’m not sure whether there is a reporting requirement. If there isn’t, that creates a rather strange situation, where the elected official may be “indebted” to certain individuals, without the voting public having any knowledge of it.

    Just to be clear, again, I’m not attacking Shane or suggesting that he would be corrupted by these gifts. I think it’s great that he’s been invited to the White House and I hope he enjoys his trip and makes good use of the opportunity for learning and networking. It’s just that the funding mechanism makes me a little bit queasy.

  2. Anonymous
    June 14, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    He shouldn’t have bought the ticket if he can’t afford it. Wow, didn’t know he lived at Hell House, good times there back in the day.

  3. skippy
    June 14, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    Every inspired person, young and old, should have an opportunity to visit Washington DC. The reasons are many. Congratulations on that special invitation, Shane. Yours truly supports this effort– for any and all of our Humboldt youth. Have a good and safe trip.

  4. SNaFU
    June 14, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    “Asking”: Is this another deceptive word for political panhandling?

  5. Anonymous
    June 14, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    WOW !!!!! just the leadership we need. Buy something you can’t afford and expect some one else to pay for it. Your learning from the best alright.

  6. tra
    June 14, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    “Asking”: Is this another deceptive word for political panhandling?

    I don’t see anything deceptive about Shane “asking” for donations to help fund this trip. If he was trying to be deceptive, he would have done the soliciting privately.

    As I wrote above, I do think this sort of arrangement could raise some potentially troubling issues (mostly along the lines of “appearance of impropriety”). But I don’t think being “deceptive” is one of them.

    And by the way, the actual euphamism used was the always-amusing phrase “reaching out.”

  7. Ross Rowley
    June 14, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    Solidarity???? Jesus, Shane, you think the whole world revolves around elected officials? I would like to go to an educational conference in Atlanta for my industry, but I don’t send out a letter to my coworkers, friends and neighbors begging for money because I can’t afford it? As an elected official you are only one part of this community and society. You are no more important than your fellow constituents. Elected officials don’t walk on water. But, I guess if enough people believe that your line of work is that of a diety, than it is so. I have no doubt you will receive the money. This tactic reminds me of a televangelist trying to sell the word.

  8. Freud
    June 14, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    I don’t see how this will benefit the residents of Arcata..?

  9. Mitch
    June 14, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    “this tactic reminds me of a televangelist trying to sell the word”

    It does? I think maybe I can spot a few differences.

    First, Mr. Brinton is not pretending to be a representative of a deity. Thus, there is no concern that not contributing will cause anyone to be recalled by the lord.

    Second, Mr. Brinton is not implying in any way that contributing to him will put you on good terms with a deity. For that matter, he’s not implying in any way that contributing to him will put you on good terms with him.

    Third, Mr. Brinton is telling you EXACTLY what your contribution will go for — a $1,300 plane ticket to get Shane Brinton to and from a meeting at the White House. That’s different from contributing to televangelists, where you’re never quite sure whether your bucks will fund an orphanage or a hooker.

    Shane has contributed to our community in too many ways to count. He’s an example of what an elected official should be, someone who remains part of his community. How many people in Congress hold down jobs to pay the rent?

    Special note to HiFi: what a great opportunity to keep United Airlines well-funded!

  10. tra
    June 14, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    For that matter, he’s not implying in any way that contributing to him will put you on good terms with him.

    But…to some degree it’s bound to, isn’t it?

    I’m curious whether the folks who like Mr. Brinton and tend to agree with his political positions can, nevertheless, see why elected officials soliciting for personal monetary gifts might be a wee bit problematic.

  11. Mitch
    June 14, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    tra,

    Honestly, no.

    I can see that when a large corporation contributes thousands of dollars to someone in Congress who supervises their regulation, that is problematic.

    I can see that when employees of a regulatory agency have a revolving door with corporations the agency regulates, that is problematic.

    I can see that someone quietly asking one or two businesses in a small town for substantial gifts to cover a plane ticket could be problematic.

    I can’t see any problem whatsoever with a part-time, low income city council member of a small town soliciting widely and in public for small contributions to fund a $1,300 plane ticket to a once in a lifetime opportunity.

    Call me naive.

  12. Anonymous
    June 14, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    Not only problematic, but very presumptuous. At a time when people are out of work and public works are unfunded, we are to drop everything and send Shane to DC in the name of “solidarity”. I’d rather give to the West Side Neighborhood to support something that will make a difference.
    Hey, I’ve been invited to a prestigious dinner; can you all chip in a help me pay the bill?

  13. Mitch
    June 14, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Or, to put it another way, if your big worry is that your city council members can be bought for $5 or $10 or $50 or $100, you live a blessed life.

  14. Mitch
    June 14, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    What’s presumptuous is a person who thinks that soliciting for their charitable fun run is virtuous.

  15. Anonymous
    June 14, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    If the “fun run” is to raise money for cancer research or school supplies, I’ll support it over helping to pay for a photo-op and an inflight movie.

  16. Cristina Bauss
    June 14, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    All the questions I might have asked have been asked already, except for… $1,300 and he’s not even leaving the country? Really? Now I have to go do some research. I’m pretty sure that for that kind of money, I can get to Rio or London AND back.

  17. June 14, 2011 at 7:34 pm

    That’s what struck me….$1300 for a ticket to D.C.? But….I just checked Kayak and a ticket to Dulles on United for next week is, in fact, around $1300. Which is nuts. Why not drive down to SFO and take Jet Blue? For which a fare next week is…$534. Hello?

    In any case, what the heck is he doing putting something he knows he can’t afford on his credit card and then expecting everyone else to pay for it?

    I might have made the same choice, but it would never have occurred to me to ask anyone else to pony up. It would be beans and tortillas time.

  18. tra
    June 14, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    Cristina,

    I think the issue is that the invitation was given with very short notice and thus the high cost of the ticket.

  19. Plain Jane
    June 14, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    I agree, Mitch. Some of the comments here are downright bizarre. If you want to help, do so. If you don’t or can’t, why bitch that others do? It won’t raise the unemployment rate or cut public works funding. Having a local progressive honored by the White House should be a matter of pride. The information he gains at these briefings may even be locally economically beneficent. Too bad Kaitlin, who was also honored with an invitation, is unable to attend due to prior commitments.

  20. Mitch
    June 14, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    I guess I just don’t see the world quite the same way as others… that should be no surprise.

    Unless the people who are alarmed at the audacity of asking for this money are also spending large portions of their lives fighting corruption in Washington, I remain mystified.

  21. Cristina Bauss
    June 14, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    I agree that the short notice is an issue. Nevertheless, the best fares on Bing right now – for a June 15 departure from SF and June 18 return from Washington – are about $630. Nothing against Shane (I don’t know him, don’t live in Arcata, and think this is a fantastic opportunity that can only benefit his constituents) but it looks like the young man needs to learn how to shop online for airfares!

  22. tra
    June 14, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    I have not yet seen anyone answer the question of whether these sorts of personal gifts to elected officials are, as a matter of law, required to be disclosed to the voters.

    If the names of the donors, and the amounts they have donated, are disclosed to the public iin a timely fashion, that would go a long way toward addressing my concerns. If not, I think that poses some real problems.

    Anybody got the answer to that question?

  23. Plain Jane
    June 14, 2011 at 8:03 pm

    According to Shane’s letter, he can accept up to $420 in gifts. If there is a requirement that they be reported, I’m sure he will follow the law to the letter.

    I’m thinking the $1,300 price of his “tickets” includes his hotel accommodations since I doubt they are letting him sleep in the Lincoln bedroom, but that’s just a guess.

  24. Mitch
    June 14, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    Not sure it answers your question, tra, but here’s the FPPC fact sheet, a mere google search away:

    http://www.fppc.ca.gov/factsheets/LocalOfficialsFactSheet.pdf

  25. Mitch
    June 14, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    And here’s some stuff from a Q&A on the FPPC’s Form 700. It is beyond me how anyone can be willing to hold public office:

    Q. Co-workers are hosting a retirement party for a public
    official before the official leaves office. Attendees
    will pay $45; $35 covers the event’s costs (food,
    decorations, etc.) and $10 goes toward a gift. One
    co-worker is collecting the funds and making the
    expenditures. What does the official report on his
    Form 700?
    A. The official discloses the amount that includes the total
    value of the gift, plus $35 (his pro rata share of the
    event’s cost). The source can be identified as “office
    staff” or “co-workers.” The names of individual donors
    are not required to be reported as long

  26. Mitch
    June 14, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    cut and paste snafu: “…as long as no individual
    contributed $50 or more.”

  27. June 14, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Great opportunity; and, the debt subsidy need after-the-purchase is, well….truly American.

    Kinda like gas money….ya travel a few hundred miles until ya beg where ya ran outta gas, then move-on again once the tank gets subsidized……the gypsy bus rolls along.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  28. tra
    June 14, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Thanks for the link, Mitch.

    If I’m reading the regs correctly, it looks like gifts over $50 get disclosed. That seems reasonable to me.

  29. June 14, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    Funny that some right-wingers have a problem with this when you consider how much the Koch Brothers contribute to the personal coffers of their hand-picked corporate-fascists.

