HinesSight

Oregonian's Susan Nielsen preaches false dogma about marijuana

Ah, it's satisfying to boomerang B.S. back into the face of editorial writers who hurl it.

A few days ago I criticized the entire editorial board of the Portland Oregonian for calling the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act (OCTA) "farcical" when their extremely minimalist reasons for saying this were just that: farcical.

But in that post I failed to address the equally nonsensical accompanying piece by editorial board member Susan Nielsen. Her "Marijuana in Oregon: Pot legalization measure would give kids quite an education" fails my basic standard for a good editorial.

Opinions, especially regarding social policies, should be based on more than personal feelings. State the facts on which your opinions are based. We are entitled to our own interpretations of facts, but we shouldn't make up facts out of falsities, or dismiss facts put forward by others without good reason.

Annoyingly, Nielsen ends with...

Either way, the initiative puts Oregon in the business of promoting and selling marijuana. It also requires "accurate" drug education in schools, after spending several pages reciting, chapter and verse, what Oregonians would hereby define as The Truth about marijuana. 

That's not decriminalization -- or education, either. 

It's religion. 

No, Ms. Nielsen, it is exactly the opposite of religion. Your opinion piece, on the other hand, is a good example of religiosity in a secular arena.

You start with a dogmatic conclusion -- the drug education programs supported by the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act would be harmful to children -- and unwaveringly stick to your dogma without providing any demonstrable evidence or solid reasoning to support your personal views.

Nielsen correctly says that the OCTA would require "accurate information" to be provided to students about drugs. What possibly could be wrong with this? Is Nielsen and the rest of the Oregonian editorial board in favor of providing inaccurate information to students?

Well, actually they probably are.

Because Nielsen decries the prospect of providing accurate information to Oregon's students. Apparently promulgating the truth about marijuana is too scary for her to contemplate, so Nielsen resorts to name calling: it's religion.

Being nonreligious myself, I agree that "it's religion" is an insult.

However, Nielsen should reserve those words for genuinely faith-based belief systems. The preamble to the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act isn't one. Statements about marijuana are made. Nielsen repeats some of them. 

*  Long-term, heavy marijuana users "do not deviate significantly from their social peers in terms of mental function." 

*  Moderate marijuana use "causes very little impairment of psychomotor functions." 

*  People who say marijuana is a gateway drug are lying. In fact, such lies "destroy the credibility of valid educational messages about moderate and responsible use (of marijuana) and valid warnings against other truly dangerous drugs." 

*  Marijuana is a "relatively nonaddictive and comparatively harmless euphoriant used and cultivated for more than 10,000 years without a single lethal overdose." 

*  Marijuana use "does not constitute a public health problem of any significant dimension."  

*  People have been misled about the true environmental and medical benefits of hemp and marijuana by "federal and corporate misinformation campaigns." 

I don't claim to be an expert on the effects of marijuana. But I do have extensive practical experience with marijuana, having been a heavy user for several years in my college days.

I graduated With Great Distinction from San Jose State College, by the way; I didn't find that marijuana affected either my mental or physical functioning appreciably; I never encountered a belligerant marijuana user, or knew anyone who went on to harder drugs.

I follow research on marijuana as reported in general news sources and several scientific magazines I subscribe to. It seems to me that each of the OCTA statements cited by Nielsen is accurate. If she doubts any of them, she should have noted some particulars in her opinion piece.

Instead, Nielsen took the cheap-shot insinuation route, such as by italicizing accurate information.

Ooh, is that irony I detect on the Oregonian editorial page? Look at Susan Nielsen! She's an editorial page writer who can imply that "accurate information" means something other than what those words normally mean by activating the italics function on her word processor. 

Well, I expect much better. So does The Ridenbaugh Press, which noted the same flaws in Nielsen's piece as I did.

Like many ballot issues, Measure 80 includes a section which includes some justification for itself, a series of statements either demonstrably true or at least as arguable as statements on many another ballot issue. With this one, though columnist Susan Nielson takes issue, not by way of disagreeing with the specifics (which might be hard to do) but making argument that sounds just this side of paranoid: “It appears eager to indoctrinate the next generation into thinking of marijuana use as no big deal and cannabis cultivation as downright patriotic.”

Really? Pro-pot indoctrination?

Oregonians need intelligent, thoughtful, reasoned discussions about the pros and cons of the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act that we'll be voting on in a few months. Unfortunately, so far the state's largest newspaper doesn't seem to be capable or willing to participate in those discussions.

Oregonian editorial opposing marijuana legalization is farcical

Turnaround is fair play, Erik Lukens, editorial page editor of the Portland Oregonian. Today your editorial calls the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act (OCTA), which would legalize and tax marijuana for adult consumption, farcical.

Well, after reading your poorly-reasoned opinion piece I'd like to assign it the same dismissive adjective: farcical. (I'm not alone, based on comments submitted by readers.)

Lukens left one of those comments, a response to Jennifer. Here's the thoughtful message from Jennifer, along with Lukens' offhand reply.

From Jennifer: Dear Oregonian Editorial Board, 
 
What do you feel would be a more legitimate way to tax and regulate marijuana? What would YOUR ideal initiative look like? I think you underestimate the difficulty presented by redefining the laws around marijuana. The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act 2012 addresses the issues in the most complete and effective way, particularly when compared to the other proposals being offered elsewhere. Further, as has been mentioned in the comments already, the legislature can make ANY changes they would like, if there is any portion that is not working. In fact, the legislature will be meeting just as the act goes into effect (presuming it passes)! 
 
I'm amazed at how your board finds fault with everything presented, but never offers alternatives that would be the superior options. How about you schedule a platform to have that "legitimate debate" and let the public participate? Kind of like the transparency meetings you hosted around the state.

From Lukens: Jennifer: Thanks for the response. We haven't concluded that there is a legitimate way to legalize marijuana, as we haven't endorsed legalization at all. We have pointed out that there are legitimate arguments for doing so and for not doing so. What is clear, though, is that this ballot initiative is farcical. I'd even [c]all it half-baked.

And what makes the OCTA so farcical and half-baked? As Jennifer correctly pointed out, the Oregonian editorial board, led by Lukens, didn't point out any substantive reasons.

The editorial didn't discuss the downside of continuing to let Mexican drug cartels and other "dark side" suppliers of marijuana reap the profits of selling a psycho-active herb desired by a great many Oregonians, which is demonstrably much safer than alcohol.

The editorial didn't discuss how much money would be saved by freeing up law enforcement efforts now directed at stopping the sale and use of marijuana, allowing more attention to be paid to truly dangerous drugs.

The editorial didn't discuss the benefits to state government finances by taxing and regulating marijuana, which now is sold in an underground economy where the monetary benefits accrue to private individuals operating outside the law.

Instead...

Erik Lukens and the rest of the editorial board farcically focused on a minor aspect of the OCTA initiative: the membership of the Oregon Cannabis Commission, which "would license people to cultivate and process marijuana for sale at commission stores."

For the first year, the seven members of the Commission would be appointed by the Governor. Wow, that doesn't sound half-baked.

After the first year, five of the seven would be chosen by marijuana processors and growers. If that wasn't acceptable to the Oregon legislature, the composition of the Commission could be changed by statute. Wow, that also doesn't sound half-baked.

Lukens seemingly was grasping for something, anything, to criticize.

Since the substance of the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act is so strong, based as it is on sound science and policy research, apparently the Oregonian editorial board decided to nit-pick on a minor issue -- the proposed composition of the Commission after the OCTA has been in effect for a year.

LIke I said, farcical. 

Mr. Lukens, you should take a look at the composition of boards and commissions around Oregon. For example, I'm familiar with planning commissions here in Marion County/Salem, having been active in land use issues for many years.

Planning commissions often (usually?) are stacked with pro-development people who work in real estate, construction, well drilling, and such. If your editorial board is so adamant about boards and commissions not being dominated by people involved in the area being overseen, you need to start a much broader crusade.

As some commenters on your editorial noted, take a look at medical and nursing boards; the board of geology examiners; above-mentioned planning commissions; forestry, farming, fishing, and wildlife boards and commissions.

