My Reaction to John Chiv’s Take on Arkley’s Hopes for Indian Island.

This is a likely unpublishable reaction to this John Chiv screed against both the local media and left in the wake of Rob Arkley’s interview where he pontificates on the future of Indian Island as Eureka plans to return this land to whom it belongs, the Wiyot tribe.


John, what you call the “rabid left” is really the center in Humboldt County. (for the 6/7/16 primary for President, 19,928 total tallied for Bernie, 8,135 for Hillary and a total of 9,616 for all Republicans)

It’s a center that understands that Rob Arkley has a bully pulpit based entirely on his inherited money and it understands that protests are a critical aspect of democracy, our right to free speech.

Our ethics (yours and mine) are very different to be sure. I have listened to the KINS show, I do not think the report on LoCO was a mis-representation. I do think it was an appropriate news-worthy report because of the views espoused by the most powerful and influential Republican in our County, and I disagree that the link to the KINS interview alone is sufficient report.

I know that these views do not surprise you but, in my opinion these are not rabid, they are not radical, they do not mean we are full of hate, they are not dirty tactis, holding these view do not demonstrate a lack of ethics, a protest is not a lynch mob.

Also – a protest is not a demonstration against success, it is not bullying and it is not irresponsible.

It is a visceral reaction to an interview which was tone-death and a-historical. It only served to open deep wounds and trivialized of one of the darkest of all events in American history.

That’s not hate Mr. Chiv, it is a reaction to an obnoxious policy position that most of this community disagrees with.

This is part of the dialog, I hope you can publish it.


Decoding John Chiv’s Humor and Notes on CA Population Growth

Keep Eureka criminal or Keep Eureka homeless; new marketing slogan brought to you by those in charge

Lots to go through on this one because as it stands it’s pretty incomprehensible.  I think I figured it out though for those who care.

The idea is that those in charge, (Democrats/liberals/progressives) have policies that promote homelessness and/or criminality.  These meme are useful for him and conservatives in order to push policies of deregulating development and being able to shame bad behavior on anything but poverty.

That’s my best bet on the context for the humor, it’s not spelled out because he doesn’t have to do that for his readers.

But the graph is what interested me.  It’s titled the decline of California and there is zero context given.

It took a little work, but I managed to figure it all out.  First of all the source.  One of my favorite tweeters – Matthew Yglesias at a Salon article from 2012.  The context at the time, and I wouldn’t be surprised if his take would be much different today, was that the reason CA had the ability to be relatively generous with safety net programs in the past was due to prior explosive growth.

He concludes “Part of the price the state needs to pay for this induced slowdown in population growth is a downshift to a much less desirable tax/service tradeoff. But it would certainly be possible to open the floodgates to construction in Silicon Valley and all along the coast, which would bring in a huge flood of new tax revenue and create the possibility of lower tax rates and return to more generous levels of public expenditure.

Not sure I completely agree, but that would be a discussion for another day.  What I’d like to talk about is the association of the graph below from Mr. Yglesias’ post with the idea that California is in decline.  My question to John, or any conservative for that matter is this, why is this considered a “decline”?  What rate of growth over a decade would you like to see?


And so the job creators don’t have to work, I did all that for them.  Based on the graph above and California’s population from a Google search here is what the numbers look like in reality.

CA pop 5

Now, compare this reality if we kept the highest 53% growth rate decade-over-decade since 1940 and then a growth rate of that second peak 25%.  We’d be talking about a CA population of 313 million by 2020 at 53% and 62 million if we maintained population growth at 25% starting in 1970.  (For political junkies, that means the CA delegation to the US House of Reps would have been 68 of 435 seats instead of the current 53)

CA pop 6

My point is this, growth rates of 50 or 25 percent over a decade are impossible to sustain.  The chart is not an indicator of the “Decline of California” but a reflection of how populations growth naturally declines over time.

I just want to be clear about this because I’m sure this is going to come up in future discussions about deregulating development or Democratic policies on anything from safety-net spending to tax rates.   Before taking a look at the decrease in the rate of growth of the CA population let’s please start with an understanding of where exactly we’d like the growth rate to be and were we’d like to maintain it.

Because the question us liberals like to ask is what is a sustainable population total and how are we going to deal with 0 population growth.  The truth is John, at some point in the future of humanity we will have to have a 0 population growth.

The link for this post was left in John’s comment zone with the following comment…

John, I just don’t understand this. I did my best to understand what you are saying here because I know you are not likely to post any of my comments.

