Joy Reid to the State of Jefferson: Get Over Yourself

Thank you for this Ms Reid! (Via Twitter, duh)

Joy Reid.PNG

Joy Reid 2.PNG

 

I think what Ms. Reid, a MSNBC host, misses is this; most people in Northern California, including Humboldt are struggling, especially working people who don’t own their own businesses and are dependent on their wages to make a living. In this reality, their private sector bosses, who’d like to be honored as Job Creators (or sometimes land owners – See Supervisor Bohn and Fennel’s version of the General Plan Update Guiding Principles) are a working person’s lifeline to a wage – living or not.

4879723922_817dcafbdb
Borders are always so important to Conservative politics.  Circa 1941?  Image from this link.  More about what these demonstrations here

So will this thread help dissuade Jeffersoners or help them to understand that the politics of their bosses may be exactly what is helping to create their problems in the first place? Only if they could take a step back and see that people like Joy Reid or a Humboldt liberal who grows arugula are fighting against tendencies of the people they are told to honor to focus almost entirely on their own profits rather than externalities such as the worker’s lives, maybe then these workers would be able to hear or understand the contradictions in the stories they are being told.

But that won’t happen, and the reasons why are exactly those stories. The bad guy or gal in that story are the urban liberal elites and their benefactors who vote for them because of the governmental hand outs they are given. The good guy is the boss (preferred nomenclature is Job Creator) they know they have to honor by being a hard and dependable worker.

If we understand this relationship between employer and employee in rural America, including how dependent and desperate the employee can be, so much more makes sense about Republican politics. I think Ms. Reid’s argument misses this point and it will ultimately serve to heighten the divide rather than help fix it by grouping rural employers and employees into one group without making this distinction. Still it had to be said and I’m glad she too the time to react to the NYT article.

(Note:  These opinions are informed by my experience working for a couple of private sector employers in Humboldt and by my understanding of what made the white Confederate soldier who wasn’t wealthy enough to own slaves, fight so fiercely for the Confederate cause.)


example of the Republican use of the dependency on employment:

Many Republican ads and much of their politics against the ACA centered on the loss of one’s doctor through their employer’s insurance. What they didn’t talk about was those workers who may be unemployed or wish to have the freedom to move from one employer to another, which became possible under a market-place plan from Covered CA.
Here is business owner Judy Hodgson’s experience with the ACA as she had to wean business off of the employer-based insurance which was a perk to her employees as she had once paid 100% of the premiums for her workers.

From her piece in this week’s Journal:

For many of our 26 years in business, we paid 100 percent of the premiums for our employees for a higher deductible, medium-grade silver plan. The ACA promised direct subsidies to small businesses (fewer than 25 employees) for four years in the form of tax credits — basically taxes we didn’t have to pay. The ACA delivered. Each year we received up to $8,000 to help pay premiums for the following year.

I remember being concerned about what would happen in four years when those subsidies went away. Originally there was talk about a direct “government option” if we couldn’t afford premiums but that never materialized.

In 2015, the year the subsidies went away, was also the year that our premium estimate went up a whopping 42 percent, which I reported to Congressman Jared Huffman’s office. It wasn’t a straight, across-the-board increase; some of it was due to employees getting older. It was an increase we could not afford and neither could our employees because the each of them paid for their families. One employee’s spouse was looking at an additional $500 a month because he was 62.


 

the nyt article in question:

From this article, this infographic:

Jefferson.PNG

This July 4th: Were We the Baddies?

 

Would I have been a loyalist in 1776?  Maybe? But you have to admit, Canada has a really good point here.  Maybe our revolution was a dumb idea.  Could we have become the United States without violence?

In the recent book Scars of Independence, historian Holger Hoock dismisses modern depictions of the American Revolution as rooms full of men in powdered wigs discussing liberty. It was actually a “profoundly violent civil war,” he writes. One largely forgotten aspect of the war was how much the Patriot cause was driven by terroristic mobs prepared to torture judges, customs officials, newspaper editors or anyone else seen to be supporting British rule. Pro-government officials had their homes burned, their horses poisoned and many were snatched out of their beds in the middle of the night, stripped naked and subjected to mock drownings or tarring and feathering. Accounts of these outrages help explain why the conflict escalated so quickly. When hotheaded Brits backed George III’s call to swiftly put down colonial rebels, it wasn’t because they were incensed at a lack of tea tax revenue — it was because they feared that their American lands had fallen to mob rule.