  30. Spongy
    June 14, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    I’ll kick down some coin for Brinton if he’d agree to not use the return leg of the flight.

  31. Spongy
    June 14, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    While we’re at it lets all pass the hat for Amber Jamieson and James Shelton, the standup local environmental activists who will also be crying poor from their rooms at the federal pen.

  32. Anonymous
    June 14, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    OMG! Back your own water or get a cardboard sign.

  33. anonymous
    June 14, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    Shane…forever in high school. “Everybody listen to ME, send ME to DC, I’m smart… so they say. ”

    Hey Shane, hit up the liberal elites you suck up to and leave us real people alone.

    Go to bed now, Shaney. Big day tomorrow.

  34. Plain Jane
    June 14, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    It doesn’t take much to bring out the hater trolls.

  35. Mr. Nice
    June 14, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Hell yea send the Ice Cream Man to Chocolate City.

  36. Anonymous
    June 15, 2011 at 12:04 am

    All these haters are just jealous and angry. They also score horribly low in reader comprehension, as Shane was invited to the White House; he didn’t pay to go there. Also, an invitation to the White House only legitimizes Shane as a worthwhile politician. I don’t see any invites to other so-called Democrats in Humboldt…you know who you are.

  37. June 15, 2011 at 5:32 am

    I’m sorry I only had $25 to give. Until you’ve walked a mile in one’s shoes (or opened the invitation). God’s speed, Shane. Be a sponge, oh invited one.

  38. Walt
    June 15, 2011 at 5:48 am

    $1300. Are we being asked to subsidize Shane or United Airlines? Could he drive or take the train or bus?

  39. Anonymous
    June 15, 2011 at 6:27 am

    i think he did the same thing when he went to a socialist conference in S. America if i remember right. must have worked.

  40. Plain Jane
    June 15, 2011 at 6:38 am

    Not enough time, Walt.

  41. June 15, 2011 at 6:38 am

    This is an example of ‘passing the hat’. Many people do it to help others meet their goals. I had a dream that President Obama invited me to the White House, but it was a dream. . . .And, yes, airfares on short notice are that expensive. We are down to only one airline and we just had to buy round-trip tickets to Massachusetts on short notice and the tickets were almost $1,000 a piece and that was after ‘shopping around’ for the best price! Remember fuel is over $4.50/gallon. Have a marvelous time, Shane!

  42. June 15, 2011 at 7:39 am

    Just wrote a check for $25 and will post to facebook. If everyone gives a little, then you’ll get a lotta. . .

    Have a beautiful day!

    :)

  43. June 15, 2011 at 7:59 am

    Carol,

    What are Shane’s goals for others? Passing the hat is a bit different when the hat has to be filled to pay back previously incurred plastic debt knowing that the credit card used was an example of WHY corporate quasi American government bails-out consumer debtors and the individually connected….kinda like Obama’s house mortgage subsidy plan…….people who knowingly charge something as their own knowing they can’t pay for it, but government bails-out the selfish in order to keep “propped-up” false societal valuations and costs.

    At least gypsies have to wait and work-it before they can move along, since gypsies probably don’t do credit. The gypsies appear more “free market” than Shane is when it comes to “travel”. Is the vacation trip more about the community or more about a certain person’s political greeds for fame, glory, recognition and popularity. Certainly, there is no way to understand what occurs at the conference/reception since media is “locked-out” ~ sarcasm.

    Personally, Shane would look better to say, “I don’t need the popularity, especially when more pressing issues need resolve and wasting time, energy and tax dollars on some ceremony for newbies or youngin’s is inappropriate…..

    So, just think how much in tax dollars is wasted on these types of get-togethers when so many basic services need more funding – duopolists are quiet…….needle drops to floor………ping.

    Every little bit adds-up in terms of debt. SO, next time local funds are being gerrymandered to death, remember those little wastes of tax revenues that add up to a whole lotta debt. More federal spending means less local fundings – Shane better agree! Anyhow, seems Obama is in damage control and wants to “brainwash” ceremonially. Can’t wait for a “special” youngin’ to rip into the prez……cuz most “youngins” will just be falsely flabbergasted.

    Anyhow, what is the interest rate on Shane’s card…..the irony of debt finances and corporations directly tied to the issues liberals complain about – affordable housing, clean energy, transportation costs, healthier foods, etc…….

    Just curious…….. if Shane did not have a credit card, would he not be able to go?

    JL

  44. Mitch
    June 15, 2011 at 8:31 am

    Henchman,

    Try to imagine that you are a young elected official. You would benefit enormously from being able to network with other young elected officials with similar attitudes. You are offered an opportunity to do so — not just in Milwaukee, but at the White House. There’s a good likelihood of a photo with the President, which can only help your career.

    Unlike the vast majority of elected officials, you are not in the top half of the country in terms of personal wealth. In fact, to make ends meet you are holding down a job equivalent to waiting on tables.

    You don’t want to be beholden to any of the people you know who could instantly loan you a thousand dollars. What to do, what to do?

    Here’s an idea. Out in the open, ask those who know you and might care to help to chip in small amounts towards your plane fare. Go ahead and purchase the plane fare immediately, using the only economic option available to you, recognizing that one of the few valid uses of credit cards is to give yourself the flexibility to make a short-term investment in career advancement that will repay the investment handsomely, if there is no other route to make that short-term investment. Be careful, if it turns out no one is able to chip in, you’ll still be on the hook for the cash.

    Voila — even though you are not wealthy, you now have tickets to DC and have not taken a large sum of money from any individual.

    Unfortunately, the idea has a downside. Lots of people who can’t be bothered to say a word about the gazillions of dollars that cycle in and out of Washington to support Lockheed, ADM, and Big Pharma will suddenly be alarmed that you might get lots of $10 contributions to fund your trip, thus causing you to change your city council behavior. Hell, the local media is out to get you.

    Do a quick ethical self-check. There, that didn’t take long. “They” are jerks. You are choosing the most ethical route. You’re a pol, so you can’t say that out loud. But anyone who supports you will figure it out if they don’t know it already. Problem solved.

  45. Anonymous
    June 15, 2011 at 8:32 am

    So if you make a donation today, you’ll be automatically entered for a chance to be one of the four supporters to sit down with me for dinner. Please donate $45 or more today:

    https://donate.barackobama.com/Dinner-with-Barack

    We’ll pay for your flight and the dinner — all you need to bring is your story and your ideas about how we can continue to make this a better country for all Americans.

  46. High Finance
    June 15, 2011 at 8:39 am

    This is what happens when the voters hire children for grown up positions.

  47. Mitch
    June 15, 2011 at 8:42 am

    The oldest person to be elected President was Ronald Reagan, the youngest John F Kennedy.

    People like HiFi haven’t yet figured out what verb Reagan did to us. That’s OK, anyone who would vote for Shane Brinton already knows.

  48. huufc
    June 15, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Get a job and pay for it yourself, you beggar.

  49. June 15, 2011 at 8:57 am

    Mitch,

    history proves political networking only benefits the insiders, not you, myself or any other unfortunate citizen’s soul. I stand by what I stated!

    Hi Fi – unknowingly laments that grown-ups are child-kid-adults too since children grow older and some never convert to adulthood. Not that an adult should lose his or her’s inner childnesses on certain things, but politics ain’t for the weak-hearted and the faint, although at times more than often, failures are elected………history again and again proves voters to be stupid at many levels. The npoint of origin is usually local first.

    JL

  50. June 15, 2011 at 9:12 am

    High Finance says:
    June 15, 2011 at 8:39 am
    This is what happens when the voters hire children for grown up positions.

    Response: Hmmm, how senile are the senior citizen voters? Really, are not seniors continuing their own perpetrations based on their voting history? As I have said, many seniors don’t give a frack about voting since they are nearer to death than life. Seniors are as much separated from reality as the youngin’s are Hi-Fi, as seniors hold on to old, long time proven false ideologies. Further, seniors know SSI and Medicare won’t work because they never paid 100% into the funds, thus relying on others to “front” senior retirements above and beyond the justified “pay-outs”. SSI and MediCare are pyramidal schemes that rely and depend upon future losers to subsidize. The culprits are the elderly who expect more than their fair share; the youngin’s who expect it all; and, those who understand reality is the “Great Divide” that moats the ages.

    JL

  51. Anonymous
    June 15, 2011 at 9:43 am

    Might be good for Shane to get out of the HC. Too bad it is for such a short trip. Don’t however see why he shouldn’t pay for his own field trip though. Time to have a car wash, that’s what the other 6th graders do to pay for their trips to Washington.

  52. Plain Jane
    June 15, 2011 at 9:57 am

    For those whiners who aren’t being honored by President Obama with an invitation to the White House, if you aren’t donating why do you care? It’s legal, ethical, voluntary and transparent. Why should only rich people be able to accept honors bestowed due to their achievements? We need more working class people meeting with presidents and senior officials to remind them we exist, not fewer. Most of us will never receive such an honor and couldn’t afford to accept it if we did. Hating on Shane because he was invited and can attend with the help of his friends is disgustingly petty.

