HinesSight

I show how Salem, Oregon is controlled by The Machine

If this was New Jersey, rather than Oregon, I'd be worrying about a baseball bat getting friendly with my knees, or concrete blocks and chains with my feet.

Thankfully, the behind-the-scenes folks who run Salem aren't nearly as nasty as the mob -- though they also do their best to keep money and power flowing to themselves, rather than the public at large.

This is the basic message of my new Strange Up Salem column in our alternative paper, Salem Weekly. Here's how "Rage Against the Machine" starts out.

I woke up in the middle of the night with a “Da Vinci Code” insight.

In a flash I understood it all, the ugly reality hidden behind this town’s benign facade, the conspiracy keeping the curtains closed on a truth-revealing window.

The Machine! It was controlling everything!

I’d had glimpses of this monster before. It took some deep sleep unconscious cognizing for my brain to form a coherent picture of how this town is in the grip of difficult-to-discern malevolent forces.

Leaders of the Salem-Area Chamber of Commerce. Executives at the Statesman Journal newspaper. High-ranking city officials, elected and appointed. Other members of Salem’s “1%.”

I doubt they conduct sinister rituals, have a secret society, or exchange coded messages aimed at achieving Salem domination. But the Machine is as dangerously dehumanizing as if they did.

Once The Machine was assembled and got rolling, it became a force that controlled its creators. As the saying goes, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

So much so, the corrupted in power become blind to what has happened to them. They believe they’re doing the right thing, when they aren’t.

The Machine’s core goal is to keep money and power flowing to the people in Salem who already have these things. Other values aren’t important to The Machine. Such as compassion, sustainability, citizen involvement, honesty, truth, social equity.

I never know what else is going to be published in a Salem Weekly issue until I pick up a free copy on the street. So it was a pleasant surprise to see that the cover story this time was about a like-minded movie, "Citizen Koch," that'll be shown November 13 at the Salem Progressive Film Series.

One of the after-film speakers, David Delk of the Portland Alliance for Democracy, is quoted in the piece:

“This is a great movie,” Delk says, “to grow the public’s awareness of the magnitude of the threat to democracy when we fail to control money in the political system. This movie demonstrates how unlimited money in the political system is a clear violation of the principle of one person, one vote, because it allows those with the money to shout while the rest of us just get to whisper. And shouting determines who gets to run for office, who gets elected, what issues become 'issues' and which get suppressed, and ultimately who benefits and who is harmed."

Exactly.

Salem has its own mini-versions of the Koch Brothers: the Political Action Committees set up by the Chamber of Commerce, Realtor's Association, and other big-money groups. They are aided and abetted by the Statesman Journal newspaper executives and City officials beholden to The Machine.

I put it this way in my column.

Big bucks support the Machine’s carefully chosen candidates for Mayor and the City Council. Political action committees mostly fund their campaigns, which, as happens everywhere in this country, makes the candidates dance to their donors’ tune after being elected.

...what The Machine wants, it usually gets, largely because our community newspaper, the Statesman Journal, won’t do any investigative reporting on how money and power are wielded in Salem.

The paper’s executives are part of The Machine. They won’t criticize the Chamber of Commerce or city officials, since they need advertising dollars and access to the powers-that-be to keep their Gannett bosses happy.

So citizens don’t learn about how The Machine operates in Salem. Voters are left in the dark, swayed by PAC-funded campaigns. Elected officials keep doing what The Machine wants. Our daily newspaper fails to report about what’s going on.

And so it goes…until we citizens rise up and rage against The Machine.

This talk about The Machine isn't conspiracy theory stuff. It is fact.

In Salem, in Oregon, in the nation as a whole. Solid political science research has shown that ordinary citizens have much less influence over policy decisions than the rich and powerful. See here and here.

Here's an excerpt from an interview with one of the scholars who did the research.

You say the United States is more like a system of "Economic Elite Domination" and "Biased Pluralism" as opposed to a majoritarian democracy. What do those terms mean? Is that not just a scholarly way of saying it's closer to oligarchy than democracy if not literally an oligarchy?

People mean different things by the term oligarchy. One reason why I shy away from it is it brings to mind this image of a very small number of very wealthy people who are pulling strings behind the scenes to determine what government does. And I think it's more complicated than that.

It's not only Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers or Bill Gates or George Soros who are shaping government policy-making. So that's my concern with what at least many people would understand oligarchy to mean.

What "Economic Elite Domination" and "Biased Pluralism" mean is that rather than average citizens of moderate means having an important role in determining policy, ability to shape outcomes is restricted to people at the top of the income distribution and to organized groups that represent primarily -- although not exclusively -- business.