exciseman
A 1774 illustration showing Patriots torturing John Malcolm, a government tax official. Malcolm has been stripped naked, had boiling tar poured on his skin and is now being forced to drink excessive amounts of hot tea. United States Library of Congress

Lookit, of course we weren’t the baddies, for one thing, it turns out many of those Brits were homophobic jerks.  But our national predisposition for violence or bullying is a problem.  From a revelatory piece by one of my favorite authors Rick Perlstein:

“My first book, covering the years 1958 through 1964, was entitled Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus. The “consensus” in my subtitle referred both to historians’ common belief that in the period between World War II and “the sixties” America was a remarkably placid place and to the deluded national self-perception advanced at the time by people like Lippmann, heedlessly projecting the present into the past. In this view of things, America had always been a remarkably placid place. When violence began breaking out on the 1964 campaign trail, the Philadelphia Inquirer editorialized that “presidential elections have been waged without untoward incident until this year”—what??—and the historian Richard Hofstadter preposterously proposed that “our sagacity and our passion for the peaceful enjoyment of our national life” were the essence of American politics. My subtitle, in other words, is tinged ironically—because the supposed “consensus” was but an epiphenomenon, a brief idyll, an illusion, as well as an ideological construct. It papered over the reality of a society that has never been united and at peace with itself.

So what about that?  What if we started taking a different approach to the 4th?  What if we celebrated the violence of explosions (fireworks), say, once every 4 or 10 years and spent the other 3 or 9 years celebrating all that it takes to create a society that can produce those fireworks.  What about celebrating the red, white and blue fireworks in our gardens and parks during the majority of our Fourths hoping our children can catch on to the beauty and preciousness of a time lapse explosion going on around us every day?

Just a thought.  It would save money and help make that Xth year celebration that much more special and spectacular.  But more importantly, I think it would help reinforce the idea that the explosions of war that the fireworks represent are sometimes necessary, but they should not be we depend on to build a sustainable future.

 

Continue reading “This July 4th: Were We the Baddies?”

Racism NYC Style = Racism Humboldt Style.

#JusticeforJoshiah

#DavidJoshiahLawson

One way to define racism is if we are silent in the face of clearly unequal racial justice when we otherwise pretend we are a nation of laws.

Here is another pathetic example from readers of the Lost Coast Outpost (which btw, really needs to somehow clean up it’s broken comment policy):LoCO 170703.PNG

It’s not just the initial mind-numbing statements, it’s the support from others and silence of sanity that makes these comments so insidious.  Here is another example:

LoCO 170703 b.PNG

But these threads don’t stand alone. Obviously they exist in our society at large and even with all I knew about President Donald Trump, I was shocked to find out last night about the $85,000 full page ads he bought in 1989 to condemn and call for the execution of the Central Park 5. Not only that, but as late as a few weeks before the election, as New York City was found culpable in the miscarriage of justice in the light of forensic evidence, he maintained his established views which all publically-available information contradicts.

trump21n-1-web

How different is Truthaboveall from President Trump? They have their minds made up and there is little before or after evidence is provided that will change their minds.

That is racism and it’s unacceptable if we are to aspire to be a nation of laws which include due process and equal protection and we need to call it out as such.


if you haven’t seen it or are unfamiliar with the Central Park 5:

 

CCentral Park 5.PNG

The Central Park Five

 

And from 2014, yes 2014:

Donald Trump and the Central Park Five  (Amy Davidson | New York Times | June 23, 2014)

It’s simple, in some ways, to see the Central Park jogger case as an artifact of a feverish moment in late-eighties New York—of a piece with its joyous and awful kinetics, the crack epidemic, the painted-over subways, the fear of AIDS, the absurdity of Ivana’s ski-slope confrontation with Marla. But some fevers never seem to subside. The tendency to write off teen-age boys because of distrust of their neighborhoods or the color of their skin, to assume that jail is the place for them, has not gone away. Neither, somehow, has Donald Trump.


…welp…

Russian Interference Matters Bigly, but Republicans ARE in Charge.

I agree in part with the notion that Van Jones seems to be giving voice to – progressives cannot let impeachment in and of itself be a policy goal of the left.

Yes.