  53. Mitch
    June 15, 2011 at 10:07 am

    history proves political networking only benefits the insiders, not you, myself or any other unfortunate citizen’s soul. I stand by what I stated!

    As I recall, you recently ran for political office, Henchman. So which is it: if you’d got in, would networking have only benefited you, or would you have been an exception where Shane is not, or would you have declined to network with others?

  54. Not A Native
    June 15, 2011 at 10:13 am

    Gee, why doesn’t Shane just ‘act like an adult’ as some HumCo DINO’s have done, and catch a ride on a locally owned private jet?

    Then, he’d have no need to be openly public about his ambitions and methods. Only a few mature adults whose ‘business it is’ would know, leaving us kids in the dark. After all, it’s the adult thing to keep kids ‘innocent’, believing in fairy tales and Santa Claus.

  55. Mitch
    June 15, 2011 at 10:35 am

    NaN,

    Who?

  56. Plain Jane
    June 15, 2011 at 10:42 am

    Wasn’t it Bass on Arkley’s private jet?

  57. The Big Picture
    June 15, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Bass was required to report her trip to a Bush fundraiser funded by Arkley on his private jet. She was required to report it due to its size from one donor.

    Welfare is great when it goes to your team.

    Best of luck Shane, my check is in the mail. If a new generation of progressives learn how to speak truth to power, maybe they can retain what remains of the U.S. Treasury for the public interest.

    We surely failed.

  58. tra
    June 15, 2011 at 11:49 am

    Given that Any donations over $50 will be disclosed to the public, the concerns I expressed upthread have been addressed. Although this fundraising is a bit unusual, as P.J. noted, it is noetheless legal, voluntary and transparent.

    And I agree that it would be a shame if the only young elected officials who could attend this event were those who had a lot of disposable income or personal or family wealth.

    So, as I wrote in my very first comment on this thread:

    I think it’s great that he’s been invited to the White House and I hope he enjoys his trip and makes good use of the opportunity for learning and networking.

  59. Anonymous
    June 15, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    tra – The fundraising is not unusual. What is unusual is that it is this transparent, and thus you know about it. IMHO this is a good thing and shows real integrity on the part of Mr. Brinton.

  60. Anonymous
    June 15, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    When is Shane going to grow up, move out of Mommy’s house and get a real job? And isn’t his girlfriend Kaitlin and boyfriend David Cobb picking up his tab for their jet-set trips around the country on the non-profit feeding trough circuit?

  61. Plain Jane
    June 15, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    1:00 is a perfect example of how many smears a hater can pack into one sentence.

  62. Anonymous
    June 15, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    PJ are you for this practice, or are you for SB. I bet even with the hate he came out ok for the effort, just like holding a sign on the corner. Since this is public and reportable info maybe we can get the results later and dissect just how well his fund raising efforts were this week. Is he required to list donors names? Could be fun.

  63. Joel Mielke
    June 15, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    When are you going to grow up, Anonymous 1:00, and have the guts to use your name when you attack people?

  64. Kubla
    June 15, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    Shane has always been a good friend of the GLBT community. I wish I could afford more than the $25 I just mailed to him.

  65. June 15, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    Help send Shane! Robin and I sent a few hundred for the cause and challenge “progressives” to do the same. That is quite a few buffets I am skipping for the cause.

    (Disclaimer: Shane I disagree on policy and candidates, but as far as social values and democratic principles we are very much in line.)

  66. Joel Mielke
    June 15, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    That’s really putting your money where your mouth is.

  67. Plain Jane
    June 15, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    I am 100% FOR this practice, 4:28. I don’t know what SB means.

  68. tra
    June 15, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    P.J.,

    I think in this context SB means Shane Brinton.

    If by “this practice” you mean people making cash donations directly to the pesonal accounts of elected officials for the personal use of those elected officials, then I have to admit I’m still not thrilled about it.

    In the present case it’s not all that much money, I trust the integrity of the individual who is receiving it, and it seems like a good cause, so in this case I don’t think it’s a big deal…but in general I think elected officials accepting direct cash donations to their personal accounts is not a great idea.

    I wouldn’t feel too comfortable about an elected official whose integrity I was not so confident of who recieved, let’s say, 100 donations of $420 each, to be used for general living expenses or whatever they want. The problem is, it seems that legally there would be no distinction between what Shane is doing and the hypothetical situation I just described — both would be legal under the current law. But in the latter case I think it would certainly create, at the very least, an appearance that the elected official was “bought and paid for” by the group of 100 donors and, in the worst case a situation where these donors would in fact have undue influence. I guess since any donations over $50 have to be disclosed, then voters could take that into consideration when they decided whether or not to support that candidate in the next election…but a lot of damage could be done in the meantime.

    However, I recognize that the scenario I’m describing is only a hypothetical, and, as Mitch pointed out there are plenty of more-pressing, and very real, instances of money influencing politics. So, perhaps as a practical matter it doesn’t really matter, but from an “ethical best practices” standpoint I’m not thrilled with the fact that gifts up to $420 are allowed. I really don’t see any good reason why elected officials should be collecting gifts of hundreds of dollars in cash for their personal use. If the limit was substantially lower I think that would be better, and still would not preclude the kind of grassroots “passing the hat” for a particular purpose that Shane seems to be doing here.

    I’d just like to add that Anonymous @1:00 pm is obviously a slithering lowlife not worthy of further comment.

  69. June 16, 2011 at 12:09 am

    True on the 1:00 pm comment.

    No problem with accepting legal donations either IF REPORTED.

    Yet, the charge card methodology to panhandling for debt service is still truly American – using credit cards knowing you can’t pay and depending on others to pay it for you or any other expenses in the endeavor that are shifted away from the credit card transaction. I hope Mr. Brinton drives this point home to Obama……that he could not be there in D.C. if he could not use his credit card irresponsibly.

    Yet, federal events like this cost tax revenues that could be better spent for basic needs and basic services. It all adds up, so maybe all elected officials will consider that when negotiating over “nickles and dimes” to approve this budget item, or that budget item…..

    JL

  70. Not A Native
    June 16, 2011 at 1:39 am

    Look tra, if Shane had been in a car crash and an account was set up to help him financially would you say, don’t contribute because he’s an elected official? The fact is reason elected officials don’t ask for money in the way Shane has because they are much more affluent and can meet all their transportation and personal expenses( some sayt one reason they are more affluent is because of business deals they get in on because they are, ahem ‘well known’) and because they have affluent personal ‘friends’ who are willing and able to ‘help them out’ quietly in any times of personal need beyond their means.

    To castigate Shane in any way for this is promulgating an elitist ideal that political officeholders are above needing personal financial help from the general public(because its expected they get any they need from their well heeled networks).

  71. Plain Jane
    June 16, 2011 at 5:30 am

    To further clarify my views on this issue, I don’t think helping a local politician accept an invitation to receive an honor, meet the president and attend briefings on issues of importance to our community is the same as paying their living expenses. It’s too bad that such invitations don’t come with tickets and sleeping accommodations that would enable more regular people to attend these functions; but since they don’t, there is nothing wrong with people donating the money to pay for it so long as it is within the legal limits and properly reported. We should be doing everything we can to encourage young people with high ideals in politics to counter the corrupt cynics who are so prevalent.

  72. Anonymous
    June 16, 2011 at 6:28 am

    Shhme on you Richard

  73. Anonymous
    June 16, 2011 at 6:36 am

    briefings on issues important to our community? right.

  74. Percy
    June 16, 2011 at 7:05 am

    If we had a Republican administration and Shane was a young Republican holding office, the Chamber of Commerce and several rich donors would be all over each other making sure that Shane had his trip paid. What a bunch of hypocrites you right wingers truly are.

  75. Anonymous
    June 16, 2011 at 7:16 am

    “I wouldn’t feel too comfortable about an elected official whose integrity I was not so confident of who recieved, let’s say, 100 donations of $420 each, to be used for general living expenses or whatever they want. The problem is, it seems that legally there would be no distinction between what Shane is doing and the hypothetical situation I just described.”

    There is one big distinction. He will be at the White House as a member of the Arcata City Council, not as an ice cream server.

  76. Mitch
    June 16, 2011 at 7:35 am

    NaN @ 1:39,

    I agree completely. This is totally a class issue.

    tra,

    You may be confusing the country our civic textbooks describe with the United States. I think wide public solicitation of small donations is far more ethical than the standard approaches. Other local politicians, including some apparently well-loved ones, have received far more benefit in far less transparent and grass-roots ways, and the FPPC went through Scalian (sorry to use obscene language) obfuscations and denials in order to let them pass.

  77. June 16, 2011 at 8:18 am

    LIST ME AS A DONORCastigating Shane for youth seems unfair. Calling him

    a kid?As a kid, he ran for schoolboard with negative help from Hank Sims–

    and he won.yNow, on Arcata Council, he takes stands on the First Amendent

    with an OpEd on outsourcing Recycling. Keep growing and learning. Shane!!!

    Solidarity Forever==Raging Granny

  78. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 8:44 am

    To castigate Shane in any way…

    I didn’t. Read more carefully.

  79. Mitch
    June 16, 2011 at 8:48 am

    tra,

    True.

