I’m considering running for Eureka City Council ward 2 as the peerless Linda Atkins will be termed out in 2016.
I don’t see how a candidate on your blog roll would be kosher. So, to be on the safe side, I’m thanking you both for the increased readership your link afforded, but please at this time consider clicking the “delete” button.
Jon Yalcinkaya for Councilperson representing Eureka Ward 2?
I’m not a mail reader so I missed this until running into the display in Eureka. On that display I discovered one of dHF!’s original six readers Mary Ella Anderson AND Humboldt commenter extraordinaire Mitch!
That connection got me to thinking. What a great opportunity to connect the liberal idea of natural food and sustainable individual living with sustainable societal living.
There is a huge disconnect here and this is demonstrated by the fact we at the Co-op don’t pay our workers a living wage and the Co-op as an institution was not behind increasing Eureka’s workers closer to a living wage this past November.
Most of the candidate’s statements are more about their individual backgrounds than wage politics. My question for incumbent Kate Lancaster who wrote “I know the Co-op must be financially viable…” is isn’t a living wage critical to sustainability? As far as I’m concerned as a Co-op shopper and member – anything else should not be an option if we are committed to social sustainability.
If you are interested, voting ends tonight at 5 pm. Visit your local Co-op for more.
First of all a couple of points… I thank Bill Bertain for speaking with me and confirming that I had not lost my mind and their was a lawn sign for Nick Angeloff at some time prior to the lawsuit being announced. He didn’t have to do either, the fact he did both demonstrates integrity.
Bill Bertain would not admit that the lawsuit that he has brought with Leo Sears against Harbor Commissioner incumbent is a political prop. However, he seems to have a much more … fluid … understanding of the practice of politics, policy and law than I do. I don’t believe that our courts should be used, primarily, to affect change in elections. I think Bill would probably agree with that. However when asked why not wait until after the election to bring up a lawsuit Bill might argue that the voters have a right to know what is going on before the election.
This election is by design by Angeloff supporters politically extremely complicated. This lawsuit is, based on timing alone, frivolous at best and at worst abuse of our justice system for political gain. For more on the merits of the lawsuit please read LoCO’s write-up.
The absolute bottom line is this. If the financial conflict of interest is a real problem, then the left is completely on board. It involves section 1090 of the California Government Code which begins with …
Members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members.
Absolutely! On board 110% Bill. Let’s take a good look at financial interests and connections between private interests and public policy. (Actually county GPU and upcoming Weed ordinances come to mind too now that you mention it.)
Remember, it’s the left who is very concerned when private money influences and corrupts public policy. So, if this is a problem, bring it up on the day after the first Tuesday in November (election day) NOT before. If the charges are as egregious as charged then surely a legitimate and successful lawsuit will have it’s own influences on their career path – as the less-politically-important allegations of poaching have had for the soon-to-be-former commissioner Aaron Newman.
My example to Bill was this. Think about the recent ACLU lawsuit against Eureka City Schools. Look at the date stamp on that URL – it’s from December 2013, a month after incumbent Eureka Schools Board President John Fullerton ran and lost to Lisa Ollivier. (and less than 2 weeks after the results were official)
Now, the timing of the above may have been fortuitous for the ethically-minded of us. It may have been that behind the scenes ACLU staff were scrambling to get the lawsuit filed either before the election, or perhaps, were not concerned one way or another about the election. However, it the end, a lawsuit which would have placed John Fullerton is a politically challenging position was not made public until after the election.
And rightfully so. Pervasive and intrenched racism is more important than any one election. Financial impropriety affecting public policy is also more important than the results of any one election. These issues should be brought up on their own merits and treated with the seriousness and time that elections do not allow.
Assuming those bringing them up actually believe the lawsuit does have merit.
Bill and I seem to agree on one thing. One can’t have both a political lawsuit and a political yard sign at the same time. I, unlike Mr. Bertain, would have stuck with the yard sign.
If you can make your way through the right-wing garbage in this clip of Stossel and O’Reilly talking about the Kor-ANN and other matters, you may also get a glimpse of how the right wing continues to built their incredible narrative.
John Stossel was tasked to do man-on-the street questions asking “Would you be OK if a Muslim were president?”. At the end of the segment, after BO had got his story across the way he wanted to present it, Mr. Stossel let us behind the scenes in a way that completely pulled the rug from the entire segment. Here is what he said as the music had been qued to go to break…
Stossel: (4min 25 sec into segment above) “I just wanted to add …. I asked 25 people. I thought most would have an objection [to a Muslim President] and your editor just split it 50/50. But almost everyone said, ‘no, no problem’ without hesitation.”
O’Reilly: “This is N.Y City. *slams pen into table* If you go down to Mobile, Alabama you’ll find a little bit of a different find. Alright?”
Awesome! Do you get what just happened there and why it’s so important? O’Reilly had a story to tell – he wanted to “analyze” this whole “Muslim controversy” as a “trumped up deal!” (emphasis Bill’s). He sent out John to find out “what the folks think”.