However, the Russian investigation should be important to the left and “real people” because we need to be very clear about how bad of an actor Russia is on the international scene and we cannot accept any known interference from foreign powers on our national elections, no matter how that foreign power sells it’s interests.  That is another reason why this investigation is so important, yes we have to get the bottom to what President Trump and his campaign did using connections to Russia AND we have to take measures to protect future elections from interference.

This can get cloudy for progressives, in part because of a successful propaganda campaign by Russians that have offered a mouth-piece via Russia Today to outstanding progressives such as one of my heroes – Thom Hartmann, and have offered support to third party progressives such as Jill Stein.

Here is a very short list we on the left (and “real people” who I contend DO have a capacity to want the US to have a positive influence on international affairs) cannot or should not forget about Russia:

 *It is a brutal oligarchy.

 *Slain journalists and opposition.

 *Annexation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

 *Support of Assad when he was vulnerable to regime change in the later stages of the Arab spring.

 *Support of Serbian nationalism in the mid 1990’s.

My views on Russia are of course informed by my sympathy for Muslims and other vulnerable people within Russia and within the countries they seek to either absorb or influence.  And I think these sympathies, or their political polar opposites are exactly why many on the right-wing fringe can see Russia more of an ally and less of a hostile foreign power.

Having said that, this is where I agree with Van Jones.  Republicans are in control and they will determine whether or not those responsible for crimes, if any, are held to account.  We need to be there to support those conservatives of conscience and principle who do take governing and equal applications of law seriously, but until 2018 at the earliest, we remain at the mercy of the Republican concept of governing.


also:

I just wanted to share this tweet as an example of how thoroughly the right wing tabloid press has wrapped reality with a 30 year negative campaign against the Clintons.  81 year old Peter Smith who was a Republican operative in search of damning Clinton e-mails on the “dark web” has become a focus of the collusion investigation.

Sadly, you don’t really have to imagine, the seeds of conspiracy are already being sown.  From Glenn Beck’s digital tabloid – The Blaze:

Glenn Beck

Ugh.


more on Crimean Tartars under Russian rule:

Russia Is Trying to Wipe Out Crimea’s Tatars

Crimea

(

Russia has not taken kindly to this dissent. Russian authorities have shut down Crimean Tatar media. Russian forces have raided homes and mosques, and harassed and imprisoned Crimean Tatar activists, some of whom have disappeared or been killed. Russia has tried to block the Crimean Tatars from publicly commemorating the deportation and has even re-exiled Mustafa Dzhemilev, the Crimean Tatars’ political leader.

According to Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry, about 20,000 Crimean Tatars have fled the peninsula since the annexation. This is devastating for a people who spent 45 years banished from their homeland. Many thought they were done with Russia once and for all when the Soviet Union disintegrated and Crimea belonged to Ukraine. Few predicted that their nightmare would begin anew in 2014.

If the Crimean Tatars are to survive, Western governments must do more to help.

 

 

Morals and Squaring the Circle of Politics and Power

I’ve been thinking about morality quite a bit based on my fascination with all things conservative.

Morality is key to the conservative movement. They claim ownership of it while painting the left as anything from morally suspect to dangerously insane (liberalism is a mental disorder for example).

And we on the left have largely ceded this argument while trying to win just enough elections to stay in power.

But that, imho, was the wrong tact. We too are moral people. We are the movement of the bleeding heart after all.

It is becoming increasing important to reassert the morality of the left as the wealth of the wealthiest country in the world increasingly becomes focused into the hands of a powerful few. Remember, our government by design has very few means of actually re-distributing wealth (as opposed to income) from the wealthy to the masses and most of us would agree this is generally a good thing.

But there is a problem with this construction in an economic system that allows for two types of relatively unregulated income – income from labor and income from capital. If an individual has access to both – income from extant wealth as well as income from her labor – then there exists a fundamental problem, which if not addressed will only exacerbate the situation we have today furthering the distance between the haves [   Capital?-Yes! 🙂 ] and have-nots [  Capital?-No.  😦  ].

Is there a more fundamental expression of the inability of our current political system to address this problem than the actions of a Republican hegemony in our 3 branches of federal government?

As conservatives would frame it the plan, which will result in tens of millions of individuals losing subsidized health insurance and thus access to preventative medical care, is moral because it allows for access via individual choice with lower premiums.  The number of uninsured which will result from the Republican health plan in their view will remain the responsibility of those people who did not purchase the affordable (if not entirely comprehensive) health insurance. To add insult to injury, the Republicans will not even take responsibility for “cutting” Medicaid.  They wish to keep the moral high ground by arguing that they are not making cuts to Medicaid, only reducing future growth.