Salem City Council (sort of) endorses marijuana legalization

Last night Statesman Journal reporter Michael Rose tweeted:

Breaking: Salem City Council approves 10% sales tax on recreational marijuana if voters legalize it.

Today a story appeared on the SJ web site.

If Oregon voters in November legalize marijuana for recreational use, Salem will be ready with a new city tax on pot sales.

Salem City Council on Monday approved a city tax on sales of recreational marijuana products, including marijuana infused snack foods. The new ordinance would allow a 10 percent sales tax on recreational marijuana. Sales of medical marijuana were excluded from the tax.
Download Pot tax approved by Salem City Council

Hey, that sure sounds like a endorsement of Measure 91 to me, the Oregon initiative that will legalize, tax, and regulate recreational marijuana for adults if it passes on November 4.

After all, Salem's Mayor and city councilors wouldn't want to get tax revenues from marijuana sales if they didn't think legal pot was a fine, upstanding substance for Salemians to consume, right? No ethical elected official would welcome money from the Demon Weed, if they believed in this myth.

So thanks, city leaders, for giving an unspoken thumbs-up to marijuana legalization. Since you mostly are conservatives, hopefully this will spur your Republican/Libertarian compatriots to vote for Measure 91.

There's only a couple of downsides to the near-unanimous Salem City Council action (Laura Tesler was the only "no" vote).

First, it almost certainly is illegal.

Measure 91 prohibits cities or counties from imposing their own local marijuana taxes. Most attorneys I've seen quoted on this issue say it is very unlikely that passing a tax before the election would trump the legal language of Measure 91.

Second, it almost certainly is a bad idea.

Marijuana policy experts are calling Measure 91 the nation's "gold standard" of cannabis legalization should it pass. 

One reason is that the $35 per ounce taxation level is seen as being high enough to generate revenue for schools, law enforcement, and drug abuse prevention, while being low enough to draw marijuana users away from the black market.

Currently an Oregon medical marijuana dispensary is showing pricing of about $200 an ounce. So if the City of Salem were able to tax recreational marijuana sales at 10%, and the price per ounce also was $200, this would add $20 to the purchase cost.

Which would be on top of the $35 per ounce allowed by Measure 91. Now we're up to taxes totaling $55 an ounce, or a 28% "sales tax." 

Sure, many people would be willing to pay that much for certified, tested marijuana being sold in a store. However, others wouldn't. They'd continue buying on the black market.

Thus the tax imposed by the Salem City Council last night not only is an implied endorsement of marijuana legalization, it also is an implied endorsement of a stronger remaining black market (including the portion controlled by drug cartels) following the passage of Measure 91.

SJ anti-Measure 91 editorial so bad, it makes case for legal marijuana

Sometimes the Salem Statesman Journal's editorial positions are so poorly thought-out, they end up making the case for an opposing view. Such happened with yesterday's abysmally illogical "Legalizing marijuana would fuel failure."
Download Legalizing marijuana would fuel failure

So thank you, editorial page editor Dick Hughes. Likely you've convinced more people to vote for Measure 91, than to oppose it. 

Let's start with the title of the editorial, which is explained in its first sentence.

The War on Drugs is a failure.

Bingo! This would have been a great two sentence opinion piece if the editorial had gone on to say, "So vote for Measure 91."

Which it should have, since nowhere in the editorial is there any explanation of why attempts to partially fix the failure through legalization of an herb with proven medicinal properties, happily used by a substantial percentage of the adult population, that is much less addictive that tobacco, alcohol, and prescription pain-killers, should be kept illegal, thereby turning many millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, with all of the needless social, law enforcement, and judicial costs this entails. 

Instead, the Statesman Journal editorial tries to argue that (1) marijuana is a gateway drug to more harmful substances, and (2) legalizing marijuana for adults in Oregon would increase use by minors.

The first contention is demonstrably false, something Hughes would have recognized if he had done more factual Googling of "marijuana gateway drug myth" and less subjective moralizing. Inaccurately, the editorial says:

Marijuana can be addictive. And marijuana can be a gateway drug.

Drug abuse experts tend to say "dependence" rather than "addiction." Yes, some people do become dependent on marijuana, about 9% according to one study. This is much less than the dependence rate for alcohol (15%) and nicotine (32%), which are both legal.

Further, people become dependent on all kinds of things.

Last night HBO's John Oliver show had a lengthy segment about sugar being as addictive as cocaine in certain ways. People also become dependent on/addicted to shopping, jogging, golfing, sex, making money, watching sports, and all kinds of other stuff. 

A Forbes article, "Research shows cocaine and heroin are less addictive than Oreos," casts more light on how simplistic and misleading the Statesman Journal's contention, Marijuana can be addictive, is.