Turns out the media’s reaction to Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson’s bigoted remarks wasn’t a “trumped up deal” at all – at least based on Stossel’s actual reporting.
But, since O’Reilly and his editor know that people in Mobile, AL feel as Carson do, they were obligated to skew the evidence.
In sum, it’s the story Bill, his editor and FOX want to tell that is more important that the news.
Liberals instinctively get that FOX is doing this. It is the difference between news and politically-biased infotainment.
I can just hear conservatives and those that had really had it up to their necks with the political back-and-forth saying “yeah – but MSNBC does the same thing”. The truth is they don’t – or if they do there is a misguided host or editor it isn’t the raison d’être of a real (or liberal) news organization.
If a liberal news organization got caught doing this – it’s readers/listeners/viewers would demand accountability.
And yes, this is important to me right now as credibility is front and center locally thanks to our locals who might be kindly described as skeptics of big government and big unions. What the left needs to get across is there is really a difference here. Reality does have a liberal bias and there are important reasons why. There are also important reasons why we all (left, center and right) have an obligation to change our country’s and county’s misleading conservative narratives.
The Humboldt Consequential – a new local anti-government fever-swamp, Rose Welch of Watch Paul, Fred Mangels and John Chiv all jumped on what was clearly a fake email which “purportedly” came from my union – AFSCME. From Rose’s blog (emphasis mine)…
“The latest post there includes what is (purportedly) a VERY NASTY letter from a AFSCME, threatening our Board of Supervisors.”
This blogosphere flare-up is important because it gets down to what I believe is the nub, or what could be the unit, of politics – credibility. Credibility is critical to our opinions and our internal narratives. We all understand this – to our core – even if we don’t consciously understand when our internal judgements are taking place or have taken place.
[Aside: Could the unit be called the “cred” as in… John Fullerton has -4 creds with me while Verbena has earned 42.]
We want to know who to believe. When confronted with real decisions – like Eureka was with Measure R last November – I believe it’s resounding failure with the voters who showed up was not due to it’s merits, but rather due to whom people trusted.
In the end the very small portion of the electorate decided to trust John Fullerton, Charlie Bean and the Chamber of Commerce. Or, was it that people fell victim to their distrust of the main proponents of Measure R. People like my friends James Decker and Verbena – people fighting for the forgotten in our society.
So when moments like this come about, it’s important to take note. This is not about truth, this is not about what is real. What this is about is whom to believe.
If you have any question, please note THC’s response to LoCO’s article that at least allowed both Rose and John to step back from their anti-union fever a bit.
“AFSCME is straight-up lying to you. Do not believe them.”
(emphasis mine. THC later referred to AFSCME as “AFSCMafia” – just so you know where they are coming from.) This is under THC’s header-motto “The truth is you should be mad”. And by being a frequenter of their anti-governemnt blog I think what they want you to be mad about is … government … and it’s overspending and outlandish salaries.
Just had to take a break from my unintentional blogging hiatus to mark this waypoint on the trail of Humboldt’s blogosphere credibility to call out the purporting. And please note that this purporting was followed on THC by a diatribe on AFSCME and it’s members. I hope those of you who are paying attention and may be on the fence are taking note. How many creds should anything following a purport be given? I don’t think there is any doubt the imaginary number would be negative.
The right wing is all over the #AllLivesMatter counterpoint. Even liberal standard-bearer Senator Bernie Sanders has botched this.
Here is a typical thought that I’ve heard spammed all over KINS over the past weeks as they glory in the #blacklivesmatter movement rightfully taking it to the bastions of contemporary liberalism – Netroots Nation and Bernie Sanders rallies.
But the confused and pointless anger of the Black Lives Matter crowd is a turn-off for the swing voters the Democrats will ultimately need in 2016, even though Democratic candidates won’t say so.
In that same article Mr. Rogers, whose politics can be understood with the following … he formed a lobbying group with former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, wrote this
The Black Lives Matter movement appears to be louder and more pointed, but is perhaps even more aimless than Occupy.
What Mr. Rogers doesn’t get is that Occupy is still with us. The language and memes of Occupy has shifted our country’s thinking. Occupy, along with the continuing reality it was reacting too, is what is allowing for Bernie’s candidacy to take off.
#BlackLivesMatter will be similarly successful in the future, but will similarly suffer from the fact that the difficult changes necessary in our society will not come overnight.
At least Mr. Rogers understood one thing. He wrote…
The Black Lives Matter movement is misguided, much like Occupy Wall Street. Their dishonest, anti-police views belong exclusively in the Democratic Party. Gasp! Yes, I said it.
You did say it Ed, and you are right. Both Occupy and #BlackLivesMatter are exclusively in the Democratic Party. The Republican Party enthusiastically remains the party protecting the rights of entitled, bigoted, angry, white, real estate developers who have inherited their wealth.
In the meantime Bernie and Democrats need to understand and continue the arc of history that has taken us from the Civil War through the Voting Rights Act to today. We need to continue this progression remembering that in order for all lives to matter, we must include black lives.