  80. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 8:50 am

    This is totally a class issue…. I think wide public solicitation of small donations is far more ethical than the standard approaches

    I agree that this is a “class issue,” but perhaps not quite in the way that you think. I don’t think $420 is a “small” amount of money to most people. It’s certainly not an amount mmost people could afford to give, nor is it an amount most of us would think to ask our friends for. As I wrote above, if the limit was smaller, I think that would be better.

  81. Anonymous
    June 16, 2011 at 8:54 am

    $420 is the maximum. You make it sound like the minimum.

  82. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 9:02 am

    If we had a Republican administration and Shane was a young Republican holding office, the Chamber of Commerce and several rich donors would be all over each other making sure that Shane had his trip paid. What a bunch of hypocrites …

    And I supect some of the commenters here would be a bit less sanguine about the solicitation of $400 donations. The “hypocrisy” charge kinda cuts both ways, dontcha think?

  83. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 9:11 am

    $420 is the maximum. You make it sound like the minimum.

    No, you may be hearing it that way, but that’s not what I said.

    You know what? Forget it. If you feel compelled to twist my words into something other than my plain meaning, go for it.

    Meanwhile, if Shane is reading this thread, I’m confident that he’s smart enough to understand what I’m saying, as well as what I’m not saying.

  84. Mitch
    June 16, 2011 at 9:14 am

    As someone else pointed out, tra, the solicitation was not for $400 donations. And, as you discovered, there appear to be reporting requirements on donations above (at?) $50.

    My guess is that most contributions will be for under $50.

    If you have a problem with the $420 limit, you’ll have an opportunity to see who has contributed $50 or more.

  85. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 9:28 am

    As someone else pointed out, tra, the solicitation was not for $400 donations.

    Yes, the solicitation was for donations of up to $420.

    So to re-write that paragraph:

    And I supect some of the commenters here would be a bit less sanguine about the solicitation of donations up to $420. The “hypocrisy” charge kinda cuts both ways, dontcha think?

    Note that the substitution does not change the point I was making in that paragraph.

  86. Mitch
    June 16, 2011 at 9:32 am

    tra,

    More. Unless I’m reading it wrong, the $420 limit is on any gifts received by a candidate or elected official or family member for ANY reason except wedding gifts, which are still reportable.

    So if you are an elected official and anyone gives you or your wife or your child a gift valued at more than $420, it must be returned. Graduation laptop — sorry, no. You seriously want to see that limit reduced?

    I agree with what you said earlier: if $50 or up is reportable, that pretty much satisfies any concerns I’ve got. But we disagree about the appropriateness of the solicitation: I think it is a far superior approach to the standard ones, and I think that being able to solicit in this way is one of the few ways that less wealthy people can both serve and have a fighting chance of being able to do typical job-related things that more-wealthy people are able to do without a second thought.

  87. Mitch
    June 16, 2011 at 9:39 am

    tra,

    Come on. The solicitation was for people to chip in to cover a $1,300 expense. Presumably, it went to a wide audience before being plastered on the Humboldt Herald. The solicitation included a warning that more than $420 was not acceptable.

    I don’t read that as a solicitation for donations of up to $420. I read that as a wide solicitation for small contributions (no more than double-digit), along with a dotting your i’s and crossing your t’s warning.

    Few people, seeing a solicitation for $1,300, are going to say to themselves, “hmmm, I’ll chip in $400.” And, again, such contributions are reported. But lots of people are going to be willing to join in with 50-100 others to kick Shane $10 or $15 or $50.

  88. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 9:39 am

    You seriously want to see that limit reduced?

    Yes. But I very much doubt it will be. So if I were you I wouldn’t worry about it.

  89. Plain Jane
    June 16, 2011 at 9:44 am

    The hypocrisy is from the people who saw no problem with Roger Rodoni receiving a bargain rate on a ranch lease from Pacific Lumber for many years and Virginia Bass accepting rides to political fundraisers for other politicians on Arkley’s private jet, but who are whining about tiny donations from multiple people trying to help Shane accept the honor of an invitation to the White House. If you can’t understand the difference, you probably don’t want to.

  90. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 9:44 am

    I don’t read that as a solicitation for donations of up to $420.

    He solicited for donations, noted that the limit is $420, and didn’t mention any other self-imposed limit, and yet you “don’t read that as a solicitation for donations of up to $420?” Okay, I give up.

  91. Plain Jane
    June 16, 2011 at 9:46 am

    Noting the legal limit so that people wouldn’t send more than than isn’t the same as soliciting $420, Tra.

  92. Mitch
    June 16, 2011 at 9:48 am

    tra,

    Sorry, tra. We really do see this one differently.

    I’m confident I’d feel the same way even if Shane were a right-winger invited to the Bush White House. (I’d probably be somewhat more impressed because, as I said, I think this is a superior approach to what I’d expect a right-winger to do, and I’d be somewhat taken aback that a right-winger felt the need to ask for small contributions in public.) Feel free to scoff if you can’t believe me.

  93. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 9:57 am

    P.J.,

    I was critical of Rodoni for his sweetheart deal with Pacific Lumber, and I see an obvious difference of scale between that and what we’re discussing here.

    But the difference between what we’re discussing here, and the free airplane rides that Bass got is not quite so obvious to me….but I don’t remember all the details on that, so maybe there were some big differences that I’m not recalling. I do remember that some of the same arguments were made by Bass’s defenders, namely that there was nothing illegal about the gift, that it was disclosed to the public, and that Bass was a moderate-income “working class” person who otherwise would have been unable to attend.

  94. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 10:07 am

    Noting the legal limit so that people wouldn’t send more than than isn’t the same as soliciting $420, Tra.

    He solicited gifts. He mentioned no limit other than the $420 limit. Therefore he solicited gifts of any size, up to a limit of $420.

  95. Plain Jane
    June 16, 2011 at 10:09 am

    Do you really think a round trip ride on a private jet is worth less than $420, Tra? Do you really equate small donations from many people with a large one from our richest and most politically controlling resident? Brinton was honored with this invitation because he is a young elected official and, as such, it is much more connected to his duties than attending a fundraiser for other candidates. You work so hard to appear reasonable that sometimes you seem incapable of rational discrimination.

  96. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Feel free to scoff if you can’t believe me.

    I’m more than willing to believe you, Mitch. The “hypocrisy” remark was not a personal attack directed at you, merely an observation that I think that at least some folks would be reacting differently if the soliciter was an elected official they didn’t like. Maybe I’m wrong about that…but I don’t think I am.

  97. June 16, 2011 at 11:10 am

    tra,

    I believe that generally what you last stated is correct.

    Plain Jane says:
    June 16, 2011 at 9:44 am
    The hypocrisy is from the people who saw no problem with Roger Rodoni receiving a bargain rate on a ranch lease from Pacific Lumber for many years and Virginia Bass accepting rides to political fundraisers for other politicians on Arkley’s private jet, but who are whining about tiny donations from multiple people trying to help Shane accept the honor of an invitation to the White House. If you can’t understand the difference, you probably don’t want to.

    Response: Was the rent established prior or during Rodoni’s supervisor tenure? The answer is what ends the conversation PJ in so far as argueability of that matter is concerned.

    JL

  98. skippy
    June 16, 2011 at 11:18 am

    “That’s pathetic,” skippy’s wife said over a lovely dinner last night. “He has no real breadth of experience, qualifications, and observations, nor could he possibly have anything of substance to offer– nothing to bring to the table regarding policy, issues, networking, or even a larger and experienced view.” Ouch.

    “That’s exactly why he should go,” I said.

    The Times-Standard reported today:
    “Arcata City Councilman Shane Brinton will meet with members of the Obama administration and attend a reception hosted by President Barack Obama.

    Brinton, a member of the Young Elected Officials Network, is among a small group of network members who were invited to the White House to discuss state and local issues. According to the councilman, he’s eager to hear what the Obama administration’s plans are for federal housing programs over the years.

    ”These are tough times for working families here on the North Coast and around the country,” he said. “It is more important than ever that we invest in successful housing programs.” Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, president of the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District board, was also invited to the White House as a member of the Young Elected Officials Network, but declined due to prior obligations.”

    Mr. Hoover of the Arcata Eye added:
    “Arcata City Councilmember Shane Brinton will travel to Washington, D.C. Friday to meet with members of the Obama administration and attend an intimate reception with the president. Brinton is one of a small number of members of… a national network of young progressives in elected office, who were invited to the White House to discuss important issues facing states and localities.

    ‘I’m particularly eager to hear the administration’s plans for federal housing programs over the next few years,’ said Brinton. ‘These are tough times for working families here on the North Coast and around the country. It is more important than ever that we invest in successful housing programs like HOME and CDBG, rather than slashing them. I am grateful for this opportunity to represent our community in Washington, D.C. and I want to make sure our concerns are heard.’

    The Young Elected Officials Network, a project of People For the American Way Foundation, provides support and training for over 600 progressive state, county and city elected officials from all 50 states. ‘We are thrilled to be able to take the observations and concerns of so many young, progressive elected officials to President Obama and the Administration,’ said Andrew Gillum, executive director of the Young Elected Officials Network. ‘These young leaders are on the front lines of progressive change, fighting for the values of fairness, equality and opportunity in their home communities.'”