It would be easy to mock Schroeder and Honohan’s discovery that cookies are addictive, especially since they started out knowing that Oreos are “highly palatable to rats” and then concluded, based on the maze experiment and biochemical analysis, that Oreos are highly palatable to rats.

But the study inadvertently highlights an important truth: Anything that provides pleasure (or relieves stress) can be the focus of an addiction, the strength of which depends not on the inherent power of the stimulus but on the individual’s relationship with it, which in turn depends on various factors, including his personality, circumstances, values, tastes, and preferences.

Which brings us to the even more untrue editorial contention, Marijuana can be a gateway drug.

This is part of the long-discredited "Reefer Madness" attitude toward marijuana. Modern research provides a much different understanding than Dick Hughes' reliance on unsubstantiated anecdotal references to a few local law enforcement officials who aren't experts in this area.

Circuit Judge Dennis Graves, who presides over the Marion County Drug Court, sees that often. So do Marion County District Attorney Walt Beglau and Sheriff Jason Myers.

Voters should trust solid research regarding the "gateway" hypothesis rather than biased statements from local opponents of marijuana legalization. Check out these links:

Another Marijuana Myth Bites the Dust -- The Real Gateway Drug is Alcohol
Marijuana: The Gateway Drug Myth
Risk of Marijuana's 'Gateway Effect' Overblown, New Research Shows

I found these easily. So could Dick Hughes and other Statesman Journal editors, if they had chosen to base the newspaper's editorial on objective facts rather than subjective feelings. Here's a few excerpts from the above-linked articles.

A study in the August edition of The Journal of School Health finds that the generations old theory of a “gateway drug” effect is in fact accurate, but shifts the blame for escalating substance abuse away from marijuana and onto the most pervasive and socially accepted drug in American life: alcohol.

...Marijuana is not a gateway drug. People who have tried marijuana may eventually go on to try harder drugs in search of a stronger high, and experimentation may lead them down a dangerous path toward addiction. However, the science shows overwhelmingly that for most people marijuana is not a gateway drug.

...New research from the University of New Hampshire shows that the "gateway effect" of marijuana -- that teenagers who use marijuana are more likely to move on to harder illicit drugs as young adults -- is overblown. Whether teenagers who smoked pot will use other illicit drugs as young adults has more to do with life factors such as employment status and stress, according to the new research. In fact, the strongest predictor of whether someone will use other illicit drugs is their race/ethnicity, not whether they ever used marijuana.

This fits with recent research from Colorado showing that teen use in that state, which legalized recreational marijuana for adults in 2012, is down, not up.

Teen Use Down, not up: Survey data released in early August 2014, indicate that marijuana use among high school students continues to decline, despite warnings that legalization would make pot more appealing to teenagers. 37% of high school students reported that they had ever tried marijuana, down from 39 percent in 2011. The percentage who reported using marijuana in the previous month (a.k.a. “current” use) also fell, from 22 percent in 2011 to 20 percent in 2013.

So the concluding words of the Statesman Journal editorial are utterly without support.

The drug war has failed. But Measure 91 is an even worse "solution."

Ooh! Scare quotes around "solution"!

Don't worry, though. There's nothing to fear from legalizing marijuana in Oregon via Measure 91. This is made even more clear in the cogent comments on the Statesman Journal editorial, which I'll include as a continuation to this post.

Regulating and taxing marijuana will make it less available to minors, as is the case with alcohol. As I said in one of my comments, sellers on the black market don't ask for ID. Purveyors of alcoholic beverages do. Other commenters had equally wise things to say, in sharp contrast to the unintelligent editorial.

Vote Yes on Measure 91.

The Statesman Journal acknowledges the War on Drugs has failed. Yet its editorial didn't give a single reason why Measure 91 isn't a big step in the right direction toward a coherent drug policy.

Evidence from Colorado and Washington shows that marijuana legalization is working in these states. Oregon needs to join them.

Click below for the best reader comments.

My wife's shoulder surgery went fine: a 12 hour post-operation update

For those wondering how Laurel is doing after her rotator-cuff shoulder surgery this morning: the surgeon, Dr. Dan Sewell from Salem's Hope Orthopedics Center, told me fixing the detached tendon went beautifully.

A torn biceps muscle couldn't be fixed, but a flap was cut off to stop it from...I don't know, flapping around, or something. I couldn't understand everything Sewell told me while Laurel was in the recovery area.

The before and after images of her shoulder were mystifying to non-physician me. They all looked like black and white photos of the moon, albeit with different shadings. So the reassurance came from Sewell's clear statement that all went well.

Laurel is now 12 hours into her lengthy rehabilitation.