I bet you'll find a whole lot of government programs being overseen by people who either work in that area, or have expertise in that area. Is this a good idea? Does this contribute to special interest domination of policy-making?

Maybe. Maybe not.

But that's the real question you should be asking, not singling out the Oregon Cannabis Commission for farcical special attention when so many other boards and commissions are similarly structured.

Hopefully the Oregonian's future editorials on the marijuana initiative will be focused on substance, rather than nit-picking. The paper's readers deserve better than they got in this editorial.

Climate change skeptic admits human-caused warming is real

This is a big deal politically.

A study funded by the Koch brothers, and led by a global warming skeptic, has confirmed that the planet is warming rapidly and it's because of greenhouse gases emitted by humans.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.

This study isn't important scientifically, because it simply confirms what already has been known by climatologists who haven't drunk the oil industry-funded disinformation happy juice. Everything is fine; no problem; keep on using fossil fuels all you want.

Basically the game is over for global warming deniers.

There's little room for them to play their anti-scientific games when as noted a skeptic as physicist Richard Muller admits that he's been wrong. Kudos to Muller for putting science above his skepticism.

The Guardian has a story about the study, which will be formally released next week. Excerpts:

The Earth's land has warmed by 1.5C over the past 250 years and "humans are almost entirely the cause", according to a scientific study set up to address climate change sceptics' concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.

Prof Richard Muller, a physicist and climate change sceptic who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Best) project, said he was surprised by the findings. "We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds." He added that he now considers himself a "converted sceptic" and his views had undergone a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.

...Muller said his team's analysis suggested there would be 1.5 degrees of warming over land in the next 50 years, but if China continues its rapid economic growth and its vast use of coal then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

"Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted," wrote Muller. "I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done."

Act my age? That's a really bad idea.

My driver's license says I'm 63. So does my birth certificate. But how old am I, really? Answering that question requires that we get down to what's real.

And that's a matter of opinion.

Yes, I believe in objective reality when it comes to science. I won't argue calendar facts. The Earth takes a year to go around the sun. I've been alive for 63 of them. No argument there.

But subjective reality is really real also. When I ignore the subjectively irrelevant detail of my calendar age, close my eyes, forget the past, focus on the now, and simply feel how old I am, I have no idea. None at all. 

So far as I can tell, I'm ageless. 

Getting back into recollection mode, I try to remember how it felt to be ten years old. Meaning, what the conscious experience of being me was like. Pretty damn close, if not exactly, like it feels now. Ditto if I think about what it felt to be 20, 30, 40, 50.

Given this subjective fact, I'm evolving a personal theory about aging: it's biological for sure, yet psychology plays at least as important a role. We're told, "act your age." 

Bad idea. Really bad idea.

Doing that locks us into a mindset dominated by the calendar, not our genuine self. More accurately, our genuine non-self. There's nobody 63 years old inside my head. Neuroscience can't find a senior citizen in my brain's neurons. 

Whatever old person exists within my psyche is created by my own mental processes, and those can be altered.

I really enjoy looking at my skateboard (longboard) whenever I go into the room where I keep it.

I haven't had time to practice riding it for a few days. Tomorrow, probably. I've loosened up the trucks, which makes it easier to turn. I'm still a beginner, but after a few hours of longboarding I feel like I'm ready to move on to another level of learning.

Understand: acting a quarter my age (lots of longboarders are teenagers) would be ridiculous if I was forcing myself to do it. There's nothing more fakey than an old guy/gal who artifically tries to look and act like someone much younger.

However, if the part of you that doesn't know how old the calendar says you are speaks, "do it!", pay attention.

Whatever it is -- if not excessively illegal or immoral.

When a 71 year old guy who struck me as ageless told me about how much he liked longboarding, my intuitive immediate reaction was "yes! that's for me!" Later, if I thought about my chronological age, some qualms would start to arise.

But when I simply focused on how I felt about smoothly carving my way down sloping streets or paved pathways, considering the fitness of my in-shape senior citizen body as objectively as I could, there didn't seem to be any reason to act my age.

Like I said before, I believe that each of us plays a big role in how aging affects us. Dwelling on how many years the calendar says we've been alive pushes an essentially irrelevant fact into the forefront of our psyche, obscuring our subjectively truer sense of how old we feel ourselves to be.

A few days ago I had an interesting experience.

A friend told me that he'd been hitting his head quite often lately. He didn't know why. He'd just been bumping into stuff, including a painful encounter with a large bolt above him that he wasn't aware of before straightening up.

For at least fifteen years, maybe twenty, I've been using the same sort of weight machines at our athletic club. I can't recall ever hitting my head on them. Until the very afternoon of the day I'd heard about my friend's head bumping problems.

After leaning in to change the pin which controls a machine's weight stack, I hit my head on a metal support. Damn, it hurt! I ran my fingers through my hair to see if I was bleeding. Nope. But it sure felt like I should have been.

My first thought after Damn! was... "I'd just heard about someone else hitting his head. Is it possible that my unconscious guided me to mimic what happened to him?"

Sure seems possible. Our brains work in mysterious ways. For sure, I don't believe we create our own objective reality. I'm too scientific for that. However, I do believe that we largely create our own subjective reality. 

What we think about, what enters our brains through other means, all that alters our inner geography. We form the world within which we live, then continually reform it through every thought, emotion, perception, sensation.

So don't think about how old you are. Feel how old you are. Wordlessly. Intuitively. If you feel ageless, or much younger than your years, that's more true than what your driver's license tells you. Regardless, don't worry about acting your age.

Act however you damn well feel like.

"Safety Huey" would agree. He's a long-haired longboarder of indeterminate age who is featured in a You Tube video showing tips for safely longboarding in the Portland hills. (There's no way to truly satirize Portland; this wonderful city to the north of me is a beautiful satire of itself.)

Safety Huey wears a t-shirt that says, "65 isn't old, if you're a tree." Well, then, be a tree.

 

"You didn't build that" because you don't have free will

Political junkie that I am, I've been fascinated by the response to President Obama's statement in a speech that successful Americans owe much of their success to societal factors -- education system, roads and bridges, Internet, etc. -- they didn't build themselves.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 

I don't see how anyone could disagree with these sentiments. Obviously we live in a highly interconnected world. No one stands alone. No one succeeds alone. No one fails alone.

Even Mitt Romney seems to agree, since he's been trying to falsely claim that when Obama said "you didn't build that," he was referring to someone's business, not to the infrastructure examples Obama had just mentioned.

However, both the Romney and Obama campaigns are understandably ignoring the most interesting philosophical questions in this you didn't build that debate. Namely, does anyone ever do anything? Is there really a "you"? Does free will exist?

Recently George Ortega left a comment on a blog post I wrote about how ridiculous the notion of "compatibilism" is, which argues that free will and determinism are compatible somehow (I can't understand the tortured reasoning behind compatibilism).

Ortega, I learned from a link to his web site, is admirably, if quixotically, dedicated to promoting the scientifically solid understanding that free will is an illusion. For quite a few years he's been at this, not through his own free will, of course.

(My post is part of his "Free Will Refuted in the Blogs" page. Glad to help the cause, George.)

Check out Ortega's "President Obama Refutes Free WIll." I doubt that Obama would publicly admit to doing that in his you didn't build that speech, but Ortega correctly points toward the deeper philosophical currents that lie under the surface of Obama's remarks.

Ortega shared a link to Dylan Matthews' essay, "The Philosophy of 'You Didn't Build That'" on a Washington Post blog. Matthews discusses whether we deserve anything, including credit for building a successful business.

Political philosophers are sharply divided on these questions. Many do not like the idea that people “deserve” things at all. For one thing, most people think that to deserve something, a person must have done something to deserve it. That implies that there are actions that for which certain people are responsible. Seem obvious?

A lot of metaphysicians don’t think so. For one thing, that claim presupposes the existence of free will. Some philosophers are what is called “hard determinists,” who deny that anything that could be called free will exists. Others, called compatibilists or “soft determinists,” believe that it is both true that free will exists and that every action is determined.

They reason that free will exists if people can act according to their own motives without interference. Those motives are determined by factors outside those people, compatibilists argue, but they still have free will.

