Jeff Pelline's Sierra Foothills Report

Truth is stranger than fiction in our county, increasingly an outpost for vocal “wingnuts” in our Golden State. Our claim to fame is one of the most conservative and inflexible politicians in Congress — Tom McClintock — as well as the home of Tea Party co-founder Mark Meckler.

Increasingly the contrary thinking crosses the line to a theater of the absurd.

This weekend, local “wingnut” blogger George Rebane — happily invited by the Sacramento Bee to become a member of its blogging network, as well as a columnist in The Union and commentator on KVMR — posted an item “Lovers in a foxhole.” Yup, that was the title.

Rebane basically argues that amorous gays and lesbians could somehow compromise our national security when holing up in a foxhole, so the newly passed legislation is flawed.

Never mind that the same argument has been applied in the past, as the military gradually joins the rest of the world in honoring civil rights.

Then George says “straight up,” he’s not homophobic. This is the same commentator who previously has referred to Muslims as “ragheads” (only the bad ones, though, he argues). He’s OK with throwing around terms like “anchor baby” too.

George’s buddy entered the “debate” too. “The military is now Castro Street. Lovely,” wrote Todd Juvinall, a former county supervisor, no less. (Both are friends of The Union’s editor/publisher and Barry Pruett, whose wife works for McClintock).

Not surprisingly, George and Todd were widely called out on their rationale for supporting the “Lovers in a foxhole” post. But both stuck to their guns. Todd joked he was referring to Castro Street in Albuquerque.

The news director at KVMR civilly disagreed with George on his blog. He also said Barry Goldwater wouldn’t be considered a conservative nowadays.

Sure he would — just not in our neck of the woods, where we harbor right-wing radicals who are making us the “freak show” of California politics.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

The internet allows you to readily search corporate financial and regulatory documents, but The Union has done a poor job of researching the filings when it comes to reporting on whether to reopen the Idaho-Maryland Mine in Grass Valley.

Instead, they just paraphrase the mine’s CEO, letting him provide the “spin.” One example: The water discharged into Wolf Creek will be of “drinking water” standards.

Emgold detailed some changes to its Idaho-Maryland mine project in a regulatory filing this past week:

“The Company is currently working on a revision to the project description for the project. The revision will include elimination of discharge into the South Fork of Wolf Creek from the New Brunswick site and elimination of the water treatment plant at the New Brunswick site.

“Instead, a raw water line will be constructed under East Bennett Road and water will be pumped from the New Brunswick site to the Idaho-Maryland Site and to the water treatment plant located there.

“Water will then be discharged into Wolf Creek after treatment. The revision will also include the clean-up of historic tailings on site which was not included in the scope of the Draft EIR.”

There’s a big difference between stating that you’re treating the water versus bringing it to “drinking water standards,” a highly subjective analysis not backed up with facts.

In addition, regulations could impact the permitting requirements down the road.

“In particular, potential legislation from the California Air Resources Board and the Federal EPA related to carbon emissions and potential cap and trade rules may have an effect on mining operations in the U.S.,” it reads.

The filing also shows parent Emgold has spent more than $80,000 on community relations so far.

The filing is here.

The community needs to demand more when it comes to helping them make a decision on whether to reopen the mine.

The extreme right likes to point fingers at the left for having made up their mind on the project, but they’re just as guilty — if not more so. The Union management already has tipped its hand on supporting the project, before an EIR is complete.

Exit question: Will Dan Miller be Mayor when the project comes up to the City Council for approval?

Filed under: Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Apple’s iPad is killing print newspaper subscriptions, according to a new survey by the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri.

“About 58.1 percent of respondents who subscribe to print newspapers said they would likely cancel that subscription within the next six months,” said eWeek, reporting the findings. “Another 10.7 percent said they had already canceled their subscriptions in favor of digital-only news consumption through their iPad.”

The rest of the article is here.

The survey offered hope that newspapers who write apps for the iPad and charge for online subscriptions can make the transition. In May, I wrote that The Union had quietly launched an iPhone app; this weekend it made an “official” announcement of its plan. But there still is no iPad app.

As I’ve written many times before, the hurdles are high for any newspaper to make enough money from online:

*Newsroom cultures still are not geared to 24/7 reporting that mobil readers demand. Our local media largely goes “dark” on weekends. By contrast, readers on this blog provided real-time updates of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” vote in the Senate while I was “out of pocket” (visiting a Curious George exhibit with my family in S.F.). I had posted an item earlier in the day that repeal of the policy was expected, and the readers provided the update.

*Newspapers aren’t making anywhere near enough money from web ads to cover their fixed costs. Our local media is hanging on to the “print model,” and I would argue, tailoring its editorial content to meet that older demographic (at the expense of the rest of the community).

*The iPad has been a catalyst to other tablet devices, and the trend will continue. The cost of the devices will drop along the way.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

What if Facebook existed 2,000 years ago?

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Mass. Senator Scott Brown (R-Tea Party) was one of the eight Republicans to break ranks and vote to abolish the 17-year-old ban on gays and lesbians in the military known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Some Bay State conservatives were deeply disappointed, the Boston Globe reported Sunday. The Massachusetts Family Institute blasted Brown for backing the repeal.

“Senate Republicans including Senator Brown made a vow not to vote on ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ until the budget was resolved, and they broke trust with the people,’’ Kris Mineau, the group’s president, told the Globe.

The newspaper added: “But gay rights advocates, who had slammed Brown for opposing the defense bill that contained language to end the policy, heaped praise on him yesterday. The Bay State’s largest gay rights organization, MassEquality, applauded him for crossing party lines ‘to take an affirmative vote in favor of LGBT equality.’”

Brown declined to discuss the issue yesterday, through his office. The rest of the article is here.

Brown defied the Tea Party to support the tax-cut deal worked out by the Obama administration and Republicans. The Tea Party opposed the deal, arguing it would increase the deficit.

Tea Party members helped Brown win the U.S. Senate seat from the late Ted Kennedy in January. He is up for re-election in 2012.

The other Republicans voting to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” were Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, George V. Voinovich of Ohio and John Ensign of Nevada.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 15 Comments »