Comments on: SWAT, Housing Costs, Rats – November 29, 2007

By: kevpod

kevpod — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:17:14 +0000

I should add that yes, I did absorb some semblance of understanding about the sequence of economic events in play with the housing bubble, and then cloddishly regurgitated it with primitive grunts for any listeners who might be as economically deficient as myself.

However, this was only possible due to Dr. Eschker’s easygoing clarity in the matter. He must be a hell of a teacher if he’s able to impart comprehension to someone like me.

This is why I like doing Humboldt Review – it takes me outside my comfort zone and makes me learn things I otherwise wouldn’t. Plus you get to meet folk like Eschker and Tom Hiller. I didn’t know Tom used to be editor of the Redwood Record!

By: kevpod

kevpod — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:32:24 +0000

Thanks!

Terrence and I did a column on housing this week, based on info from the show and other sources. It’s posted at the Eye site.

By: Carson Park Ranger

Carson Park Ranger — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:21:41 +0000

Good synopsis of the housing bubble, Mr. Hoover. You appear to have a better grasp of “the dismal science” than most most of us.

By: kevpod

kevpod — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:44:35 +0000

I’d like to respond to the anonymous folks’ objections.

In our opening and closing segments, which are only six to nine minutes long, we rarely have more than one person on. It’s during our main, middle segment that we have the ability to multi-source a topic and more fully ventilate it.

The multi-agency SWAT proposal first came to light the same day of the show, Thursday, Nov. 29. Our interview with Chief Nielsen expanded on the good-but-short Times-Standard story that broke the news.

It’s hard to see how the Coalition for Police Review could have had a complete opinion on this topic based on the single, brief newspaper story available at the time 0f the show. Nor could they have possibly met and consensed on any official position.

Our Nov. 29 show provided much more detail on what Nielsen is proposing, and now both CPR and the public at large have more of the information they need to form an informed opinion.

I do agree that creation of a new paramilitary force of this nature such as this warrants close public scrutiny and considerable dialogue. However, it’s nowhere near actual formation; it’s only a suggestion by Nielsen at this point. When there’s something substantive in the works, we’ll go at it full force, with all views represented.

By the way, there’s a substantial news story on civilian police review in the Dec. 4, Arcata Eye, which is also posted at arcataeye.com.

By: noduh

noduh — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:01:14 +0000

Yeah, adding an alternative to “believe whatever the cops tell us about needing more heavily armed storm troopers with machine guns and a county-wide mandate” perspective would be a nice bit of balance, wouldn’t it?

By: Carson Park Ranger

Carson Park Ranger — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:31:29 +0000

Adding the CPR to the discussion would make it “fair and balanced”?

By: Oh Really

Oh Really — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 04:19:09 +0000

Yes, let's talk to the policeman with the guns about the new SWAT Team, and ignore the recent public statements regarding the use of SWAT teams in rural communities and totally forget about inviting on anyone from CPR to provide the alternative. That's "Fair and Balanced" reporting from Arcata Eye's Kevin Hoover and their accomplices at KHUM radio, where the rules tossed out include any sense of journalistic integrity.