    …Have a good trip tomorrow, Shane. Every person should have an opportunity to visit Washington, learn, represent, and experience the larger world outside of Humboldt.

  99. Migh Finances
    June 16, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Only Richard Marks “gets it”.

    Shane must be relentlessly and personally ridiculed, satirized and opposed at all costs! If we allow ONE progressive the chance to prove himself, it will invite others to be successful. Atkins is next!

    Bass knew the FPPC was probably unwilling to investigate her small-town failure to report Arkley’s large donation to attend a Bush fundraiser, our republican party has been successfully cutting the FPPC budget for years.

    For our friends: EVERYTHING, for our enemies: THE LAW.

  100. Not A Native
    June 16, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Two things are for sure; tra is both in doubt here and wrong.

    But by his postings on the recent Fieldbrook takedown, he’s quite confident in his knowledge of the prices local illegal pot growers are getting and the number of pounds of pot that outdoor plants yield versus indoor. I for one defer completely to tra’s pot knowledge. Its clearly the area where he has unquestionable expertise.

  101. Mitch
    June 16, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    It’s great to be a bully during times of prohibition, isn’t it?

    Anytime anyone disagrees with you, all you have to do is insinuate they’re breaking the prohibition laws.

    It’s really an ideal situation for bullies — many if not most people in Humboldt with disposable cash have it, one way or another, because of the pot industry. Toe the bullies’ line and nobody says a word. Offend a bully, and someone starts dropping implications.

    That’s probably the most important way in which prohibition corrodes the integrity of a community.

  102. Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap
    June 16, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Seriously?

    The tickets are so expensive because Shane has to fly out of Arcata because he can’t go down to San Francisco because he can’t get more days off work – both because he needs the money and because he doesn’t want to leave his boss or co-workers in the lurch.

    The White House gave less than a weeks notice for this invitation, and then you have to factor in a few days to figure out if you can cover work, life obligations, etc, because it is not like you’ve been sitting around eating bon bons just waiting for opportunities like this to fall in your lap.

    Thanks to everyone who has noted that this is a total class issue, and also thanks to everyone who made a contribution.

    It is amazing to me how unsupportive of young leadership so many in Humboldt County are. Thanks a lot – leave us a mess of an earth to clean up and then complain at those who step up and try to make things better than how we found it.

    I wasn’t going to say anything, but the comments here are beyond discouraging. It is a wonder that anyone ever runs for local office or tries to contribute to our community at all.

    Just once wouldn’t it be nice to see a blog post where no one had mean or spiteful things to say?

    You’d think one of our low income young people getting a great opportunity and being able to take it due to the generosity of their friends and neighbors would be a good thing.

    Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap

  103. June 16, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    I would like to address a few of the legitimate questions and concerns that have come up here. Contributions will be reported on my Form 700 as required by law. This is a public document. Most of the contributions were under $100. Just to be clear: I never asked people for $420 donations — I was simply making them aware of the law.

    I would have preferred to fly out of San Francisco, rather than Arcata, but I could not get more time off of work. It was a last-minute invitation. I had a hard enough time finding people to cover the two shifts that I will have to miss.

    In regards to Ross Rowley’s comment, I don’t believe that the world revolves around elected officials. I don’t feel entitled to your money. I’m just trying to raise some funds to take advantage of this opportunity. Please keep in mind that this email was sent out to friends and supporters. It’s not private, but it was intended for a specific audience. I did not ask Heraldo to post it here.

    Finally, thank you to everyone that contributed. I greatly appreciate the support. I have raised the money to pay for my trip, so I am no longer soliciting contributions.

  104. Anonymous
    June 16, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    I too was disappointed by the level of negativity expressed by people posting here. People who profess to be interested in the welfare of our area. How can Shane attending this event be a bad thing? If you don’t agree with his politics, don’t wish to support this type of solicitation and/or simply begrudge him the opportunity, don’t contribute. But don’t make it into something it’s not…just silly. Good post, Kaitlin and hope it’s a great experience, Shane.

  105. Plain Jane
    June 16, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    I saw it on a friend’s Facebook and thought some Heraldites might like to contribute. I’m hoping Shane will write an op-ed or something about the experience (and feeling just a little envy).

  106. Not A Native
    June 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    No Mitch, the community is corroded by profit seeking criminals who intimidate their neighbors while claiming they promote civil liberty. And for young people, they provide the same dysfunctional role models as do inner city gangs and drug dealers. They’re the real bullies. Bad neighbors who threaten communities and by necessity bring violence.

    I’m sure the Somali pirates also claim they’re seeking justice and are bringing economic prosperity. You think they’re freedom fighters, Mitch? Trading in contraband corrodes any community. Now that 215 allows legal access, traffickers have no valid claim that they are promoting civil liberty. Pot for patients is a joke to them, they’re completely about pot for profit.

  107. Mitch
    June 16, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    No, NaN, I don’t think growers are freedom fighters, though I’d be far more likely to trust a grower than to trust a bankster.

    My point wasn’t about grower behavior, it was about yours. I think scattering insinuations when you disagree with what a person has to say is disgusting behavior. The availability of such options is due to the widespread dismissal of a set of laws which the community widely agrees are idiotic. The exploitation of such options is behavior normally engaged in by schmucks.

    Your comment was the second example of it I’ve seen in the past few months — the previous one was worthy of a libel suit, but the victim probably realized it would just end up scattering mud on his or her self.

  108. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    P.J. said: Do you really think a round trip ride on a private jet is worth less than $420, Tra?

    If you have to share the trip with Rob Arkley, then I’d say yes, it’s worth a lot less than $420!

    Hell, I’d pay good money to not have to share a private plane ride with Mr. Arkley!

    ;)

    But seriously, I’m not sure how to arrive at the value of a trip on the private plane. I guess the easiest way to come up with a figure would be to find out the average ticket price for a commercial flight to the same destination. On the other hand, a private plane can certainly be a lot more convenient in some ways. Depending on the plane it might be a much more spacious, comfortable seat, or much less. In the case of Arkley’s plane, I’m guessing it’s more comfortable than coach class, maybe similar to first class. On the other other hand, small planes are also quite a bit more dangerous, not to mention a bumpier ride, so I suppose there’s that to consider.

  109. Not A Native
    June 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    I don’t think ‘the community’ widely agrees with your assertion, Mitch. I didn’t hear one peep of criticism of the Fieldbrook raid.

    But all the time I hear calls for greater enforcement of existing pot laws and more local regulations of 215 pot commerce. And I live in Arcata, which has a reputation for locally being the most dismissive of laws.

    And as to libel, you’re no jurist Mitch and have no knowledge of what constitutes libel. If your supposed ‘victim’ is worried about damning facts coming out publically through legal discovery, its not libel but ‘uncomfortable truths’ that are no longer suppressed and denied.

  110. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    Two things are for sure; tra is both in doubt here and wrong

    Yes, I doubt that it is, in general, a good idea for elected officials to be allowed to solicit and accept cash donations as large as $420 for their personal use.

    At the same time, I doubt that in this case the gifts are going to have any corrupting effect on Mr. Brinton.

    I also doubt that the reaction of at least some of the commenters on this blog would be the same if the elected official soliciting and receiving the gifts was an elected official who they don’t like, respect, or trust as much as they do Mr. Brinton.

    And, finally, I thought NAN might have eased up on his habit of making silly and groundless ad hominem attacks, so I must admit that I was wrong about that.

    What can I say…nobody’s perfect!

  111. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Shane said: Just to be clear: I never asked people for $420 donations…

    You asked for donations. You did not mention any limit other than the $420 legal limit. I think a fair interpretation of your solicitation is that you asked for donations of any amount up to $420.

  112. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    Kaitlin,

    I agree that some of the comments here have been nasty personal attacks on Shane. But, to look on the bright side, the nasties probably motivated some of Shane’s supporters to go ahead and make a donation, or to make one a little larger than they otherwise would have. Instant Karma!

    ;)

  113. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    Shane said: I would like to address a few of the legitimate questions and concerns that have come up here.

    Thank you for acknowledging that some of the questions and concerns are legitimate. I hope you have a safe, enjoyable, and productive trip.

  114. Mitch
    June 16, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    NaN,

    I’m not sure what “assertion” I’ve made. I don’t think the laws sending people who grow pot to jail solely for growing pot are wise, but you may well disagree. I think my opinion is a relatively common one here. I may be wrong.

    I don’t believe I’ve stated anything either for or against growers per se. My assertion that I’d trust a grower more than I’d trust a bankster is a statement of fact. If all I knew about two people was that one was a bankster and one was a grower, I’d rather put my life in the hands of the grower. I think many standards of “respectability” and “decency” are seriously flawed, but I know a crook when I see one.

    My comments, once again, were not out of any particular interest one way or another with respect to pot or pot growers. They were with respect to *your* behavior here, in this comment thread, in which you launched an ad hominem attack on someone because they disagreed with you about a topic unrelated to pot. I stand by everything I said about that behavior.