But if hard or soft determinism is true, how can people be responsible for their actions, and thus deserve things because of them?

Good question.

However, given the superficial sound bite character of modern presidential campaigns, issues of free will, responsibility, and deservedness aren't going to become a significant part of political discussions any time soon.

Rush Limbaugh did devote time on his program to trashing Matthews' essay, though. As would be expected, Limbaugh failed to understand the philosophical and neuroscientific issues involved in you didn't build that.

Kudos to George Ortega for putting so much effort into bringing free will (actually, the lack thereof) into broader public awareness. Browse his web site if the cosmos has determined that you're interested in doing so.

Guns kill people. People don't kill people.

This is a lie: "guns don't kill people; people do." No, that's wrong.

Guns kill people. This is a fact.

Believe it, unless you're so anti-American, you consider that citizens of the United States are hugely more violent and immoral than people in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and other western industrialized nations.

Have a look at two Wikipedia pages:

First, List of countries by intentional homicide rate. In 2010, these were the intentional homicide rates per 100,000 population:

United States 4.8
Canada 1.6
United Kingdom 1.2
Austalia 1.2
Germany .8

Are Americans really three times more murderous than Canadians? Or six times more murderous than Germans? Is our violent nature the sole explanation for why our intentional homicide rate is so high?

Surely not.

Yes, there are cultural differences between the United States and those other countries. But they also have their ghettos, their poor, their lower classes trapped in difficult situations. So what else could be the reason for the much lower homicide rates in other countries?

Availability of guns. The U.S. is gun crazy. Our gun laws are extremely lax compared to those in Canada, the United Kingdom, etc.

Let's look at another Wikipedia page, List of countries by firearm-related death rate. The years for the data differ as shown in parentheses. Rate is per 100,000 population. These are homicides by guns, not accidents.

United States 4.1 (2004-06)
Canada .8 (1992)
England/Wales .1 (2002) 
Australia .4 (1994)
Germany .2 (1994)

Even though the data for some of these countries are from time periods a decade or more part, the conclusion is inespacable: guns kill people; people don't kill people. More availability of guns, more gun homicides.

Irrational fact-starved NRA types try to argue that if someone with a homicidal urge doesn't have a gun available, he or she will kill with a knife, baseball bat, or whatever. 

Not true.

Unless, as noted above, it is assumed that Canadians are inherently five times less homicidal than Americans, and Australians ten times less homicidal. I don't believe that. What I believe is that the ready availability of guns is the reason for both our very high overall intentional homicide rate and, obviously, our very high firearms homicide rate.

If terrorists from another country were wreaking such havoc on American citizens every year, killing many thousands more than died from similar terrorist attacks in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, there would (or should) be a massive outcry:

We've got to stop our people from being murdered! If other countries can protect their citizens, so can we! We're a culture of life, not of death!

Sadly, the NRA and weak-kneed legislators have teamed up to allow all those thousands of unnecessary deaths to continue, year after year after year after year. Shameful. Every year about 9,000 people are murdered by firearms in this country.

If our firearm death rate was as low as that in the United Kingdom (48 times lower), only about 195 Americans would lose their lives each year, rather than more than 9,000.

The NRA, right-wing Republicans, and other gun nuts are alllowing the equivalent of three 9/11 terrorist attacks to take the lives of our citizens each year. Nine thousand deaths. Sickening. And highly unpatriotic. 

(Unfortunately, the Democrats aren't much better.)

My wife parallel parks better than me

Wow. I said it. Right there in the title of this blog post. A headline. Wasn't as hard as I thought. 

Neither was getting out of our car yesterday after I'd mangled my first attempt at getting into a fairly tight parking space on a cross-street between LIberty and Commercial, conveniently near the Salem Art Fair in Bush Park.

"There's a spot!" my passenger-seated wife had yelled out a minute or so before.

"I think it's too small," I told her, not entirely accurately. Because actually what had gone through my mind as I glanced at the size of the parking space between two cars was, That's going to be tough for me to parallel park in.

Because I still have some lingering needs to assert my manly parking skills, notwithstanding the bold honesty of this blog post, I want to point out that in my lengthy parking career I've successfully parallel parked countless times, beginning at age 16 with the dreaded driver's test exam.

Parallel parking was what scared us learner's permit holders the most.

Friends a bit older than me had shared horror stories of hitting cones, or whatever, while taking the parking portion of their driver's test, thereby setting back a few weeks their acquisition of a coveted license.

My mother, a divorcee, owned a 57' VW bug though. I breezed through the parking portion of the test. Back in 1964 lots of American cars were giant, so fitting a Volkswagen into a space suitable for one of them was pretty damn easy.

Over the years I can remember some parallel parking triumphs that merit a Gold Medal. Like finding a miniscule space after driving around with my wife and some friends for what seemed like eons in the NW 23rd Street neighborhood of Portland, where parking spaces are as rare as right-wing Republicans.

I'd stopped next to the car in front of the space, preparing to back into it. Another parking space-seeking car was close behind me, the driver undoubtedly thinking "I'll grab this spot after that gray-haired geezer gives up on it."

The parking space was small. I had a parallel parking audience. I felt the pressure from the driver behind me (could almost hear baseball'ish taunting coming from him, Hey driver, hey driver, no way you're going to fit, no way, hey driver!)

But I did. First try.

I strutted out of the car and admired my handiwork. Tires even against the curb, about a inch from it. Our car also was evenly spaced between the vehicles ahead and behind. Just a foot or so separated our front and rear bumpers. 

I felt like a freaking parallel parking star. This was before the days of smart phones, or I would have taken a photo of my amazing accomplishment. 

Way different from how I felt yesterday upon ending up at an embarassingly unparallel angle after making my first attempt at getting into the space.

I'd started way too far out from the car in front. We'd taken our month old Chevy Volt, which my wife has come to love hugely more than the detested Nissan Leaf we'd owned before. The Volt basically is Her Car. I usually drive my equally beloved Mini Cooper, which is a lot smaller and has much better rear visibility.

OK, Brian. Enough excuses. Get to the point. 

I'm trying. It's just tough... my self-esteem... the Internet is so public... everyone will know... got to just SAY IT.

My wife looked at me and asked, "Do you want me to park the car? I'm good at parallel parking."

Compared to who? my male mind began to scream.

But I already knew the answer. As would anyone who drove down the side street, seeing me stuck at that horribly awkward angle neither in nor out of the parking space, blatantly obstructing any traffic that soon was almost certainly going to come along.

Rapidly assessing my options, I decided it'd be best to show my sensitive, egoless, feminist-supporting side. Or at least, pretend to show it.

"Sure," I told Laurel. "Give it a try."

I put the car in park, jumped out of the driver's seat, and stood on the grass next to the curb, doing my best to look like I was helping my wife parallel park, as a dutiful husband would if she was driving and needed some assistance getting into a small spot.

It was difficult to keep up that look, though, because Laurel smoothly pulled up close to the car ahead, started to back up, then turned the wheel sharply just as her front tire got to the rear tire of the other car, angling expertly into the parking space on her first try.

Textbook parallel parking.

To support the shaky cover story of why I was standing on the sidewalk while my wife parked the car, I yelled out a few unnecessary comments. "You've got plenty of room. Keep going back. Still got a foot or so. OK, stop!"

It was a beautiful display of parallel parking. After we finished walking around the Art Fair and got back to the car, I told Laurel, "You drive." She deserved the honor for the rest of the day. (I usually drive, parallel parking being a rare event in the places we usually visit.)

Today, thankfully, was another day.

My wife had struggled to balance her credit union checkbook and finally given up. I told her, "No problem. I'll handle it." Which I did. I'm a checkbook balancing genius. Parallel parking, not so much.

Tai Chi, me, and senior citizen longboarding

So far I've spent about two hours on my recently acquired longboard skateboard.

Given how few 63 year old guys (and even fewer gals, likely) spend any time on a skateboard, I figure this makes me a skateboard sage -- mostly by virtue of lack of competition for the title.

My skills are limited. But my venerable sagely wisdom is not, in my own mind at least.

So if you're still awake after viewing this video of my most recent longboarding practice session, read on below it for some insights I've gotten into how my Tai Chi will relate to my skateboarding.