All of this is baloney. The bottom line is the one we’ve been hearing in the past 8 years. This isn’t about repairing or replacing Obamacare, it is about repealing Obamacare. It is about destroying any attempt at providing a collective answer to what is a problem of our commons – health care.

Our broken economic system which is designed to allow for winners and losers (based, on individual choice AND on luck, and one’s ethics, etc.) is facing a defining test and we cannot blame this solely on President Trump or on Republicans.

This is on us as a people and as individuals. We need to do what we can to take back the story about who we are. That story has to focus much more on the good and less on the evil. It has to focus much more on what is right and less on what is wrong. We have to be more proactive and less reactive.

In short we have to take back the cause of a collective morality instead of one that is focused almost entirely on an individualistic morality. The fundamental problem with focusing all our attention on our own righteousness is we lose track of those problems that can only be fixed by collective actions.

And that is what government is about. It’s not about solely protecting individual rights from governmental action, it’s also about taking affirmative actions based on decisions of elected representatives and making sure that institutions within it’s purview do not take collective action that harm the livelihood or interests of citizens.

Right now, those with money have not only the power of their wealth, but via the modern Republican Party they also have the power of the institution which should protect people from an out-of-control economic system. This is as much a moral issue as a political issue and it has never been as clearly defined as our current health care debate.


FF:  (forgiveness factor) = high.  Again, quick opinion before work.

more social media on the political dichotomy of morals:

I Don’t Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People (Kayla Chadwick | Huffington Post | June 26, 2017)

Conservative Reaction (via Cato-employed conservative legal scholar). (Think “liberal morality is a mental disorder”)

More on American morality and the culture war in real time via a tweet-storm from historian Jonathan Wilson.

Republican(s Don’t)Care | CA-21

I don’t believe the American Health Care Act (AHCA =House verision of the Affordable Care Act repeal) or the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA =Senate version) has much to do with Donald Trump at all. He now understands health care for all is complicated in our economy but it is something government has (at the very least) an obligation to try to meet.

No, whatever passes the three branches of government under Republican control will be a Republican act. And if you listen to them, the reasoning for this is it will give our citizens more choice and reduce premium costs.

But here is the thing, that is demonstrably not true. It’s wishful hoping. Here is an infographic from familiesusa.org that illustrates those states that expanded and their increase in roles of the insured due to Medicaid and those states that didn’t and the numbers of potentially eligible that are likely to remain uninsured.

medicaid

And although it is not incredibly clear in that infographic as to whom is most affected by the lack of expansion, there is this (From The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation) that might help drive the message home.

Lookit, if you are one of seven people who read this blog, I think you know my feelings about how important race is to the themes and policies of our national politics. This graph may be one of the most illustrative of (what I feel is) that reality.

So, no, it isn’t about choice, it is about reducing the size and scope of the federal government. I understand no Republican can say that at this point in time as you try to pass the BHCA or AHCA, so let me say it for you.

Because as all of us paying attention know that real choice would have been to vote in the public option with the ACA. And we know what the results of that choice would have been, which is why Republicans (and a couple of Democrats) couldn’t let it pass.


In other news, there is this…

From a tweet by Mike Levin, an environmental lawyer who has stepped up to run against Darrell Issa of CA-49, here is the current margin in those Congressional Districts where the Republican member is vulnerable.

image

 

Top among these is CA-21 where David Valadao last won election in 2016. Remember the conservative PAC asked us to let us know what we think about his vote to decimate the ACA? I agree with them, Californians should.

Yes, Representative Valadao won by 13 points in 2016, but Hillary Clinton carried the District (centered on Kings County in the Central Valley) by 15 points and Democrats in the district out-register Republicans 46% to 29%.

I honestly wish that Humboldt or Californian Republicans would be on board with this. The evidence is clear, we can insure more people with the ACA AND it set up to work with moving people into gainful employment. But Republicans are not stepping up and standing up for what could be argued is a conservative approach to universal health care, therefore, I think we as a people have to stand up against them. It can start with CA-21 and finding a candidate who can thank David Valadao for his work against the ACA with an extended vacation.


More on the CA House delegation’s vote on the AHCA here.  It’s pretty simple really – all Dems were forit all Reps aginit.