  115. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 9:00 pm

    Mitch,

    It seems to be important to NAN, for some reason, to try to connect me to the cannabis industry. It’s been a common theme for several years now in these comment threads. At first I found it annoying, then funny, then kind of sad, but lately I’m back to finding it rather amusing again.

    At any rate,t I wouldn’t want readers of this thread to miss out on what NAN generously refers to as the “unquestionable expertise” about the pot industry that I shared on the Lost Coast Outpost thread.

    So, here’s what I said about prices:

    “Street value” and wholesale prices are two different things.

    Here’s what I said about yield:

    Large outdoor plants can yield up to 4 or 5 lbs each.

    Pretty amazing stuff, eh? With such detailed insider knowledge, perhaps I could go teach a course at the Cannabis College in Oakland!

  116. Cristina Bauss
    June 16, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    Thank you, Shane and Kaitlin, for the responses. Shane, have a splendid trip to DC.

  117. Anonymous
    June 16, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    Tra – Do you have any idea what Arkley’s planes cost to fly? And let me qualify those planes as jets! It’s extremely expensive and, if you were to divide the cost by the number of passengers, it would far exceed the cost of a commercial flight. However, you have to consider the possibility that the Arkley plane was heading to whatever destination in the first place, and that whoever is going along is just an “add on.” In that case, technically, the cost of their flight is zero. It’s very hard to accurately compare the two situations.

  118. Jon Brooks
    June 16, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    ‘Shane, come back, come back, Shane’………. from the movie – Shane.

    Shane; have a productive trip, and please come back at least a little bit wiser. I’m happy to help out, modest though my support may be. I encourage others of modest means, or otherwise, to do the same. .

  119. Jon Brooks
    June 16, 2011 at 11:22 pm

    And, Kaitlin, don’t get discouaraged. I appreciate good water, thank you and keep up the good work.

  120. tra
    June 16, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    Tra – Do you have any idea what Arkley’s planes cost to fly? And let me qualify those planes as jets! It’s extremely expensive and, if you were to divide the cost by the number of passengers, it would far exceed the cost of a commercial flight. However, you have to consider the possibility that the Arkley plane was heading to whatever destination in the first place, and that whoever is going along is just an “add on.” In that case, technically, the cost of their flight is zero. It’s very hard to accurately compare the two situations..

    I agree that it’s very hard to accurately compare the two situations, though I differ with you on the reason why it’s hard. I believe that as far as the law is concerned, the issue is the “value” of the trip, not the “cost.” In that sense, how much it cost or didn’t cost Arkley isn’t the issue, it’s how much it saved Bass.

    For example, if I built a bicycle, and it cost me $1,000 to produce it, but, since it was a poorly-built clunker, the market value of it was only $10, and then I donated this bicycle to a candidate, then I think it would be considered a $10 gift, not a $1,000 gift.

    Similarly, if I found a gold coin on the beach (costing me nothing) and its market value was determined to be $1,000, and I donated it to a candidate, then despite the fact that it cost me nothing, it would nonetheless be considered a gift with a “value” of $1,000.

    But, for the reasons I outlined above, it’s not all that obvious to me how the candidate, the FPPC, or anyone else would decide exactly what the “value” of a private plane ride is.

    Which tends to support the point that Plain Jane was making, namely that Bass’s trip on Arkley’s plane is significantly different than the cash gifts to Shane. So upon reflection, I’d have to agree that, even just in terms of dislosure, Bass’s acceptance of Arkley’s gift was more problematic.

  121. Anonymous
    June 17, 2011 at 12:27 am

    Shane did you ask your hero Fidel for some help?

  122. Anonymous
    June 17, 2011 at 6:13 am

    One thing is for certain. Cash gifts are much easier to quantify than goods and services. One exception is the John Edwards case.

    Tra made a lot of sense with his post. Lots of friends ride the Arkley jet. I don’t know if it makes a difference whether they were already going somewhere legally, but they tended (when they were using the jet anyway) to allow friends to hitch a ride when there was room. As far as the actual costs, it probably doesn’t matter, as far as the Fair Political Practices Commission is concerned, but this way of travel is very, very expensive.

  123. Mitch
    June 17, 2011 at 7:36 am

    Anyone who has actually read the tortured logic and willful ignorance offered up in the FPPC decision regarding the lease of a local ranch will understand that the FPPC must not in any way be mistaken for an agency enforcing the law.

    In general, that’s a major problem. People think a government watchdog exists because several letters have been allocated for a name, and there are people being paid. What actually exists may be more like a hole down which money may be shoveled in order to maintain the illusion that a watchdog is on the job.

  124. Ross Rowley
    June 17, 2011 at 9:50 am

    Kaitlyn and Shane, that’s the ugliness of blog posting, people shoot from the hip without thinking about the self-propelled passion of their comments. Then, there are counter attacks followed by hurt feelings. All under the guise of anonymity. I have apologized many times to fellow posters when the discussion turns into personal attacks. And, I am apologizing to you now. I will have to put an emphasis on Heraldo’s byline at the top of this very blog. “Provoking Humboldt County since 2006” And, there you have it. Provoking leads to blog readership. Welcome to the new media.

    My point is, no matter which side of the political spectrum they reside in, no matter what their income level is, why do we feel elected officials are elevated members of our society?

    When we believe that, they become empowered to entitlement. Sports stars, corporate CEO’s, media entertainers and evangelists, seem to all have that same sense of entitlement to receive special treatment from the populace. Is it because they are adored for their charismatic appeal? It’s not from their individual hard work. There are countless members of our society who work hard (and harder) for the betterment of the community. I believe it’s the celebrity status elected officials receive when they are featured daily in the media. (Name your media poison) What ever happened to just being a good and gracious quiet civil servant like our elected officials used to be?

    Would you contribute to send a local celebrated mural artist off to a prestigious art conference because his work greatly benefits our society?

    Would you contribute to send a young part-time coach of a north coast champion sports team to a conference with Major League coaches because her work greatly benefits the youth of our society?

    Would you contribute to buy an airline ticket to a White House advocacy conference for a Kiwanis, Rotary or Soropomist member, who gives her or his time and money to help feed local school children.

    Probably not, to all of the above, since their asking for cash to benefit their attendance at such a conference could be misconstrued as a personal or club achievement or a resume builder.

    If an elected official, any elected official, feels a desire to go to the White House or to any other information gathering event to better themselves, perhaps they could go ahead and put the bill on their credit card and then work to pay off the balance like the rest of our society does it. It’s not an income class issue. It’s a personal issue. If you want something, you pay for it. Local people are paying for and flying to conferences out of Arcata every week of the year to bring back information that benefits our greater society, be it plumbers, law enforcement officials, service organizations, medical personnel, educators and auto salesmen. They just don’t have the same celebrity status, and seemingly, sense of entitlement that politicians/elected officials receive thanks to the media. Whaddya gonna do…

  125. June 17, 2011 at 11:45 am

    Ross,

    Thanks for your apology.

    But actually folks do ask friends and family for contributions for examples just like the ones you outlined. Same here – Shane didn’t ask that his announcement be posted publicly – we sent it to our friends and family.

    The difference is that as an elected official there is a limit on the amount he can accept, and all contributions will be made public. I don’t disagree with this at all, but I just want to point out that it is actually a way that elected officials are held to a higher standard, and our lives are more public than others. As it should be.

    Kaitlin SB

  126. Regualr American
    June 17, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    The Political life is similar to the Ivory Tower. People and business basically have balanced-budgets. When they do not, we find ourselves over-indebted and in the economic mess we are currently experiencing. For government, going in debt is a annual experience. Spending other people’s money is a daily experience. And taking other people’s money is a daily experience. Whether they want to give it away or not. So, culturally politicians are operating out of a different playbook than regular tax payers. We send Mr. Smith to Washington to “clean up the cess pool”, but on the way they take a dip at the Hot Tub on the Hill and then run for endless re-election and the ‘ol cess pool never gets “cleaned up.” One thing that ticks me off about liberals is it is year 2001 and we still do not have what Charles Mansion and what every Congress person have: free health care. Why do Charlie and Rep Weiner get better health care than working Americans?

  127. Plain Jane
    June 17, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    Exactly, Regualr American! It’s all the damn liberals fault we still don’t have free health care. Hopefully the conservatives will take over and we’ll have it by 2011. :D

  128. Regualr American
    June 17, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    2011

  129. Regular American
    June 17, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    PJ. I have no hope for the Republican party to obtain Health Care for all Americans. If the Dems don’t do it, (sigh) it’s not going to happen until a populist movement forces the issue.

  130. tra
    June 17, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    RA,

    At this point the Republicans have a majority in the House, the Dems barely have a majority in the Senate (and some of those are Liebermanesque DINOs), so the Dems simply don’t have the votes to pass a real Universal Health Care bill even if they wanted to (and even the admittedly weak health care reforms passed last year are under attack from the Republicans and Republidems).

    So it’s definitely going to be a while, and you’re right that it’s up to a populist movement to make it happen at some point down the line. Hopefully this will within our lifetimes (or at least within our children’s lifetimes!), but there’s certainly no guarantee.