 

In today's Tai Chi class, we engaged in a "push me-pull you" sort of exercise.

Paired with another guy, he and I grasped each other's upper arms, then pushed and pulled our way around the floor, trying to maintain our balance/root in the face of unpredictable physical movement. The key, my instructor pointed out to me, was keeping my core, the center of my body, the place from which movement was controlled.

Same with longboarding, I'm starting to understand. I have to be centered on the board in order to make it go where I want it. A few times I've gotten a glimpse of how a simple mental intention is all that's needed to guide my longboard turns.

Beautiful.

I'm beginning to get a vision of how Tai Chi and longboard skateboarding are intimately related, as is any movement art/sport and Tai Chi. Dance, soccer, skiing, golf, tennis -- these activities and so many more all involve relaxed, focused, committed, centered body/mind control which ideally ends up becoming magical flow. 

What's unique about longboarding, and what it has in common with surfing and snowboarding, is that your mind/body center is resting upon a moving platform. So it's sort of like doing Tai Chi on a floor that's continually twisting and turning.

(My longboard is rigid front to back, while others have more flex; but all longboards/skateboards pivot from side to side; that's how turning occurs.)

In my skiing days, where I was a middling intermediate, I recall a moment of clarity. I was perched on top of a slope that struck me as being too steep for me to ski down with any degree of certitude that I wouldn't wipe out before reaching the bottom. 

I'd cautiously snowplowed down similar slopes before, anxiously worrying all the way. This time, something snapped in me. I said "Fuck it." I dove down the slope as if I owned it. I was tired of skiing under control.

What I discovered was... trying to stay under control had been preventing me from being in control. The looser and more relaxed I was, the better I skied. Committing wholeheartedly to turns felt a lot more stable than weenie'ly trying to slow myself down via V-shaped snowplowing.

This is a central tenet of Tai Chi: move with your whole body, with your whole mind. Applies to skateboarding just as much.

However, as noted above I'm definitely aware that on my longboard, the "ground" on which I rest is moving. And the real ground (asphalt, usually) beneath that is damn hard. When practicing Tai Chi I've never had the floor disappear from under me. On my longboard, I have.

(Which is why I wear gloves, knee pads, elbow pads. And when I start riding on the street, a helmet.)

Anyway, I'm looking forward to becoming a Senior Citizen Skateboard Tai Chi Sage. Like I said, the sagely competition is pretty minimal. 

Jack Reacher movie must show he's the toughest Jack

Back in 2006, after extensive watching/reading research, I concluded that Jack Reacher, ex-MP hero of the terrific book series by Lee Child, was tougher than Jack Bauer, terrorist battling hero of the terrific TV series "24."

In an unarmed mano-a-mano, you’d have to bet on Reacher. He’s 6’ 5” and about 250 pounds. Puny Bauer and his pussy martial arts moves would barely get Reacher warmed up.

I fondly remember one Reacher bar fight which began with him calmly sitting at a table. He’s confronted by half a dozen guys out to give him a bad time. Reacher suggests that they should take a hike. Their leader says, “If we don’t, what are you going to do?”

Reacher then describes in exquisite detail what will happen. “You and I are going to go out to the parking lot. You’re going to take a swing at me and I’ll break your jaw. Then you’ll take another swing and I’ll break your right kneecap. After that, I’m going to come back inside and finish my beer." Which, of course, is exactly what happened.

Bauer can handle himself in any sort of situation, but almost always he’s got a gun in his hand. In the last Lee Child book I read, “One Shot,” Reacher dispatches four well-armed guys (who seriously deserved to be dispatched) with just a knife. Bauer maybe could do that too, but he’d have to work at it harder than the other Jack.

Having read every novel Lee Child has published so far, I'm enthused about the Jack Reacher movie scheduled for release in late December, 2012. 

But Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher? Horrible casting mistake.

Maybe good for the box office, but no way is Cruise a believable Reacher to anyone, like me, who is intimately familiar with Reacher's (admittedly fictional) personality, demeanor, and overall macho'osity.

I'll try to keep an open mind, though.

Cruise might pull it off. He's just so damn small. And lacking the blunt brute force of Jack Reacher. Still, I can visualize Cruise's acting having the requisite cockiness. I just finished Lee Child's "The Affair," which I believe is the most recent Jack Reacher novel.

Loved it. The passages where Reacher deals with some tough southern rednecks are classic. Excerpts:

I looked at the alpha dog and said, "This is your plan?"

He didn't answer.

I said, "Four guys? Is that all?"

He didn't answer.

...I said, "It's a shame one of you isn't bigger. Or two or three of you. Or all of you, actually."

No answer.

Reacher advises them to rethink their plan and come back with dozens of guys, a big overwhelming force. Ending with: "I'll be here. Whenever you're ready." Later, they do come back. In a disappointing way for Reacher.

"Six of you?" I said. "Is that it?"

No answer.

"That's kind of incremental, isn't it?" I said. "I was hoping for something a little more radical. Like the difference between an airborne company and an armored division. I guess we were thinking along different lines. I have to say, I'm kind of disappointed."

Naturally it turns out that Jack Reacher was right. Six big rednecks was nowhere near enough manpower to defeat Reacher. However, he did get a little blood on his newly bought shirt. Not his own, of course. That irritated him. 

But didn't interfere with his diner "date" with the awesomely beautiful woman who serves as sheriff of the small town. Jack Reacher never loses a fight. Or a woman he wants to bed. He's the toughest and coolest Jack.

For sure. Don't blow it, Tom Cruise. Us Jack Reacher fans will never forgive you if you do. Sadly, the trailer for the Jack Reacher movie isn't encouraging. Cruise just doesn't have the Reacher vibe.

 

Airport security screening is almost useless. And irritating.

Check out a great article by David Pogue in Scientific American, "The TSA's Dumb Air-Security Rules Are Not Based on Science: Outdated screening rules aren't making for safer skies -- just longer lines."

Having flown from Portland to Indiana and back recently, I agree with everything Pogue says. Getting through airport security is deeply irritating, but I wouldn't mind if the screening made scientific, logical, and reasonable sense. 

But it doesn't. Here's some examples from Pogue's piece:

Laptops have to come out of their bags and lie flat in a plastic tub—but not tablets, phones, Kindles, cameras or portable game consoles. Why the distinction? ...For example, according to the TSA, the 11-inch model of the MacBook Air is fine to leave in your bag, but the 13-inch model must be removed.

...Then there are the airport checkpoints, where the old metal detectors are being replaced by millimeter-wave and backscatter scanners... With these machines, we trade convenience for security. But look—if we're going to adapt a “security at any cost to convenience” policy, why not prohibit all luggage and require everyone to fly naked?

...Finally, there's the Federal Aviation Administration rule that all electronics, even headphones and e-book readers, have to be turned off during takeoff and landing, allegedly to prevent interference with the plane's navigation systems.

But the scientific evidence for this worry is sketchy. Some devices emit signals that could theoretically affect an aircraft's electronics. Yet “there have never been any reported accidents from these kinds of devices on planes,” FAA spokesperson Les Dorr told the New York Times last year. Once again, irrational fear, not solid science, is dictating policy for millions of travelers.

...I shouldn't mention how you can't have more than 3.4 ounces of liquid in a container, but you (and the group you are with) can bring lots of those little containers. Or how a full container of liquid is okay if you say that it's baby formula. Or that you have to throw away a seven-ounce toothpaste tube even if it's 80 percent empty. Or how kids who are 12 years old and younger no longer have to remove their shoes.

Or how all of this is focused on preventing a terrorist attack on a plane of 100 people—while far less attention is paid to far more populated targets, such as train stations, theaters, sports arenas and, yes, airports.

Global warming is getting scarily real

Great way to put it, columnist Eugene Robinson: "Welcome to the rest of our lives." The extreme weather and global warming predicted by climate scientists is here.

And it's only going to get worse unless the world gets off it's denying-butt and starts dealing with increasingly obvious reality.

Here's a compilation of extreme weather events. More are coming. And then more after those. Believe it.

 

Last night I read a chilling article about global warming, "Running Wild," in a recent issue of New Scientist. Scary stuff. 