Her right arm will be in a sling for six weeks. Then she can discard the sling and use the arm gently for another six weeks. After three months, more heavy duty physical therapy and exercising will begin until, hopefully, she's back to normal.

So far, she's feeling no shoulder pain.

Because she isn't feeling her right arm at all, having been given a powerful anesthetic shot in the shoulder that is still going strong (after 24 hours, it should have worn off; when it does, oxycodone and other pain medications almost certainly will be needed, because this is an especially painful surgery). 

Laurel finds it weird to have no feeling at all in her arm. It's been dead weight since the surgery, owing to the anesthetic. She also has crawling and itchy feelings in her head -- an uncommon side effect of the general anesthesia according to the helpful physician's assistant at Hope Orthopedics Laurel talked by phone with this afternoon.

Oh, she also has a mild sore throat from the breathing tube used during the surgery. It was arthroscopic, so a heck of a lot less involved than shoulder surgeries used to be, and sometimes still are. But there's no way surgeries are fun. 

We've been using a Cold Rush Cold Therapy System for much of the time, on low power (since Laurel can't feel her shoulder, she wouldn't be able to tell if her skin got overly cold). This is a cool, so to speak, gadget that beats the heck out of ice bags.

Early on, the two of us are having yin and yang post-surgery experiences. Which is completely normal and understandable, especially for the first few days.

For Laurel, the day has gone slowly and boringly after her early morning surgery. Sitting in a recliner; watching TV; asking me to bring her things and do stuff for her -- not fun, especially for a woman who (like most women) is used to doing this and that all day long, crossing things off of her to-do list.

By the weekend Laurel should be up and about. Until then, I've taken over all of the dog walking and dog care chores, which already is making me more popular with Zu Zu than usual. Dogs know who to suck up to. Usually it's Laurel; today it's been me.

I've been pleased with how well I've been carrying out my care-taking duties. Buddha-nature, be mine! However, I suppose I should hold off on applying for a Mother Teresa Award until more than 12 hours have passed since I became Laurel's right arm. 

So far, though, I don't mind being busier than usual. I waste a lot of time during the day. Just checking news web sites and worrying about the up-to-the-minute state of the world consumes a lot of mostly unproductive minutes. 

Today I let the world go, until now, and worried about the state of my wife. Which I'll be happy to do until her recovery is well under way. Six weeks really isn't that long. It'll probably seem a lot longer to Laurel than to me, since she'll be the one with limited activities and annoying pain.

There's nothing worse than someone who spouts excessive positive thinking when another person is in a justifiably negative frame of mind. Thus I do my best to keep platitudes to a minimum when Laurel bemoans the lengthy and likely painful rehabilitation period that awaits her.

I have mentioned to her, though, that many people in worse circumstances would be overjoyed to know that in just six weeks, they'd have the use of one of their arms back.

I realize that this sort of "be grateful, because others are worse off than you are" stuff can be annoying, and doesn't help much -- since that thought brings to mind the other evident fact that other people are much better off than you are, and would be saddened to think of being in your condition.

In the end, I find myself left with a cliche that is both utterly meaningless and marvelously profound: it is what it is. (Over on my churchless blog, I've pondered this.) Today Laurel's life changed, as did mine.

We'll deal with it. We'll get through it. We'll learn from it. We'll love it. We'll hate it. But the one thing we can't do is change it -- make it go away, disappear, go poof. Life doesn't work that way. I'd much prefer that Laurel had a normal right arm that wasn't in a sling.

But then, there's lots of things I'd like to be, but aren't. It is what it is. Tomorrow, it will be something different. 

Marijuana legalization opponents make the case for legal pot

I'm feeling good about Oregon legalizing recreational marijuana in a few weeks. Measure 91 has been polling well. Donations on the "Yes" side have far exceeded those on the "No" side.

And legalization opponents haven't been able to come up with any persuasive arguments against Measure 91. 

They keep yammering about the risk to children, but this flimsy contention has been thoroughly demolished. See "Legalizing marijuana controls use by youth. Vote for Measure 91." 

Here's a few more pro-Measure 91 blog posts.
Pro-marijuana legalization clear winner in Salem City Club debate
Strangest reason to legalize recreational marijuana in Oregon

Most encouraging of all, Portland uber-legalization-activist Russ Belville has persusively demonstrated that every argument raised by the No on 91 folks actually is a reason in favor of making cannabis legal.

Brilliant, dude. I stand in awe of both your reasoning and social media skills.

Yesterday The Huffington Post ran a piece by Belville, "No on Measure 91 campaign makes the case FOR legalizing marijuana." It features five videos that show snippets from a No on Measure 91 press conference where opponents of marijiuana legalization did Measure 91 a favor by uttering absurdities.

Have a look. And read. I've excerpted key sections of Belville's post.