  131. Regular American
    June 17, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    To be clear; “liberal politician” = slightly higher minimum wage than Republicans, a little cleaner air and water than Republicans, wars without waterboarding, etc.
    “Progressive person” = Fair wages, fair trade, good schools for all Americans, clean air & water for all Americans, Universal health care for all Americans, no more war, etc.

  132. Regular American
    June 17, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    Regarding Congress: They have a non-contributory full family medical plan, including 100% prescription drug coverage, with no copayments and no deductible. If they serve more than 1 1/2 terms they get it as a retirement benefit for life at no cost.

  133. Plain Jane
    June 17, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    That isn’t true, Regular American. Their retirement and benefits are the same as for any other federal employee, based on years of service. They choose from the same slate of insurances and pay the difference if the plan they choose is more expensive. They also pay co-pays and deductibles just like everyone else.

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

  134. tra
    June 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    I think thay perhaps the overall point RA was trying to make was that Congess members get a much better health plan than most of their constituents, and are certainly much better off in terms of health insurance than the tens of millions of uninsured Americans.

  135. Walt
    June 18, 2011 at 6:12 am

    If this were a government that represented HUMAN persons, elected officials so eager to cut back wages, Social Security, Medicare, collective bargaining rights and education would have their own wages and bennies cut first.

  136. Plain Jane
    June 18, 2011 at 7:08 am

    Points are best made with facts, Tra.

    You should read this article, Walt, about states which won’t change one word (from two to three) to allow long term unemployed to receive a federal extension. One member of Wisconsin’s advisory commission actually said this to justify them not even passing it on to the legislature for revision:

    “The management side is not inclined to approve this anyway absent concessions on their part,” said James Buchen, the lead management representative on the council. “The real question is whether there is still a need for extended benefits. We are increasingly hearing from people that they are having trouble hiring workers who are on unemployment because they want to wait until their benefits are exhausted.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/business/18benefits.html?hp

  137. Percy
    June 18, 2011 at 9:45 am

    The populist movement will be the seniors that believed the death panel bullshit and didn’t fight for health care for everyone because they have medicare realizing that their conservative elected officials are trying to sell them down the river by getting rid of medicare altogether and replacing it with vouchers that pay a portion of their private insurer costs. And those insurers will raise their rates, you can bet on that. Time for seniors to wake up from that afternoon nap and figure out who’s scaring you so they can screw you!

  138. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 10:24 am

    $420

    That limit is hella cool.

    Shane should ask Obama why he still smoke bogeys and the fuck kinna example that sets for my people. The president smoking bogeys shit is one step from drinking hurricane and sipping VSOP while he buffing fitted gold feet on Air Force One. That’s some ignorant ass bullshit in my Humboldt opinion.

  139. tra
    June 18, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Points are best made with facts, Tra.

    Of course I agree with that. And it sounds like RA had his facts wrong. You corrected the facts, which is good. I was just pointing out that (what I assume was) RA’s point could still be made with the facts that you provided.

  140. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Fuck all unemployment dole money. Been unemployed, these fuckwads cut checks for $120 a week like that is enough cabbage to stop folks from breaking down a pound and manicuring it. All unemployment does for my people is leaves us kinna destitute. Put that tax money back into the hands of folks buying shit so folks will come out with that extra money and buy that shit. Saying fuck having people without income who could of had a job if not the government stealing all our money to hire folks to fake like they helping folks with no job. And fuck Obama, as always.

  141. Mitch
    June 18, 2011 at 11:38 am
  142. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Obama smoking bogeys don’t mean taking a break. That’s some lazy ass finna get fired shit on a real job. He needa hit that dosia and switch over. Start fucking with dank again.

  143. tra
    June 18, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Fuck all unemployment dole money. Been unemployed, these fuckwads cut checks for $120 a week like that is enough cabbage to stop folks from breaking down a pound and manicuring it. All unemployment does for my people is leaves us kinna destitute. Put that tax money back into the hands of folks buying shit so folks will come out with that extra money and buy that shit….

    Most people in the country do not have the luxury of just picking up some trimming work whenever they want. $120 a week isn’t much, but when you’re unemployed it’s better than nothing. And the people who are getting the $120 a week are putting that money right back into the ecconomy, “buying shit.” If the Republicans had their way, that money would instead be going to rich folks, who might buy luxury good with it, but just as likely would invest it in slave-wage factories in the third world. “Trickle down economics” sounds good in theory, but the problem is that when those at the top act as sponges, not much trickles down.

  144. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 11:57 am

    Serious, back in the day when folks actually kinna supported his high yellow Kenyan ass, he said busting folks for dank shouldn’t be a priority. Now he kowtow to the Boss Hogg white folk po-po saying Leonhart is all good to run the DEA, bitchkowski all good to run the ONDCP. He continues to smoke and drink white man’s drugs. Fuck him.

  145. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 11:58 am

    The fuck you think my folks do with $120 a week in dole and $16 a month in food stamps? We sell hubba rocks. Want to solve some shit, open up jobs for real and lower taxes.

  146. tra
    June 18, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    There’s plenty to be disappointed about with Obama. The fact that he smokes tobacco just doesn’t rate very high on that list, in my opinion.

    One of the most troubling developments of late is that Obama has taken the art of flaunting the War Powers Act to a whole new level by overuling his own lawyers and claiming that he doesn’t need any Congressional approval to continue our military involvement in Libya. Apparently his argument rests on his claim that the bombing we’re doing there doesn’t count as “hostilities.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/17/247902/obama-overruled-justice-libya/

    There may well be a legitimate case to be made that supporting the anti-Qaddafi rebels there is necessary to prevent a genocidal massacre. If so, he should be making that case to Congress, rather than engaging in riduculously tortured logic in an attempt to circumvent the War Powers Act.

    It’s bad enough that Congress all too often rubber-stamps these kinds of overseas military actions, but now we’ve got the President not even willing to take the issue to Congress to be debated at all. Add that to Obama’s claim that he has the right to order assasinations (even of U.S. citizens) and the continuation of secret prisons and extraordinary renditioning (kidnapping), and it’s a pretty grim picture.

    Yes, the Republican presidential candidates would be even worse, but boy oh boy, we sure are setting the bar pretty low at this point.

  147. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    And as far as third world money go, what up with folks no giving a fuck where they food and clothes come from? What up with my folks in Mexico living next to hog prisons while y’all be eating them chicharrónes? The fuck it say in made in your shirt, look at the fucking tag and see where you really spending that money on. Locking they own people up for making that gunshot, head on a pole name for that Sur uprising?

    Afghanistan to the south understating it. Ain’t no Afghan mad as no real Sudo Americano finna cross a bullshit border to feed they family. What up with Obama on that? How is it Obama law that white folk don’t get they home unconstitutionally searched on unless they government suspecting they hiding our own kick your bird chest ass migrants within they domicile? Again, fuck Obama and he rich white folk policy. Uncle Tom as the book said it, ” looks like gwine to heaven, an’t thar where white folks is gwine? S’pose they’d have me thar? I’d rather go to torment, and get away from Mas’r and Missis. I had so.”

  148. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    There’s plenty to be disappointed about with Obama. The fact that he smokes tobacco just doesn’t rate very high on that list, in my opinion.

    Shit just speaks on Obama’s priorities. Knock his no breathing right ass the fuck out. Steal on that American dream stealing ass. Why the fuck folks want to rep that kinna shit? Rep some smoky bumbutt ass? Fuck that wannabe. Huey Newton Jr. would is my real president. Lay that ass out with scattered spent shells. Buck, buck, buck. Ain’t no telling me or none of my folks nothing different. What we are after is peace, real peace. No dead Afghans or Iraqis or Libyans. Real peace for all folks and they families.

  149. Mitch
    June 18, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    What’s up with Obama on “that” and all the rest is that the President can only act within the constraints of the system.

    When somebody is trying to pick a rolled-over car off of some people, it’s pretty pointless to stand to the side and suggest that because the car isn’t moving much, the rescuer isn’t very good, or complain when a Republican-owned towing company is first on the scene.

    The Obama-bashing is juvenile, plain and simple.

  150. tra
    June 18, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Is Huey Newton Jr. running for President? Otherwise it looks like your choice will be Obama, or one of the Republicans, or staying home and thereby passively helping one of those Republicans. Do you really think any of those clown will be any better? Will bring “real peace?”

    And I don’t know who you mean by “my folks.” Perhaps you could be more specific. It seems like you think you’re speaking for a particular ethnic group, and that all members of that group agree with you…but I suspect you’re mistaken in thinking that.

  151. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 12:53 pm
  152. tra
    June 18, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    Mitch, I guess your 12:46 comment must be directed at Mr. Nice’s comments, and not at my 12:12 comment. Because the items that I listed at 12:12 are all decisions that Obama is fully in control of, and he’s nonetheless chosen the militaristic, authoritarian path.

    I agree that criticizing him for things he has no control over is foolish, but the fact is that he’s doing some pretty sketchy stuff on his own as well.

  153. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    The Obama-bashing is juvenile, plain and simple.

    Fuck that fake ass bitch. Juvenile like.