My question for you would be what is the population you’d like to see CA one day rest at? 100,000,000? More? Less? What would that population growth rate graph look like and would you consider that graph a demonstration of the decline of CA?

Also, why didn’t you source where the graph came from? It is the right thing to do, right?

more on CA’s population from the Sacramento Bee…

Once a boom state, California sees a historic period of slow population growth




Presumed Future Guilt

Under this post on John Chiv’s site…

Vigil at Arcata Plaza this evening to mark two months since the death of David Josiah Lawson

“Big D” had the following to say…

John – It may be a busy evening for those that have police scanner radios, and they may want to monitor the Arcata Police Department main frequency of 155.430 Mhz.

A list for most of the Humboldt County Public Service Radio Frequencies can be found at the link below. All frequencies are able to be received using a simple inexpensive VHF/ UHF radio scanner. No radio trunking systems are used here locally, and the only encrypted radio transmissions I have heard in the past, have been from the DOJ/ Drug Task Force.

I know that between the Thursday Night Talk program on KHSU at 7 pm, and this rally at 6pm, I will be listening to several radios throughout the evening.

My response – posted at 6:37 this am…

A vigil for David Josiah Lawson who was killed 2 months ago yesterday would be held last night. There would also be a show discussing local media hatred spewed in the comment zones and blogs like yours. Why would Big D presume he’d have to listen to his scanner? Was he afraid for his own safety? Was he interested in events that the police might have to respond to? Why did he believe either of these would mean substantive scanner listening?

By the way, how did that scanner listening go?

Seems like the scales of justice work like this on your blog. Extra-ordinary levels of presumed innocence for some, presumed guilt for future crimes for groups of others.

-Jon Yalcinkaya

Facts or Statistics

Well, the not-racists are out again in an appreciated heads up about a forum tonight on KHSU on John Chiv’d site.

Here is an anonymous comment regarding a totally unrelated incident, the only connections being the suspect is identified as African American and the commenter is lamenting a perceived threat on his or her First Amendendment rights.

LoCo shut down comment sections on two articles covering the Karen Court shooting. No discussion based on facts or statistics allowed. Anti-white hate speech permissible.

I replied back..

Facts or statistics? Were you there? What kind of statistics are possible? You can post them here. What do you think he or she means John?

John Chiv Posts an APD Press Release…

..and we  have calls for justice for the real victims.  The guy that got beat up.  With no context in the comment zone, THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS DEAD, and the guy that got beat up is alive.

David Josiah Lawson is now dead.  He will not live to breath another day.  How can we be talking about anything else?   Well, the approved comments on John’s site find a way.

Here is my response, I don’t have hope it will get published.

Emily from the lost coast outpost thunderdome says this better than I can…

So I am pointing out that the indignant attitude of Kyles friends about why no one one is getting charged with assault for his little black eye, is pretty insulting to the other party who was murdered.”

– I added that in addition to insulting, it was disgusting, outrageous and wrong.

the post of APD’s press release:

Arcata City Council approves community reward fund for information leading to arrest and conviction in the David Lawson case

THC: HBF Unions “can’t stop complaining”

(THC = The Humboldt Consequential)

(HBF = Humboldt Bay Fire)

More contradictory anti-union boiler plate from THC.

Humboldt Bay Firefighters’ Union can’t stop complaining, Pt. 1

What really bothers me about these posts is THC’s continued attack of both the high salaried officials in public service – such as Chief Gillespie, but then also always taking the side of said government administrators when faced with real complaints from line workers.

In the end, there is no logic in the complaints against government spending, except the fact that government spends.  That’s my beef with this post, but it’s not what I wished to write about.

After reading the links what I wished to say Iand did, but I’m still banned) was this…

Anonymous commenter had this to say about firefighter and President of HBF Local No. 562 Matt McFarland.

dissalusioned.PNGBased on the comments by HBF Fire Chief Bill Gillespie my answer was this…

“That is both incorrect AND false.”

That bit of liberal hoity-toity snark was from this quote of Bill’s which can be found here.

A press release sent out to the media late in the evening on June 5th from Humboldt Bay Firefighters Local 652 President Matt McFarland specified the reason for the suspension as “Humboldt Bay Fire has become unable to fund this program due to continued shortfalls in the budget.” Not only is this statement incorrect, it is false.

I also posted this reminder on THC’s contact page to make sure that the guy knows that I’m currently banned from commenting.