There's no such thing as "medical" marijuana!

 

Julie Russell, a marriage and family counselor, told the media that "The advocates of this Measure 91 want you to believe that marijuana has medicinal value, which couldn't be anything further from the truth."  It may not be shocking to hear that in Idaho or Oklahoma or Mississippi, but Oregon has had medical marijuana since 1998.  We just topped 69,000 registered patients.  Our legislature has voted to expand medical marijuana twice.  Our state government even swiped medical marijuana program money to balance other state budgets.

Kids can easily get marijuana now!

 

Connie Ramaekers, a thirty-year career drug prevention counselor, described the current state of prohibition and its effect on kids.  "The kids are telling me, they say, within five minutes they can get marijuana!  It's much easier than tobacco or alcohol to get into their hands!"

Why do you suppose that is, Connie?  Because drug dealers don't check ID!

We just can't afford to legalize marijuana!

 

Project SAM's Dr. Kimber Richter, flown in from the East Coast and put up in Portland for the weekend, joined the press conference to predict that legalization of marijuana would cost us far more than it brings in from tax revenue.  "We won't even be able to project what the public health harms will be, and the costs that we're seeing now -- the $1 in tax revenue for the $10 in social costs -- who knows where that's going to be with marijuana?"

That's the classic Sabet Conjecture -- Kevin Sabet's idea that since alcohol and tobacco cost us ten times what they make in taxes, so too would it be with far safer, non-toxic, less addictive marijuana.  Somebody in the media needs to ask Sabet and Richter and anyone else floating this ludicrous claim to quantify the $450 million in social costs Colorado's experienced, since they've raised $45 million to date in tax revenue.

There's not enough drug treatment in Oregon!

  

Serenity Lane professional rehab Dr. Ronald Schwerzler warns the media that "There's no adolescent [drug] treatment, by the way, in the state of Oregon.  You cannot get your adolescent treated.  You almost have to wait until they're 18.  By then, the damage has been done."

Well, then it is a good thing that Measure 91 devotes 25% of its tax revenue to drug prevention, treatment, and mental health programs, huh?

There will be mass advertising for marijuana to our kids!

 

The most audacious claim comes from professional rehab specialist Mandi Puckett, the head of the No on 91 campaign.  "Again, the biggest concern that we as moms have is how this is going to affect kids.  With mass commercialization, advertising, promoting, normalizing marijuana use. That's what comes along with Measure 91."

Perhaps Mandi Puckett didn't read Section 7 of Measure 91, which states, in part:  "Powers and duties of Oregon Liquor Control Commission.  (1) The Oregon Liquor Control Commission has the powers and duties... (2) includ[ing] the following (g) To regulate and prohibit any advertising by manufacturers, processors, wholesalers or retailers of marijuana items by the medium of newspapers, letters, billboards, radio or otherwise."

Trees to be saved in Salem's Roth & McGilchrist buildings renovation

As our oh-so-valuable alternative paper, Salem Weekly, reports in the current issue, "A fresh spirit blows into town -- the McGilchrist Building." 

Gayle Caldarazzo-Doty imagines an intriguing, gracious and vibrant downtown Salem, filled with enterprises and amenities that will draw people from all over.  “We can have our own little Pearl District right here,” she says.

Caldarazzo-Doty and her husband, Douglas W. Doty have spent two years renovating and transforming two historic buildings, The McGilchrist and The Roth at Liberty and State streets, into an appealing cluster of shops, businesses and luxury residences.

Coffee addict that I am, one of those businesses, Archive, is of special interest to me. Back in December I drooled over the potential of it in "Archive -- cool addition to Salem's downtown scene."

There's a whole lot to like about what Gayle Caldarazzo-Doty and her husband, Douglas Doty, are bringing to downtown Salem through their well-designed renovation efforts of a historic building. 

The only thing that concerned me was learning about some large trees adjacent to the building on State and Liberty Streets that might be removed. I'm not against removing downtown street trees when this is truly necessary, but the City of Salem has a sad history of doing this for no good reason.

For example, see my "Outrage: the true story of Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings" and "Truth Bomb #3: City of Salem kills trees for no good reason."

Some months back I wrote David Holton, the Owner's Representative for the McGilchrist and Roth buildings renovation, about the trees. I urged him to make sure that any tree slated for removal really needed to be, getting a second opinion from a certified arborist if this seemed wise.

In September I got some excellent news from Holton.