Climate scientists have long warned that global warming will lead to more heatwaves, droughts and floods. Yet some of these recent extremes, such as the summer in March, are way beyond the predictions of our climate models. And there have been extremes of cold as well as heat. In Rome, ancient monuments are crumbling because of the big freeze that hit Europe this February. And on the northern edge of the Sahara desert, the streets of Libya's capital Tripoli were blanketed with snow.

It seems that our weather is getting wilder - more variable as well as steadily hotter. The big question is why. Is this just a blip, or are we in for even more freakish weather as global warming accelerates over the coming decades?

[Answer: yes]

...So simple physics tells us that global warming should make extreme weather more extreme, from stronger storms to hotter heatwaves, drier droughts and damper downpours. This is indeed what has been happening around the world - except that in recent years, the magnitude of some of the record breakers has been jaw-dropping.

...More and more people are being affected by all this extreme weather. In a recent poll in the US, 82 per cent of people reported that they had personally experienced extreme weather or a natural disaster in the past year, and 35 per cent said they were personally harmed either a great deal or a moderate amount by one or more of these events.

There is little doubt that things are going to get even worse. What is especially worrying, though, is that the rise in extremes can't be accounted for solely by the 0.8 °C warming so far. Events like the 2003 and 2010 heatwaves were projected to occur only after much greater warming, towards the end of this century. And while one or two freak events might be dismissed as simple bad luck, there have been suspiciously many of them in the past decade.

...While no one can say exactly what's going to happen to our weather, all the signs are that we're in for a bumpy ride. "We are seeing these extremes after only 0.8 degrees of global warming," says Rahmstorf. "If we do nothing, and let the climate warm by 5 or 6 degrees, then we will see a very different planet."

l've got a five year old grandchild. I don't want her to grow up in a "very different planet," because different means way worse, not better. The time for dealing with global warming is now (actually, past time).

My senior citizen skateboarding: days 1 & 2

Yeah, I did it. Got a skateboard. Longboard, actually. They're different breeds of the same four-wheeled animal. Quite different critters.

Skateboards are all tricky; longboards are for cruising, carving, dancing. I thought about the pros and cons of jumping into longboarding at the age of 63 (see here and here). 

Then my inner voice, which hopefully isn't a senile or self-destructive one, spoke to me. "Dude, do it!" Since it used the word dude, I trusted the voice. Figured it was in tune with the skateboarding vibe. 

After talking with the dudes at Salem's Exit Real World skateboard/snowboard shop, I settled on a Landyachtz longboard, The Switch. The description appealed to me, even though I have no idea what the "new school freeride movement" is.

Sure seems like something I need to be a part of, whatever it is.

Our premier freeride specific board which has helped define the emerging ride style of today's longboarder. This board has given riders of all levels the chance to experience the new school freeride movement making stand up slides and drifting easier than ever.

I like: how the platform is dropped low; it feels stable... how the board is symmetrical, so I can't get it pointed the wrong way... how there's "dropped hips" (sounds like my aging body) at each end where my feet can get pretty much locked in.

If you are a 50'ish AARP member or even -- gasp! -- a social security recipient (I'm both) who is considering getting a longboard, my main message is what I said above. Dude, do it! 

After you think about it. Like I did.

I'm physically fit. I do Tai Chi. I ballroom dance. I regularly lift weights and do the ellipical trainer aerobic thing. I'm handling my longboard quite well after just an hour or so of practicing. Video evidence below. Many fellow senior citizens could follow in my Vans-clad footsteps.

Step 1 at the skateboard shop: tell the salesman, "I want to look cool, even if I end up longboarding like shit."

Step 2: be safe. I ended up buying a helmet, knee pads, elbow pads, and gloves. So far I've only worn the knee pads and gloves, because I've been practicing at slow speeds on flat ground. When I go out on a road, the helmet and elbow pads will go on also.

I've ridden a big Suzuki Burgman 650 scooter for three years, never failing to wear a full set of protective gear every time I get on it. (I'm selling the scooter, figuring that one risky activity at a time is enough for me; the skateboard shop dudes, by the way, told me that longboarding is way safer than motorcycling/scootering; I agree.)

So I'm used to reducing risk by wearing the right gear. Us senior citizen skateboarders need to be particularly attentive to this, given that we heal more slowly than younger folk. 

In my two days of practicing, I've had a few stumbles, but no falls. I've even been able to hold my iPhone while I recorded some on-board video action. My wife said, "Who wants to see where you're going, without seeing you on the board?" 

Well, I'm not expecting my Senior Citizen Skateboarder series will go viral on You Tube. And soon I'll share some third-person view videos of me in my oh-so-cool Vans shoes doing whatever I'm able to do on my longboard.

Which is, so far, push off... go in a straight line... stop by a foot drag... make sweeping turns on flat ground.

Tomorrow, though, down Pikes Peak! Well, maybe after quite a few tomorrows. Here's what I've been up to on day 1 and day 2 of my longboarding. 

 

 

 

Photos of Oregon Country Fair 2012: wonderfully weird

Today Laurel and I made our annual pilgrimage to a 60's vibe (decade, not our ages) via the time machine of the marvelous Oregon Country Fair. It's held on beautifully wooded grounds near Veneta, outside of Eugene.

If you've never been, go! Wherever you live.

A few days ago Laurel flew home after visiting friends in Wisconsin. On the plane to Portland, she sat next to a woman from Iowa who was going to spend all weekend at the fair.

There's nothing like it anywhere in the United States, for sure.

Temperature was in the mid 80's. Perfect weather to wear a homemade set of armor. As you'll see, fairgoers wear anything and everything. Including, almost nothing.

We encountered this magical fivesome early on in our fair travels.

Many booths nestled in the trees offer up terrific shopping opportunities. Laurel was tempted to wear some flowery thingies in her hair.

Temptation wasn't resisted. After all, the fair has "Yes, Yes, Yes" emblazoned all around. You're supposed to give in to temptation.

Loved this guy's look. (No, my camera's color isn't out of balance. He truly did have a green beard.)

At the Oregon Country Fair I definitely find it more entertaining to wait for Laurel as she shops. 

At the main stage, this bird creature was dancing rhythmically with the music.

Another large bird looked rather ominous. But I never saw it try to peck anyone. Love and gentleness prevail at the fair. Every time I bumped into someone, both of us said "Sorry." Politeness abounds.

Eventually everyone at the fair looks normal. Except for people dressed excessively normally.

The crowd at the main stage is embraced by... whoever they are.

Yes, there is security. But it's as wild and wacky as everything else at the fair. I'm sure some problems arise. However, we've never seen anyone even raise their voice in anger, much less act angry. Flower power!

Like I said, eventually you cease to be surprised by what anyone is wearing. Whatever. Do your thing. Yes, yes, yes. 

Erotic artwork.

Creative spoon sculpture.

Father Nature and his two female vixens had just finished posing more formally for another photographer. I caught them relaxing afterward. They picked a great background. When I first glanced at the photo, I thought the guy had disappeared somehow.

The parades that snake through the fair from time to time are amazing. And indescribable. Pictures have to tell the tale.

Here's another part of the parade story.

Laurel found a friend who also likes purple.

Oh, yeah, there's some deep philosophy scattered around the fair. Sign says, "What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?"

Dancers at the drumming circle. Laurel told me some men were dancing also. Funny. I didn't notice them.

As we walked back to our car, black leather-clad belly dancers on stilts entertained us. Man, I so love the Oregon Country Fair. 

Gas cars need to respect electric vehicle parking spaces

A few months after getting our all-electric Nissan Leaf, I was incensed to see seven of eight EV (electric vehicle) parking spaces next to chargers in Salem's Chemeketa Parkade filled with gasoline powered cars.

Jim Motavalli, a writer who specializes in green car topics, wrote an interesting article on this subject: "Caught on tape! Gas cars parking in electric vehicle spots."

Not surprisingly, the part I found most interesting was his mention of me.

I feel the pain of EV owners who can’t charge because somebody took their space. Brian Hines took his newly acquired electric blue Nissan Leaf to the Chemeketa Parkade in downtown Salem, Ore., and found a row of spaces with EV chargers — nearly all of them filled with gas cars. “This is irritating,” he wrote. “Most people respect designated handicapped parking spaces. Why don’t they respect electric vehicle-only parking spaces?” That's Oregon's signage at right.