Black lives like Trayvon Martin (killed: 2/26/2012), Michael Brown (killed: 7/17/2014), Eric Garner (killed: 8/9/2014), Tamir Rice (killed: 11/22/2014), Walter Scott (killed: 4/4/15), Freddie Gray (died: 4/12/15), Sandra Bland (died: 7/15/2015), Samuel DuBose (killed: 7/19/2015). These lives mattered among hundreds or thousands more. Millions in America matter today. Let’s build a justice (not to mention economic) system that demonstrates that #BlackLivesMatter.
That is why when people respond to “Black Lives Matter” with “All Lives Matter,” it grates. All Lives Matter may be one’s personal position, but until this country values all lives equally, it is both reasonable and indeed necessary to specify the lives it seems to value less.
All Americans need to recognize this, and our history…yesterday.
In politics, the Civil War is still with us. It was with us during the Cold War and it was with us through the culture wars.
Here are a couple of particularly timely examples from today.
a) #blacklivesmatter. No, not #alllivesmatter until we include black lives too.
b) Perhaps this is less about the Civil War specifically and more about wars generally, but one of the first info-graphics in this important history reminder was this..
Why the Controversy?
Many people don’t want to believe that the citizens of the southern states were willing to fight and die to preserve a morally repugnant institution.
Morally repugnant institution aside, listening to KINS’s Bill Bennett this morning there was what was a moving phone call advocating against the Iran nuclear deal from an Iraq War veteran who was arguing that one of the reasons we don’t want a nuclear pact with Iran was so his comrade, and our soldier, did not die in vain.
That, while moving and tragic is simply wrong. That is the lost-cause mentality and future soldiers would love it if we stop the killing now if at all possible.
And it is possible, even probable with strong leadership like that demonstrated by President Obama who understands this region perhaps better than any other President before him.
Caveat: Even thought this video is via the Daily Kos it was produced by right-wing radio smooth-talker Dennis Prager and his “University” of you-tube videos, this is via Daily Kos.
“So Mister Pres..Madam President, let’s be really clear about something. The Republican scheme to defund Planned Parenthood is not some sort of surprised response to a highly edited video. Nope! The Republican vote to defund Planned Parenthood is just one more piece of a deliberate, methodical, orchestrated, right-wing attack on women’s rights. I’m sick and tired of it. Women everywhere are sick and tired of it. The American people are sick and tired of it.”
The plan failed again (thank you filibuster?), but it is an ongoing political battle that is being billed from the right as life vs. death, innocence vs. unadulterated evil (selling baby organs for profit).
People of the left like Senator Warren understand the Frank Luntzian politics of changing “fetus” to “baby” and counting and comparing practices of Planned Parenthood to The Third Reich. The goal ultimately is to move the bar back to the place where men had more control over the women in their lives (to include their daughters). It really is as simple as that and all the rhetoric is simply political gamesmanship.
If the right was serious about ethics in medicine, they would be behind a needed national conversation about how we are to grapple as a society with new moral and ethical dilemmas our society confronts not only as our society progresses technologically but also as our culture becomes increasingly consumer driven. But that isn’t the tact they are taking. Instead their message starts at the pulpit and spreads from there, and the message is plain to see.
Also, if the religious right was serious about reducing the need for abortion than they would be extremely outspoken about legislating easy access to prophylactic contraceptives. However, this is not a two tiered strategy to reduce “baby” “deaths” in America, this campaign is part of a complex yet elemental gender-based power play.
“We like the power structure the way it is. We don’t need to change. Young woman, do you need a clinic? There is one just over the state border.”
(From Senator Warren’s clip above (4 min in)…”more than half of Planned Parenthood centers are in areas without ready access to healthcare”.)
Thank you Senator Warren for standing up with so much clarity on this issue. America stands with you standing up for Planned Parenthood.
We can fight for Democratic ideals and we can be smart enough to make sure our differences will not result in the absolute worse result – control returned to those who fundamentally don’t believe in governing.
Between now and when the national candidates and their supports rally behind a single candidate we will be fighting for the soul of the only party remaining that is willing to take on reality and the challenges it presents.
Those on the right have thrown in the towel on governing for all and depend on pet issues and memes to hide their true agenda – fighting for the rights of those already powerful. They do it by a faux-populism fueled by infotainment and specialty-advertising – not to mention the wealth of an incredibly tiny percentage of Americans.
This campaign season, our task as Democrats and people who care on the left-of-center will continue to come down to these simple words with which Egberto ends his essay…
It is time for Democrats to first build a base by widespread community engagement and identifying the different needs of all communities, needs that are not just economic. Democrats must then choose a direction based on all the the needs of the various communities. That direction will identify who makes the best candidate. That best candidate will win irrespective of money if the electorate is engaged for a change.
We need to engage the electorate and help them to see through the paradoxical veneer of individual optimism and/or hopelessness that seems to be behind the draw of the right wing demagogues and the politicians that depend on them.
Hillary and Bernie supporters, if you have the time please read Egberto’s piece and I’ll see you out on the campaign trail. Fighting money is an uphill battle, but we have time and people on our side and as Democracy depends on people pulling the lever, we do have a built in advantage if we are willing to work for it.