Hello Brian,

I wanted to update you on the status of the trees on State and Liberty Streets in the public right-of-way in front of the Roth and McGilchrist buildings. All existing trees on State and Liberty Streets will be retained and 3- new trees (Armstrong Red Maple)  will be planted on Liberty Street. The existing trees have some health issues but it was agreed by all parties that these trees will be retained. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Regards, David Holton

Holton only had good things to say about Jan Staszewski, the City of Salem's Urban Forester. This was a pleasant surprise to me, since I've had bad things to say about Staszewski when he recommended that trees be removed which certified arborists had told me were healthy and could be saved.

Regardless, this is the way street tree assessments should happen: on the basis of sound facts and arborist advice, not "political" machinations where a business gets some trees removed for no good reason. 

In this case, Holton told me that the Doty's wanted the existing trees to be preserved if at all possible, and were going to plant additional trees.

This might have had an impact on the decision to save the trees, since the City of Salem appears to be more eager to approve street tree removals when requested by a business, than to save trees when requested by tree-loving citizens and expert arborists.

The Salem Weekly story says that the McGilchrist and Roth buildings will be open to viewing soon. Great news:

On November 16, all of Salem is invited to see the results.

...Caldarazzo-Doty says she wanted to start something similar in 1992, but felt the city was “just not ready” at that time.  “It’s like a dream after 24 years,” she says.  “It’s exciting that we’re finally getting that kind of thing to happen.  Doug and I are both entrepreneurs and we both have a lot of passion for the community.  We wanted to invest in downtown.  We want other people to take a look, and maybe follow suit.”

The entire project will be completed by November 16, Caldarazzo-Doty says, and the community will be invited to a welcoming event.

Strangest reason to legalize recreational marijuana in Oregon

With Oregonians starting to vote by mail on Measure 91, which would legalize recreational marijuana in this state, naturally I had to make this the theme of my most recent Strange Up Salem column in our alternative paper, Salem Weekly.

(Feel free to give Strange Up Salem a Facebook "like." Strange is good. This town is under a blah-curse, and every Like lifts it a bit.)

I called the piece, A Strange Reason to Legalize Marijuana. 

I like it a lot. After the new issue of Salem Weekly hit the streets a few days ago, I re-read the column while taking a hot bath. It blew my mind, and I had written it!

Whenever I can barely grok something seemingly important that has emerged from my own mind, I know that it must make deep good sense. Or, it's insane. One or the other. Or both.

Have a read. 

A strange reason to legalize marijuana

Here’s a news flash from the front page of modern neuroscience: “You don’t exist.” At least, not in the way most people believe they do.

We feel as if we look out upon the world as a detached ethereal consciousness floating behind our eyes, inside our head. We feel as if we’re a weightless self or soul inhabiting a body.

These feelings are wrong. The sense of self is an illusion. You, me, and everyone else are billions of neurons woven together via trillions of electrochemical connections.

Marvelously, the brain tells itself stories about how it is other than it is.

As biologist Edward O. Wilson puts it in his new book, “The self, despite the illusion of its independence created in the scenarios, is part of the anatomy and physiology of the body.”

Mind-blowing, right?

Scientifically obvious, yet shocking to our intuitive sense of ourselves as immaterial self or soul. I am brain-meat that has evolved the capacity to consider itself, if not divine, largely aloof from physicality.

Which is my philosophical neuroscientific reason for voting “Yes” on Measure 91, Oregon’s marijuana legalization initiative.

Apparently an underlying assumption of legal pot opponents is that human consciousness is some sort of pristine, pure pool of unsullied awareness which shouldn’t be contaminated by chemical substances like THC, the major psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

Here’s another science news flash: the brain produces conscious awareness, and it is filled with over 100 chemical neurotransmitters.

They make us happy, horny, hungry, and so much more. Including, high.

I’m writing these words buzzed on a chemical my brain adores: caffeine. Is this wrong? Should caffeine be illegal because it alters my consciousness, increasing alertness and improving my mood?

Of course not. It’s beautiful, really, how humans can bring parts of the world into their brains, then those substances enable them to view the world differently.

We are the world. The world is us. There is no immaterial self standing apart from materiality.

So it isn’t a big deal to add marijuana to the long list of ways human brains are legally altered chemically in Oregon. Marijuana is safer than alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs. Informed adults should be able to choose their preferred consciousness-changing substance.

After all, there’s no such thing as a normal state of consciousness.

No one knows how anyone else experiences reality. If somehow this were possible, likely we would be surprised by how differently another person subjectively perceives the same objective world.

Further, whatever you or I experience in the privacy of our own awareness, it is extremely doubtful that the socially accepted definition of psychological normality is the best we humans are capable of.

Artists, visionaries, mystics, poets, meditators, and, yes, users of psychoactive drugs, along with other explorers of altered states of consciousness, tell tales of how they opened doors of perception that made them feel more in touch with reality, not less.