 

Hines notes the city of Salem doesn’t have any fine for miscreants, and neither do most states or municipalities. Whether people respect handicapped spaces or not, they know they risk a ticket. In Hawaii, they’re getting tough. EV spaces — which are actually required, along with charging stations, for parking lots with more than 100 spaces — will be clearly marked, and reportedly enforced with fines. The same basic plan has been approved in Portland, Ore.

Jim and I exchanged some emails about EV parking and why we sold our Nissan Leaf to buy a Chevy Volt. He sent me a link to a piece on Green Car Reports, "Like the Plug, Not the Range: Leaf Owner Trades in for Volt (Ampera)." 

I hope the Leaf succeeds. Sales are pretty slim, though.

They'll be even worse if electric cars don't get the designated parking space respect that handicapped spots do. So please: don't park in an EV charging space if you don't have an electric car. 

Freeway backup shows craziness of relying on cars

Two things drove me crazy during today's drive from Salem to pick up my wife at the Portland International Airport:

(1) Listening to right-wing talk show host Lars Larson, because his station, KXL, has good traffic alerts, and (2) getting stuck for a long time in a backup on I-205 whose seeming cause says a lot about the need for more mass transportation.

This afternoon Larson didn't blather on about the blessedness of cars, and the hellishness of bicycles, light rail, high speed trains, and other alternatives to getting around in automobiles. But I've often heard him do this.

Which my wife and I strongly disagree with.

We often fantasize about a light rail line running from Salem to Portland along the I-5 corridor. It'd be great to be able to get to Portland, including the airport, without negotiating the increasingly irritating metro area traffic.

Before leaving our house, I fired up INRIX Traffic, a recent iPhone app purchase. It's remarkably accurate in showing how speedily traffic is moving on major highways. Things looked pleasantly green until I scrolled the map northward after passing through Woodburn.

Then I saw that I-205, our usual route to the airport, was orange (slow) for quite a few miles. It being about 4 pm, I wasn't eager to head on I-5 toward the Portland city center and I-84, especially since this route was showing up orange'y as well.

So I stuck with I-205. Which indeed was 5-10 mph slow almost to Oregon City, stop and go traffic all the way from I-5. I figured there had to be signs of an accident ahead. But there wasn't.

What I did come upon were two separate cars, maybe a quarter of a mile apart, parked on the left shoulder. Both were safely off the freeway. Both had people sitting in them (one car was accompanied by several other cars, with a number of people working to change a tire, apparently).

No accident. No horrible weather. Just some non-drivable cars on the shoulder of a freeway.

And this, so far as I could tell, was the cause of a massive traffic backup -- since immediately after I passed the stopped cars, traffic sped along normally. I've noticed this phenomenon many times before: an entire freeway backing up when cars slow because of something that isn't an obstruction, but an object of interest/concern.

Yet Lars Larson and his Republican comrades in Congress want to strip mass transportation funding from appropriation bills. They want the United States to be even more reliant on driving around in cars which come to a standstill when the flimsiest reason pops up.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world invests in bullet trains. We sit in traffic jams produced by inconsequential causes. I'm boggled by how Tea Party types in Clackamas County want to keep light rail and other mass transportation from being built in their area. 

Crazy.

I wish one of those right-wingers had been sitting next to me while I was stuck in the I-205 traffic jam today. I had plenty of time to try to convince him/her that cars are the past, not the future; the problem, not the solution.

Indiana is weird: down on coffee, up on chickens in swings

Yesterday I got back from a visit to Indiana. It was bizarre there.

Starting with the weather. On Saturday we were driving around in our (blessedly) air conditioned rental car. I glanced at the outside temperature display.

108 degrees. One...hundred...eight...degrees.

With high humidity. I felt like I was being waterboarded while standing straight up. At first it was difficult for my Oregon lungs to breathe. I kept thinking, "Is this air, or watery gruel I'm inhaling?"

Whenever the highly unusual heat wave came up in a conversation with locals, I'd mention global warming as often as I could. Indiana being rather (or a lot?) conservative, those two words seemed to pass through the brains of Indianans without leaving much of a trace.

I heard this year's corn crop is drying up. Maybe that will drive some climate change sense into midwest right-wing heads.

Bloomington, though, seemingly is the Indiana equivalent of Texas' Austin: an enclave of progressivism in a state that doesn't similarly lean leftward. We felt more at home in Bloomington, particularly at the Roots restaurant -- vegetarian and organic friendly. 

But after we ate our lunch... coffee bizarreness ensued.

My wife, Laurel, wanted to get a cup of coffee and some sort of healthy muffin. How tough is that in Portland, Eugene, Corvallis, Ashland, Bend, or even here in less-cool Salem? Yes, we were in Indiana, not Oregon. Yet wouldn't liberal Bloomington have the same sort of caffeinated vibe?

We figured it would.

So after Laurel rejected the first coffee place we found after leaving the restaurant (it's muffins weren't organic, or whole grain, or something), we walked up the block in 104 degree weather, expecting that we'd soon run into another coffee house.

After all, downtown Salem has two Starbucks on opposite ends of the same downtown block. And across the street is the Beanery, another coffee house with healthy snacks. And a block or so away in one direction is the Governor's Cup, with the Clockworks Cafe a block away in the other direction.

Indiana, however, isn't nearly as coffee-addicted as Oregon is. My wife and I wandered on for several more blocks in the water-boarding'ish heat, looking for hot coffee, Oregonians that we are. 

No luck.

Laurel said, "Where's the nearest Starbucks?" I got out my iPhone and fired up the Starbucks app. Good god! None near downtown, where we were. I was starting to get freaked out. What kind of city doesn't have a Starbucks or other coffee house on every block? 

A non-Oregon city, obviously. We ended up driving back to the resort where we were staying. Which, also bizarrely, daily supplied only one regular coffee packet and one decaf packet for the inroom coffee machine. 

First thing we did after checking in was write a note for the maid service: "Please leave three packets of regular coffee, no decaf." That'd get us Oregonians through the morning. Barely.

Lastly, the chicken on a swing thing. I'd heard that tipping cows was a form of midwest entertainment, but putting chickens on swings? New to me. Here's video evidence that this is a hot Indiana trend.

 

Oregon could legalize marijuana for adults in 2012

Way to go, Oregonians.

Backers of the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act (OCTA) have turned in over 165,000 signatures for a citizen inititive that would legalize marijuana and allow its sale in state-licensed stores. That's almost double the 87,213 needed to be on the November ballot.

I support OCTA not just because I'm an ex-pot head from my college days.

It makes zero sense to spend so much money in the law enforcement and legal system trying to stop people from using an herb that is demonstrably safer and more beneficial to human well-being than alcohol.

Currently we're in a period akin to the similarly stupid attempt to prohibit alcohol consumption.

Back then Al Capone and other gangsters made huge amounts of money from giving people what they wanted. Now, its Mexican drug cartels and other bad guys who reap the rewards of idiotic marijuana laws. 

Much better to regulate and tax marijuana. Over 300 economists have signed a petition urging consideration of marijuana legalization.    

Over 300 economists, including three Nobel Laureates, recently signed a petition that encourages the president, Congress, governors and state legislatures to carefully consider marijuana legalization in America. The petition draws attention to an article by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, whose findings highlight the substantial cost-savings our government could incur if it were to tax and regulate marijuana, rather than needlessly spending billions of dollars enforcing its prohibition.

Miron predicts that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement, in addition to generating $2.4 billion annually if taxed like most consumer goods, or $6 billion per year if taxed similarly to alcohol and tobacco. The economists signing the petition note that the budgetary implications of marijuana prohibition are just one of many factors to be considered, but declare it essential that these findings become a serious part of the national decriminalization discussion.

Best of luck in November, Oregon Cannabis Tax Act.

The initiative should have a decent chance of passing, even given predictable opposition from law enforcement types who would see part of their legal fiefdom diminished. Libertarian-leaning Republicans and Independents, though, should support OCTA. 