To the guy behind THC…

Truth is censorship is a hell of a lot easier than having to approve all those crappy multiple link posts.

I’m not sure if you are intentionally blocking me at this point or a multiple-line comment had automatically blocked all future posts of mine.

My guess is it’s the latter, but in case it is the former I’d like it if you could let people know that I’m banned and to visit for my replies or comments.

I don’t believe conservatives, especially in Humboldt can deal with an actual, ongoing debate. So far you have at least allowed a liberal equal access to their site. It seems from conservative rhetoric (free speech and all that) that would be the norm.

Hopefully you have enough perspective to understand that there couldn’t be anything further from the truth. The business model for Fox News, talk radio, etc depend on anything but free speech on their proprietary properties. I guess we’ll see if there is anyplace liberals and conservatives are allowed to speak their minds to each other here in Humboldt.

Without THC, sadly there isn’t many other conservative outlets to push back on the rationalization of organized madness.


more from John Chiv’s coverage of the letter from the Eureka branch of the NAACP.

the post (John Chiv Words Worth):

A letter from Eureka NAACP to Humboldt media about Lawson coverage , public commentary and anonymous rants

the comments from readers:

170608 anonlroberts

my reaction – yet to be published:

John, a couple of points in regards to consistency and fairness.

What most of your readers are upset about in this letter (or at least what they will admit to) is the call for censorship. Don’t you believe that in some cases censorship is necessary? Shouldn’t you make that clear and why and distinguish your point of view from that of the person who wrote this for the Eureka branch of the NAACP?

Also, bookmark this thread in your memory when you are attacked by anonymous commenters and call them out because of their anonymity. Not a mention of support for their call for a temporary restriction of anonymity. I happen to agree with you on this. You should be attacked for personal reasons, and when it’s done, it’s particularly obnoxious (and wrong) to do in anonymously.


A letter from Eureka NAACP to Humboldt media (John Chiv June 6th)


*sips coffee*

the post:

A letter from Eureka NAACP to Humboldt media about Lawson coverage , public commentary and anonymous rants

my comment:


“Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of an enlightened society in his “I Have a Dream” speech. All these years later, that dream seems as far away as it has ever been and, for people of color living in Humboldt County, their experience is more fittingly associated with a nightmare.”

Yes! (BTW, can anyone help me find a “My Word” in the Times standard from approximately 2009 or 2010 from an Afican American who was moving back to Oakland because of the treatment at all levels he was experiencing in Humboldt? My Google searches are not productive.)

“As our community endeavors to heal and make sense of what has occurred, we have been subjected to the senseless, bigoted, crass, cruel, disgusting, uneducated, rants of those who skulk in anonymity, yet are given a prominent voice by many of our local Humboldt County media outlets. Lamentably, those voices have become the voice of Humboldt County; tragically, they have come to define us.”



“Since current practices embolden and empower hatred and acts of hatred, and due to a demonstrated unwillingness or inability to appropriately monitor public comments made in the wake of media stories posted online, the Eureka Branch of the NAACP calls upon all local media to serve as an example of the ideals exemplified by Dr. King by immediately discontinuing the practice of posting public commentary associated with media coverage.”


• Outright removal of public commentary altogether.
• Strict monitoring or vetting of posts before they are viewed publicly.
• The option to post only if the identity of the poster has been confirmed through a process.


Look, this sounds anti first amendment but this is basically what LoCO has done. They shut down the Thunderdome where no registration is required. And this was the right decision, and we should all agree with this.

Here is why. This is an open investigation and the killer or murderer of Josiah Lawson is free. He or she and his or her friends and all that may agree or defend the killer’s actions, either with or without integrity, is free to tip the level of debate. What we all know is the closer you were to the killing/murder the more credibility you will have – at least in these public forums – because the rest of us know nothing other than what we heard at the preliminary hearing.

That’s why we do need responsible censorship. I believe this is what media outlets, including you John, do all the time. You can’t say or allow to be said everything about a case until at the very least after the trial. Right?

John Chiv Words Worth June 5th

Cancel my subscription to your issues “anon” and critics; your drama, your problem, not mine

What I tried to post…

John, I have heard two person allege similar allegations of civil harassment against you.  Only one was a friend and someone whose politics align with my own.  Can you be 100% sure that in your quest to report from your view you are also not guilty civil harassment? When does your reporting on an issue become intrusive on someone’s personal life? This is a line any reporter must step up to but not cross often. Are you absolutely certain you never cross this line? Isn’t more important to be extra careful of this in a small community like ours?