Vote for Measure 91. This is a wonderful way to strange up Salem, and Oregon.

Strange Up Salem seeks to lift our city’s Blah Curse. Give us a Facebook like. Brian Hines blogs at hinesblog.com

Why unaffiliated voters aren't treated dismally in closed primaries

Today I got an email that further convinced me voting "No" on Measure 90, Oregon's open primary initiative, was a good decision. 

Jack Holloway is a long-time citizen activist here in Salem. I enjoy sharing ideas with him. He was critical of my initial inclination to be in favor of Measure 90, explaining why in an email message. I responded with: 

Jack, thanks for the cogent thoughts. As I said in another blog post, I’ve decided to vote No on Measure 90. It has some good aspects and some bad aspects. The bad seem to outweigh the good. It still bothers me that unaffiliated voters are treated dismally in our electoral system, but that will have to be fixed in some other way.

Jack replied with a terrific second message.

Nicely written. Soundly argued. Persuasive. He made points about unaffiliated voters that led me to see our current election system in a new light. I still think it is screwed up, but not to the same degree, or in the same way, I viewed it before.

Here's Jack's message -- well worth a read.

Thanks for your note. I'm afraid that I have not made myself clear about the "dismal treatment" of unaffiliated voters in primary elections.

Again -- and I cannot stress this enough -- primaries are the process through which political parties (voluntary associations of like-minded voters) decide upon whom they want to represent their views in the general election.

What you seem to be concerned about is that voters who do not agree with the policies or principles of political parties are not allowed to skew those parties' nominee selection process by casting their votes for candidates who may or may not actually represent the wishes of the members of those parties.

It's like this: suppose that you were to organize a "Clean Up Salem Government" group, made up of citizen volunteers who agree with you about the need for a clean-up in the way that our municipal government conducts its affairs.

Suppose further that dozens of our fellow citizens, fed up just as you are, flocked in and joined your group, and pledged themselves to help further your efforts to clean up Salem.

Now suppose that on the meeting day scheduled for a vote among your members to agree on a set of candidates to run on your "Clean Up Salem" slate, that dozens of chamber members and officers, dozens of developers, dozens of politically connected business owners and others of such ilk were to come flocking in to your candidate-selection meeting and outvote you and all your members, and select a group of chamber officers as the nominees of the "Clean Up Salem" slate.

I dare say that you would -- at the very least -- consider that foul play.

You might even have foreseen such an eventuality and included in your group's bylaws a requirement that only members of your group are permitted to vote on anything that the group is considering -- thus treating chamber members just, really, really dismally.

Unaffiliated voters are not being deprived of anything. If they want to participate in the selection of a political party's nominees, all they have to do is to join that party and their right to vote in that selection process will never be questioned.

Again, a primary election is the process through which the members of a political party select those candidates that best represent the views of the party's members.

Just for fun, try to imagine a national party disbanding its credentials committee, and throwing its state and national conventions open to anyone and everyone who happened to wander in off the street. The result would be pandemonium, I assure you, and very well could result in the election of an even worse set of leaders than are now disfiguring the landscape in D. C. 

Now -- there really are two questions here to be answered; first, does the party primary system treat unaffiliated voters "dismally?" I hope that I have laid that question to rest.

But there is a second consideration, quite different from the "dismallity" question. That is, who are the unaffiliated voters, and why are they unaffiliated? That question has been answered in study after study, over many decades. Unaffiliated voters are, with a few exceptions and otherwise in their great majority, the least informed, least involved and least interested of the whole body of registered voters.

That is, in large part, why they are unaffiliated. With, as stated, a few exceptions here and there, they don't know anything, and they do not care enough to inform themselves.

That is why, by the way, that they are the group most susceptible to sensationalized, non-issue, ad-hominem political advertising. They also tend to vote late, if at all. That is why you see campaigns switching to nastier and nastier personal attack ads as the end of the election process comes nearer.

It's because the majority of the late voters are the unaffiliated, and they might not even vote at all unless driven to do so by outrageous attacks against one or another candidate -- attacks that they cannot see through because of their well-known ignorance of public affairs and their almost total lack of interest in educating themselves. 

In fact, if unaffiliated voters were to be allowed to vote in party primaries they probably would fail to do so, anyway. Even party members vote in much smaller numbers in primaries than in general elections, and the unaffiliated are far more disinterested than those who are party members.

It really would be much better, in my opinion, if party nominations were to go back to being decided in district party caucuses, open to all registered members of the respective parties, who would at least be interested enough to hie themselves over to their local meeting place on caucus night. I think that such a process would bring back clarity as to the purposes of primary and of general elections, and of the differences in their purposes, and the reasons for the differences between the two types of elections.