Californians may be voting on a "Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act of 2012" initiative. And Washington state's marijuana initiative, I-502, is flying high in a recent poll.

The November ballot measure that would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana — Initiative 502 — is breaking some of Washington’s political molds, according to a poll released Tuesday.

I-502 is leading by a 50-37 percent margin, according to Public Policy Polling, a lead that is built on an unusual three-legged stool of support from young voters, male voters and a libertarian-minded chunk of Republican voters.

Maybe this year the West Coast will start a wave of enlightened marijuana policies that will sweep eastward. 

Obamacare is a middle-class tax cut

Beware! Republicans want to raise taxes on the middle class. A lot. How?

By repealing Obamacare, a.k.a., the Affordable Care Act, thereby making health care much less affordable for Americans.

Obamacare will provide tax credits for those who want insurance, but can't afford to buy it on their own. $686 billion worth over 10 years. By contrast, well-to-do people who can afford health insurance, but refuse to buy it, would pay only $54 billion in shared responsbility penalties.

If you want to call those penalties a tax, as the Supreme Court did recently, fine. The net result of repealing Obamacare still would be a massive tax increase on the American people: $632 billion over ten years ($686 billion minus $54 billion).

Here are the visual facts, courtesy of Think Progress:

If Obamacare penalty is a tax, Romney is a huge tax-raiser

Mitt Romney never met a flip that he didn't soon flop.

The guy has no spine. He bends to whatever his right-wing Tea Party masters want him to say and do. Not a great leadership quality for a would-be president of the United States.

Latest case in point: at first he and his campaign argued that the Affordable Health Care penalty for not having health insurance wasn't a tax, contrary to the Supreme Court majority opinion. Probably this was because the penalty in Massachusetts under "Romneycare," which "Obamacare" essentially copied, also was handled by the tax collection folks, so if the penalty is a tax, Romney increased taxes.

But today... the flip has flopped.

Under pressure, Romney now says the Affordable Care Act penalty is a tax, while the same penalty in Massachusetts is just a penalty. Doesn't make any sense. Like most of Romney's pandering political positions.

Why the switch? As he has on so many issues, Mr. Romney caved to Republican conservatives who want him to campaign on the falsehood that the mandate is a vast tax increase on the middle class. The Supreme Court’s decision that the law is constitutional was disastrous to their cause, so they distorted its basic reasoning. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote that the mandate is legal under the Congressional taxing power, which Republicans took a step further, saying the mandate must now be a tax. And not just a tax, but a huge, oppressive tax, one of the largest in history.

It is, of course, no such thing. How many “oppressive taxes” are entirely optional? Anyone who does the smart thing and gets health insurance won’t have to pay it. It is, as Mr. Romney himself described it in 2006, a fee to promote “personal responsibility” and prevent healthy people from freeloading. (Among those who won’t be able to comply with the law are poor people living in states where Republican governors refuse to expand their Medicaid programs using federal dollars — though most of those people don’t make enough to have to pay the penalty.)

So what is Romney's solution to 30 million people uninsured, rapidly rising costs, wasteful administrative overhead, poor health outcomes in this country relative to other nations with universal health care?

Trust in the free market.

Which is the same free market, only more so, that's responsible for all of the problems our health care non-system faces today. Again, doesn't make sense. Fareed Zakaria's column, "Curbing the Cost of Health Care," explains why.

To understand the issue better, I spoke with Daniel Vasella, the chairman (and former chief executive) of Novartis and a physician by training. He is also frankly pro-market and pro-American, both of which have made him a target for some criticism in Europe.

Vasella emphasized that there is no single model that works best, but he explained that France and Britain are better at tackling diabetes and lung disease because they take a systemic approach that gives all health-care providers incentive to focus on early detection and cost-effective treatment and that makes wellness the goal. “In America,” he said, “no one has incentives to make quality and cost-effective outcomes the goal. There are so many stakeholders and they each want to protect themselves. Someone needs to ask, ‘What are the critical elements to increase quality?’ That’s what we’re going to pay for, nothing else.”

I asked him whether the lesson he has drawn is that only the government can produce system-wide improvements. “It pains me to say this as a free-market advocate, but you have to have [the] government act in this case. Health care is very complex. Only at a systemic level can you figure out what works best based on the evidence, and what procedures and treatments are not worth the money,” he said.

Paul Krugman also explains why the free market doesn't work in health care.

There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.

This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.

...The second thing about health care is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.

You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don’t trust them — they’re profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.

Between those two factors, health care just doesn’t work as a standard market story.

Not a big surprise: women are more moral than men

Roger Steare, a "corporate philosopher," has gotten 60,000 people across 200 countries to take a Moral DNA Test. 

One conclusion: women are more moral than men. Which to me, is just about as surprising as a researcher concluding that wolves are more dangerous than kittens.

Still, science is to be respected, even when what it tells us agrees with common sense.

The study, which measured responses to questions about honesty and competency, showed females are more likely to make decisions based on how they impact on others.

It also suggest the moral compass of both men and women alters with age, become less obedient but more able to use reason, until they reach a "peak of our intellectual and moral powers" in early 60s, according to a leading philosopher.

Ah, I especially agree with that peak part, being in my early sixties myself.

I wasn't aware that I was at the peak of my intellectual and moral powers, perhaps because my mind doesn't work so well these days and I don't really give a shit about lots of stuff anymore, including the status of my moral compass.

For a more entertaining analysis of the research than The Telegraph provided, check out Jezebel's "Science Proves Women Over Thirty are Better Than Everybody."

A survey involving 60,000 volunteers from 200 countries has found that overall, women tend to be more moral creatures than men, and that morality starts to tick upward once women hit 30. So, women in your thirties and older, feel free to take a break from feeling pressured to marry and reproduce and be perfect at your job and have a perfect 22 year old body and a face so youthful that it looks like it was grafted from baby ass skin and give yourselves a pat on the back. You win. Battle of the sexes, over.

...Steare also found that men tend to be bigger jerks than women, as men make decisions based on their own immediate best interests and women tend to consider other people's feelings before acting. So, while a woman might feel hesitant to eat the last of the ice cream, a man might have no qualms about polishing off half a pint of Haagen Dazs or, better yet, leaving one spoonful left and just putting the nearly-empty container back in the freezer so he doesn't have to walk all the way over to the garbage can and throw it away. Who run the world? Boys. Because they're willing to be mean.

l basically agree.

I took the Moral DNA Test and was surprised that it didn't come up with a report saying simply, "Brian, you're a jerk." I tried to be as honest as I could. Much of the time I found myself answering questions in a way that made me think, "Geez, I'm really not a very nice guy." 

But then, who is? And would I really want to be much more moral? If I was much different from who I am now, I wouldn't really be me. (Assuming there is a "me" at all; neuroscience and Buddhism suggest not.)

I turned out to be an Enforcer. 

Enforcers are the people we rely on to make sure that everyone obeys the rules. They help to stop crooks and cheats, and of course ourselves from doing the wrong thing. They'll look up rule 3, sub-section 7 to tell us what's right. If the rules don't tell us what's right, then they'll think of the principle or spirit behind it. Finally, they might remember that everyone is human and fallible and if you're lucky, might let you off with a warning not to do it again. About 15% of adults are Enforcers.

Well, that doesn't sound right to me. Maybe the Moral DNA Test reveals more about myself than I'm aware of, though. 

Senior citizen skateboarding: my new passion?

Can't get it out of my mind. Longboarding, which is skateboarding on, duh..., a longer board.

After blogging about how I'm seriously considering giving longboarding a try at the age of 63, asking "am I crazy?", I've come to no firm conclusion. Of course, knowing the answer wouldn't tell me much. I've never had a desire to be averagely normal.

And leaving aside obvious clinical insanity, craziness is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. We all do, think, and believe stuff which makes other people say, that's crazy! While to us... they're crazy.

So viva la craziness. The world would be way too boringly sane without it.

The Great God Google provides me with lots of fodder to feed unlimited herds of pro and con arguments about taking up skateboarding at my rather advanced physical age (psychologically, I'm embarassed to reveal how young I feel).