Trump(Don’t)Care…

…and Republicans don’t either. At least not about this – government’s responsibility for our commons.

If we follow their prescriptions to run government like a business, we need to internalize profits and externalize costs. That is the key goal to TrumpCare. It isn’t lowering premiums or increasing choice or making sure you can keep your doctor, the goal is to reduce government costs by decimating one of President Lyndon Johnson’s signature entitlement programs meant to stave of crushing poverty in history’s wealthiest country.

At times like this, as we are likely to see a Republican Wall Street version of Medicaid get signed into law, it’s beneficial to review the basics.


a) What is Medicaid? (image, including their advertisers, from the NYT)

What is Medicaid 1

What is Medicaid 2


b) Where are we likely to end up in the next few weeks or months? (From Kevin Drum)

Where headed


c) A Senator, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, reviews in a series of tweets images of the language in the bill and what they mean in English.

Casey 1

Casey 2

Casey 3

Republicans are about privatizing government and our commons. The drive is a natural side-effect of an economic system that rewards focus on individual profits with no means of accounting for shared concerns.

How the vulnerable among us retains access to basic human needs such as health care should be one of a government’s primary concerns, especially when the society has the means to provide this access. But that isn’t the priority of the Republican Party, the priority is to minimize the public percentage of national spending. If you do this, there will be less that their most influential constituents have to pay in taxes.

The Republicans are pro wealth distribution, they just want to continue the destructive focus of our nations wealth (and the benefits that come with health, such as access to preventative health care) into the hands of the few.

outofbalance


This is something I wrote from October 1, 2013, the day the ACA market places opened…

“In order to win his party’s nomination, Mitt Romney had to run as far away from his plan as possible.  Ultimately the conflict over the ACA is not about the ACA itself, it’s about how far right the Republicans have shifted.  The ideology that the free market will solve all problems is as much a crazy utopian dream as the far left’s defunct dreams of a purely socialist state.  Unfortunately the right wing/libertarian free-market fantasy is an ideology that wins hearts, minds and votes because it has an unbelievable amount of money behind it.  With that money the ideology can buy a narrative that turns truth on it’s head.”

Here is just one example of how our collective perception of reality is influenced with money by those who have it and wish to make sure it isn’t spent on others:

More on David Valadao from congressional district CA-21 and other CA Representatives and their vote for the AHCA here.

 

Is “Trumpcare = Choice” a Lie?

Of course it is. The true is that Obamacare with Medicaid expansion (called Medi-Cal in California) now covers over 50,000 Humboldters. That at least doubled and close to tripled Medi-Cal coverage before the ACA.

To be eligible to Medi-Cal under the expansion, your current income had to be 138% of Federal Poverty Limit (FPL) for an adult and under 266% FPL for a child. 138% FPL is $1,387 per month.

With these new, simpler, fair and humane rules under Obamacare we as a Humboldt community were able to share first rate health care with 25,000 to 30,000 more of our neighbors.

If you have family in Humboldt, it’s likely some members of your extended family are aided under this program. Remember, with Medi-Cal roles in the 50,000 range we are talking about 38% of all 130,000 Humbodlters aided under this program.

And it’s a good program. We are a wealthy society and all other wealthy societies around the globe have figured out access to preventative and sustaining health care is a right. Medicaid under Obamacare doesn’t reach universal health care levels, but it does give access to the most needy in a conservative, market-friendly manner that does allow choice.

If you are over that 138% as an adult, or 266% as a child, you then get access to private health care plans on the Covered CA marketplace. Up to 400% FPL these are subsidized and thus affordable.

Again, Obamacare was a conservative approach to universal health care coverage, one based on markets and helping individuals to chose the health care they can afford.

But the chosen Republican party line to sell what the rest of us understand is a money and power grab where the rest of us are entirely vulnerable is to contend that Trump Care is about choice in health care.

And for some it is. For those making over 400% FPL, I imagine there may be expanded choices as the insurance industry again returns to you as their main profit center. But for those who were able to gain access to health care under Obamacare, there will no longer be a choice.

Trump Care = choice is a lie because Obamacare proved that we were able to expand the roles of those obtaining health care. This meant that money was a factor and reducing funding to Medicaid will again return us to the bad old days where health care is a privilege to those who are gainfully employed or have made many good decisions or have been fortunate enough to be born to a family with enough money or love to set us on the right path.