    He could say something. He could stand on the podium and be like shit that’s been going on is wrong. But he don’t do that. He says it’s all good. Obama says it’s all good to discriminate, discriminate on our Latino brothers. Saying, fuck Obama, no less. Addicted to the white man’s ways like he addicted to they drugs, that’s for sheezy. You want to love the man because he ain’t Bush but he ain’t shit different from the man. Where we at in Afghanistan? Where we at in Iraq? Ain’t wasn’t even no Libya under Bush. Obama ain’t done shit except catalyze real folks disgust with government’s indifference to the suffering of people and the environment.

  154. tra
    June 18, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    “My folks”

    So I checked out that video. Are you saying that by “my folks” you’re speaking for wealthy drug lords who made $20-$30,000 per day by selling narcotics in inner-city neighborhoods and have horsedrawn carriages and Rolls Royces at their funerals? Or for the poor misguided folks who admire exploiters like that? Or both?

    By the way, I’m pretty sure that Oakland went overwhelmingly for Obama in the last Presidential election, and I’d be willing to bet they will again in 2012. And I doubt that you’ll find a lot of support in Oakland for the idea that unemployment benefits should be eliminated in favor of more tax cuts for the rich.

    I always enjoy your posts, but sometimes they just don’t make a whole lot of sense.

  155. Mitch
    June 18, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    tra,

    Yes, my comment was directed at Mr. Nice.

    Do I agree with President Obama’s decisions, tra? Often, no.

    Do I believe that President Obama is working flat out to move things in a direction I’d like to see them move? Mostly, yes.

    Do I think the criticism from the left helps? I don’t know. I think people could accomplish much more by finding those things he’s working on that they agree with, and using this as a window to push those things while there’s a chance.

    There’s an argument to be made that criticism from the left keeps him from giving even more away to the right. I don’t believe it, but I try to remain open to evidence. I think the reality is that the President’s powers are quite limited in today’s country, and any President has to prioritize and pick their fights carefully.

    I think the best to hope for from an electable President is that they might slow down the giveaways to the right, giving more time for the population to wake up to how manipulated it has been, and potentially slowing the rate at which we are being destroyed.

    I admire a person who is willing to take over a losing hand and do the best they can to get a decent outcome.

  156. Mitch
    June 18, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Mr. Nice,

    Maybe you’ve forgotten that when a new President Obama spoke out against what appeared to be police abuse, he ended up losing nearly all support. I think he HAS to act like Mr. Rogers. If he’s doing it for himself, then I agree with you, he’s yet another disappointing pol. But I’d like to believe he realizes he has the best shot anyone has of changing things at the margins, and he realizes he’s only going to accomplish those real changes to help real people by picking his fights very carefully.

    Any sign of too-much-manhood (except against Al Queda) and he’ll be shut down by the press so fast no one will realize what happened.

  157. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    So I checked out that video. Are you saying that by “my folks” you’re speaking for wealthy drug lords who made $20-$30,000 per day by selling narcotics in inner-city neighborhoods and have horsedrawn carriages and Rolls Royces at their funerals? Or for the poor misguided folks who admire exploiters like that? Or both?

    Both.

    By the way, I’m pretty sure that Oakland went overwhelmingly for Obama in the last Presidential election

    That Uncle Tom or saving and loan ass scheming ass McCain? No doubt. Right choice.

    I think the reality is that the President’s powers are quite limited in today’s country, and any President has to prioritize and pick their fights carefully.

    Little bitch who never seen what we seen. Everybody seen him as the same as us but he ain’t really us. That’s why he’s accepted by white folks.

    And I doubt that you’ll find a lot of support in Oakland for the idea that unemployment benefits should be eliminated in favor of more tax cuts for the rich.

    Because he got that same level melanin we got. So do lots of Uncle Tom folks. Blinded by black you might say. Be surprised by what my folks support. We support rights for poor folks, poor folks means of survival, and taking guns in the name of that shit, arming ourselves in the name of being all about stacks. Taking over hoods and parking lots and freeways over that shit.

    My folks support deregulation to the point that brothers can start a business like hair braiding or selling dank on the block without being encumbered by the white man’s policies. You see Obama or his Democrat pussies fighting for that? They fight for ivory tower, glass house, throwing rocks without having ever had to pitch them rocks, far as we seen. Bogey smoking, VSOP drinking, kowtowing ass. That’s how we seen it go down. Where is the love? What about his mama taking that dole with his Keynan dad’s ass? Where is he speaking on that? He speaks to white folks, that’s why he never speak on that.

    I always enjoy your posts, but sometimes they just don’t make a whole lot of sense.

    Same to you my man. Dude, can try to make more sense, it just ain’t the way my true syntax is. Would be too slow to speak otherwise.

  158. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    Any sign of too-much-manhood (except against Al Queda) and he’ll be shut down by the press so fast no one will realize what happened.

    True that. He stuck my man, Bin Laden, for doing what?

    What did Bin Laden do except fight against white folks’ lies?

    He shot bombs on that ass. Dropped planes into the heart of the shit. Dropped the WTO like a little bitch. Took up arms to free the people.

    Guess what? We are more free. Ain’t heard of no trade organization tryna do some shit in no world trade center because he bombed on that shit.

    If shit, Bin Laden is a true gangster, throwing up his hood. He said with bombs we want to have good days. We want peace. All blowback from the US imperial forces. We want no more exploitation of people over beef dealing Earth’s resources. So Obama killed his ass with a gangs of thugs. Who is the real Al Qaeda?

    That’s why Bin Laden weed = good shit.

  159. Mitch
    June 18, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    Mr. Nice,

    I’m surprised. If you mean what you say, you’ve really changed my opinion of you. I’d rather think you’re just having a bad day.

    There were an awful lot of innocents in the World Trade Center. If you don’t think the execs were innocent, bin Laden still has to answer for the janitors, secretaries, delivery people, cooks and waiters, and on and on. No warning was issued.

    Are others as bad and worse as bin Laden? Probably. But IMO bin Laden deserved the death penalty, and the use of the US armed forces to deliver it was the most sensible use of power I’ve seen in a long time. I just wish the moron who occupied the oval office in 2001 had done what was necessary, instead of invading two countries. There’d be a lot fewer dead men, women, and children, a lot fewer damaged vets, and the Treasury would be in much better shape.

  160. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    There were an awful lot of innocents in the World Trade Center. If you don’t think the execs were innocent, bin Laden still has to answer for the janitors, secretaries, delivery people, cooks and waiters, and on and on. No warning was issued.

    There were a lot of innocents when white boys took over California with rape, smallpox and rifles.

  161. Mitch
    June 18, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    True. Just not relevant.

  162. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    That’s why the 0-10s are the time of the Caló – African alliance. Mideast peace through revolts. Taking out bitches. Throwing rocks on that ass. Video, audio, twitter. Stealing electricity from lightposts like Oakland used to pull electric to chop up turntables. Warzone, taking out Gaddafi, then taking out corrupt U.S. politicians.

    We are the real reason U.S. exists and we are taking it back.

  163. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    True. Just not relevant.

    What? Support the homie Shane going through to D.C.

    1. He all about sensible consideration of the non-status quo.
    2. Heard him speak on imperialism on tv. My man.
    3. Young. Sending out a rider on a colt.
    4. $420

    Hella on relevant. Send the Ice Cream Man to Chocolate City. Dude will speak on the real issues.

  164. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Like, where all them houses at? Why we raise taxes to make up for deficits?

  165. Mitch
    June 18, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    I’m done for the day, hoping the former Mr. Nice returns tomorrow.

    Killing people you’ve never met and who have done nothing to you beyond existing in a society you don’t like is not my idea of rendering justice or improving things. And justifying it by pointing out genocides of the past is beneath you.

  166. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Mitch get out there and enjoy it. It’s 81 degrees on my thermometer. Always mobile so looking at the trees while speaking on this.

    Sudan, Congo. Check whose hole card’s face up.

    Bin Laden? Blip on the radar. Talking about real injustice, not justice.

  167. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    Remind me again what nations Bin Laden repped and which one been genocided on.

  168. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Clarify, not all about Bin Laden. All about peace. Saying, the murder makers got murdered and we supposed to cry because they had no melanin? Not crying a tear for that or any time when that blowback blows.

  169. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Shit spam trolling this thread to all fucklulz.

  170. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 2:39 pm
  171. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Mitch you right. My brother died today. Venting frustration on you who didn’t deserve none of that.

  172. Mitch
    June 18, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    I’m sorry. I know there’s nothing I can say to help. Take good care of yourself.

  173. tra
    June 18, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    Damn. Sorry to hear that, Mr. Nice.

  174. Cristina Bauss
    June 18, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    Best to you, Mr. Nice. Time does not heal all wounds – I do believe the proverb is wrong on that point – but it does make them easier to bear.

  175. Mr. Nice
    June 18, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    Much love to y’all. Been isolated from the fam on this sad hill all this time. Got a date wit a group bereavement counselor. Feels wrong talking about real life on this. Won’t troll hate on y’all no more or post nothing if I ain’t got the good word.

    Good luck to Shane. 一路平安

  176. Anonymous
    June 19, 2011 at 7:01 am

    happy to see shane go to dc> wish he would take tra and pj too> better if they would all stay.LOL!

  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