Lena Salmi, a 58 year old woman who happily longboards in Helsinki, Finland, inspired me on the pro side. 

The city is an adventure playground for a skateboarder, Lena Salmi claims. She views her home town with fresh eyes: there is a good chicane over there, and this is a good site for tricks. A public space need skateboarders more than the boarders need the city, she argues.
      “We give the city a measuring scale and show how a space works. We also develop the street culture. Longboarding is an incredible means of contact between people. Passers-by stop to look at us. All of a sudden the civil servants are not quite in such haste.”
      ”I allow the onlookers to have try for themselves and the dogs to sniff my board.”
      Salmi declares that she is having a lot of fun when she is skateboarding.
      Not everybody, it seems, is OK with that.
      ”A man cycling by once asked me: ‘Why do you bother with that stuff, an adult woman like you?’ I replied that I was a woman, but not an adult.”
      ”Another time a little boy asked how I was allowed to skateboard, even though I was so old. Where does the joy disappear from a person’s life?”

Tracy McMillan's If You Fall, You're in Trouble was much more of a downer.

I actually know a few of these Grown Man Skateboarders, living as I do in Los Angeles' hipster-strewn Eastside. It's hard to really be against older dudes on skateboards! They look cute with the wind in their hair -- but then, I've always been sort of partial to the manchild. It seems to me the real problem is that if they fall, they're in trouble. I once dated a guy who'd been a skateboarder in his youth -- he had broken virtually every bone in his body. No, seriously. He had bones sticking up at 90 degree angles out of, like, his clavicle. Rainy days are going to be hard for that guy in 2030.

A lot more positive is Am I too old to learn to skate? Amusingly (for an old geezer like me), the oldest specific example cited of someone starting to skateboard was Jose, who returned to the sport at the -- gasp! -- ancient age of 45.

It comes down to my basic rule for living: there are no rules. Including that one. Life is a mystery. Dive into it however, wherever, whenever you feel like it; swim around; explore; it'll still be a mystery.

I emailed the dudes and dudettes at Exit Real World, an Oregon skateboard/snowboard business with stores in Salem and Portland. I've always liked the name. Never been in the store. I quasi-seriously explained why I first wanted to ask them my crazy question via email.

Yesterday I wrote a blog post called, "At 63, I'm seriously considering skateboarding. Am I crazy?" I've gotten one comment from a friend who is about my age. His answer: yes.

For a while today I thought I agreed with him. But somehow I can't get the notion of longboarding out of my mind. 

...So I'm asking for your honest opinion. I realize that you're in the business of selling skateboards and gear, but you're also in the business of guiding people in the best direction for them -- which could involve, I assume, telling them "skateboarding/longboarding isn't for you."

...I was worried that if a 63 year oid guy walked into your Salem store, alarm bells would go off, a trap door would open up, and I'd find myself in an underground chute that leads to the Senior Center. An email seemed like a safer way to start off getting your opinion on 60+ longboarding. Any advice, based on your experience and expertise, would be welcomed.

l got a reply today. I liked how it started off. And ended.

Hey Brian, I was thoroughly entertained by that read. I've been in the skateboard industry for the past 10 years and have seen all shapes, sizes, and ages skateboarding. That's the good part, there aren't any rules for skateboarding. I think that plays a big part in the popularity of skateboarding.

...What's the worst that could happen when in a helmet, knee pads, elbow pads, and wrist guards on if you chose that route? As long as you take it slow and learn the basics and don't start at the top of booyah hill in South Salem I'm sure you'll do just fine!

Well, I can evision various "worst's."

But the good news is that in 2011 there was only one skateboarding fatality of someone 25 years or older. Just one! And that person was 35. Senior citizen skateboarding is perfectly safe! (Along with being extremely rare.)

Most people think of tricksters in skate parks when skateboarding comes to mind. But there's all kinds of ways to get on a board and enjoy yourself. Like I was told, there aren't any rules. Longboarding simply can be a means of commuting, of getting from here to there.

Or, of dancing. This video appeals to me. I doubt I'll ever be dancing on a longboard with anywhere near this sort of expertise. But I could do whatever I can do. Which is the whole point of skateboarding.

 

Video proof: Republicans don't care about 30 million uninsured

When I said that "compassionate conservatism" is dead in today's GOP, a few commenters on my post disagreed with me.

I stand by my assertion. Even more so, after watching in full an interview with Mitch McConnell on Fox News. 

Even after being asked repeatedly how Republicans would handle the problem of 30 million uninsured Americans, how they would move toward universal coverage, McConnell kept dodging the question, saying "that's not the issue."

What a jerk. What an uncaring, heartless, uncompassionate jerk. This is the modern GOP: out of ideas, out of caring. Here's the proof.

 

At 63, I'm seriously considering skateboarding. Am I crazy?

I've never been on a skateboard in my sixty-three years.

But after a great conversation yesterday with a guy eight years older than I am, I'm seriously thinking of getting a longboard skateboard -- for cruising around, not doing fancy tricks.

Is this crazy? Not to me. And not to the 71 year old man I met while we were waiting for our cars to be serviced at Mini of Portland.

Killing time, we found ourselves standing together, looking at the new Mini two seat model in the showroom. Noticing what I was wearing, he said "That's a Crazy Shirt." "Yeah," I replied. "T-shirt and pants both; I love Crazy Shirt clothes; wear them all the time."

He was similarly attired. Had on the same Kona Coffee-dyed pants I often wear. We bonded immediately. Two old guys who like fast, fun cars like our Mini Coopers and comfortable, youthful Hawaiian-themed clothing.

In the course of our conversation, I mentioned how I'd been pondering taking snowboarding lessons this coming winter. (I used to ski, but don't play around in the snow anymore.) That led him to say: "How old do you think I am?"

"I don't know," I told him. "You look fit, but you're probably older than I am." "I'm seventy-one," he said. "Until four years ago I was a skateboarder." 

A longboard skateboarder, he explained, looking longingly out the window at busy four-lane Canyon Road, which leads downhill from Portland's Sunset Freeway into the non-wilds of Beaverton. "That'd be such a great road to ride a longboard on -- if it wasn't so filled with traffic."

It turned out that he'd "caught an edge" (not sure what this means on a longboard) while avoiding an obstacle on a downhill road run. The fairly serious fall made him realize that his reflexes weren't as good as they used to be, so he gave up longboarding.

Still... "You should do it!" he enthusiastically told me. "I had four or five boards at one time, and made one myself. Get a good carving board. Remember that word: carving."

Well, I just might take his advice.

Going on my usual two-mile dog walk this afternoon, I looked with fresh eyes upon the sparsely traveled rural road that loops through our neighborhood. Some parts are pretty steep, but (perhaps overconfidently) I imagined myself smoothly carving my way down them, cap on backward, grooving to the beat of my 63 year old mind which is still young enough to come up with thoughts like "grooving."

My Mini Cooper friend and I (never got his name) agreed on a lot during our brief conversation. Life is short. It can end at any moment. Risks are everywhere. Yes, skateboards are dangerous. So is simply living. 

There's lots of ways to "catch an edge" and take a tumble.

Cancer. Heart attack. Car accident. Falling off a ladder. Recently a newcomer to my Tai Chi class said he broke his back while simply standing on his snowboard, turning to look at a cute girl, and falling on his butt.

I'm not really disheartened by how few hits I got on a "senior citizen skateboarder" Google search. I don't feel like I'm as old as I am. I'm in very good physical shape. I do Tai Chi, lift weights, ballroom dance, hike and bike, boogie board big waves in Hawaii regularly. I could handle a longboard skateboard, for sure.

Just like this 72 year old man did first time out in the only You Tube video I found of someone my age or older skateboarding (but I didn't search very long).

 

l like his attitude. At the end of the video he also expresses a "just do it" philosophy.

My Mini Cooper friend told me that he thinks he could live to be ninety. His goal is to die a slippery slope sort of death: be bold and active right up until the end, then, whoosh!, abruptly slide into that last breath and heartbeat.

Sounds good to me also.

I hope the guy gets back on his board one day. Make a You Tube video when you're ninety, dude. I'll watch it when I'm 83. Maybe while I'm still riding a skateboard (around the old folks home?).