This just isn’t acceptable in our country and it would be nice if local Republicans who get this would speak to their friends and business associates and help their leaders in Washington get this.

Trumpcare will reduce the number of people who have access to health care, it does this by removing the cornerstone of a critical federally-funded program called Medicaid satisfying another conservative goal in working to reverse the FDR-Johnson vision of America with a strong middle class and access to basic necessities of modern life to those who live at or below poverty limits. Mainstream Republicans and conservatives, please do not let the Economic Royalists or loony libertarians do this to us. Our lives are in your hands and we depend on you to call a lie a lie. 25,000 to 30,000 of your neighbors and customers now depend on your integrity.


tweets:

article:

G.O.P. Health Plan Is Really a Rollback of Medicaid (Margot Sanger-Katz |NYT | 6/20/17)

ff:

High

(This is the forgiveness factor.  I’m asking for a high amount of forgiveness for editing/content b/c of the short amount of time I was able to dedicate to this post) 🙂 (ty)

GA06 Democrats Should Consider Voting for a Republican

Tomorrow is election day for residents of Georgia’s 6th congressional district. This seat was opened when Republican Tom Price accepted the position of Secretary of Heath and Human Services in the Trump Administration. This district includes the Northern suburbs of Atlanta and is generally a safe seat for Republicans.

But this year was different and money and a national reaction against the election of President Trump and his ongoing bungling of his first (and Insha’Allah, only) term means that the best guess election-watchers have is this race could be run by either candidate.
The candidates are Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Karen Handel. As of June 9th, Ossoff has raised $23 million and Karen Handel $4.2, but there are many others funding this race including the national Democrats who have contributed $6.7 million and the Republicans who have contributed $6.7 million. The NYT reports that this is the most expensive House race in U.S. History.

I’m giving this background because I understand how important this race is to both sides of the political spectrum. It’s important not only because of the diverging views of either candidate on critical issues such as LGBTQ rights and health care, but it is important as an indicator of what is possible in 2018.

But there is something even more important and as despicable as the advertisement is (sponsored by the unprincipled and anonymous money of the Principled PAC), it references something unimaginably more despicable. Last Wednesday there was an assassination attempt on a Republican Congressional leader by a former left wing political volunteer. I cannot think of an assassination attempt of a Republican leader since the beginning of this recent trend of violence in the 1960’s outside of that on President Reagan.

The reason the attempts on Republican are significant to a liberal activists is these occur, albeit with many, many degrees of separation, in our sphere of influence. This is why I believe it is so important that those left of center are taking a vocal and substantial stand against this unspeakably wicked and indefensible act of political violence.

This is the ultimate value that all Americans must share. We shall not kill one another. It’s pretty basic and clear.

Jon Ossoff is not in any way responsible for this killing, nor are Democrats. Mr. Ossoff an Democrats also have a responsibility to voters to continue to run a winnable campaign. Having said that, I also believe it is incumbent on those of us left of center who wish to send a message to anyone who thinks that the route to better health care or equal rights for LGBTQ communities and people or proactive societal efforts on global climate change is though violence to do so. For those voters in GA06 if that means voting against your interests on everything but political violence, I think that is a defensible position and I’d likely be joining you in voting for Karen Handel tomorrow.


more on the despicable advertisements against Ossoff – a concern for another day, another election:

More about that disingenuous ad and the emotions it is trying to evoke even if it is shown to be manipulative.  (I found this thread in the comment zone for the above video.)

ossoff comments

Dark Money, Oil, Private Prisons Fund Islamophobic Attacks On Georgia Candidate

 

 

Matt McFarland and Black Lives Matter Front and Center on The Root!

The Root
Screenshot from The Root this morning.

Fire Chief Wears ‘Police Lives Matter’ Pin But Says Firefighter Cannot Wear ‘Black Lives Matter’ Pin

Thank you for what you do Mr. McFarland, and thank you for so eloquently making your points in how you approach the important work you do.

 

Let’s find a way to help local emergency services understand the difference between political activity and their jobs.  Do you know anyone involved in politics that might be able to help develop and elect representatives that understand the difference and could pass their thoughts along to their employees?

(Answer, for those out of the area or unaware:  Tamara McFarland, Matt’s wife and major force behind the local organization changing the political landscape – the North Coast People’s Alliance.)


source:

Thanks to the tweeter behind Teacher in CA for tweeting this story.  Also, ouch.  That hurt’s, but it ain’t all together wrong.