It would also help assure that (a) every party member would have the opportunity to participate in the nomination process, and also that (b) the ones voting would be the ones most interested and most informed, and that would be a good thing, in my opinion.

Finally, the "open primary" system permits -- almost begs for -- a lot of different types of skullduggery that are at present more difficult, if not impossible to pull off. For example, (and just one of several problems) we have seen in states with some types of open primary systems situations where a political party will gin up a massive phone-bank operation, urging its party members to vote in the primary of the opposition party, and swing the opposing party's nomination to a member of the phone-banking party. It has happened.

To close, unaffiliated voters are not actually being deprived of anything.

They have the same right as any other voter to join a party of their choosing, or even to start a party of their own, and if they do either then they will have the same opportunity as all other party members to help select that party's nominees. If they choose to forgo that right, that's their business. It is they who are treating themselves dismally, not the process.

What they are now asking for is to be allowed to help direct the actions of a volunteer association made up of like-minded citizens, without being involved in any way with that association, or even without any understanding of the principles for which that association exists.

The way to fix things is for that group of mostly uninformed, disinterested and uninvolved voters to take an interest in public policy matters, inform themselves, and then find that party which most nearly promotes their informed beliefs, join it, (or form a new one) and help it to promote those candidates who best represent the group's beliefs and principles.

Hope this clarifies things.

Sure does, Jack.

My wife and I mailed our ballots today. We both voted No on Measure 90, and Yes on the other initiatives. Again, you helped me feel confident that my thumbs down on Measure 90 was the right way to go.

On Oregon's "Open Primary" Measure 90, I'm now a No

It's been tough for me to decide how to vote on Measure 90, Oregon's "Open Primary" or "Top Two" initiative. I've gone back and forth between Yes and No.

I'm now a No, having given Measure 90 more thought for a few days after writing Torn about the Open Primary measure in Oregon, I lean toward "Yes."

It would open primary elections to all voters, including those unaffiliated with a political party, sending the top two candidates on to the general election.

I like the idea of lessening the influence of the Democratic and Republican parties in Oregon. Why should 650,000 unaffiliated voters be left out of partisan primaries, since in the November general election almost always the only real choice is between a "D" and a "R"?

But after reading the Voter's Pamphlet arguments and a couple of opinion pieces by attorney/voting rights advocate Blair Bobier, I've decided that the downside of Measure 90 outweighs the upside. 

Bobier did a good job of summarizing my current sentiments in "Top Two is a Failure; Oregonians Deserve Better" and "Measure 90 is Dangerous and Deceptive." These were originally published in the Oregonian and Eugene Weekly. 

Here Bobier hits on my main reasons for voting No on Measure 90. I've added emphasis to the parts I like most:

There are three things Oregonians need to know about Measure 90, the Top Two election proposal on the November ballot.  First, Top Two will severely restrict voters’ rights to vote in all November elections.  Second, Top Two is undemocratic.  Third, there is absolutely no evidence that Top Two will improve our elections.

 ...Limiting choices to just two in our most critical election is offensive to democratic ideals.  Most civilized nations offer their citizens a veritable menu of choices on Election Day.  Yet Top Two limits us to only two choices; one “choice” away from those afforded to you in China or Cuba.            

Elections are about ideas and not simply about winning or losing.  With Top Two, the debate that would ensue after the May primary would be extremely narrow.  

 

What if we could only get our news from ABC or CBS?  What if there were no newspapers or internet, no CNN or NPR or Fox or MSNBC? Would we accept those “choices”?  What if your “choice” for news was between ABC and ABC?  These are the kinds of “choices” which Top Two will produce.

 

In some districts, Republicans will be shut out of the November election; in others, it will be Democrats who are left out.  

 

In every statewide race, there will be no independent or third party candidates on the ballot.   This will limit the debate not only for today but far into the future.  Traditionally, the role of third parties is to introduce ideas to the electorate long before they are commonly accepted.  

 

Once seemingly “radical” ideas—from marriage equality and the abolition of slavery to ending cannabis prohibition and recognizing the right of women to vote—were all first championed by third parties.

This fits with the intuition I had after watching two "third party" candidates debate the Democratic and Republican nominees for the 5th District Congressional Representative at a Salem City Club meeting. 

Like I said in my previous blog post about Measure 90:

I took this photo from my close-in seat. Marvin Sannes of the Independent Party is standing at the podium. Seated left to right are Republican Tootie Smith, Democrat Kurt Schrader, the moderator, and Constitution Party candidate Raymond Baldwin.

After the debate I went up to Baldwin and told him, "You and Sannes have convinced me to vote no on the Top Two primary measure, because you guys were so entertaining and different. It would have been boring to have just Schrader and Smith debating today."

Well, after being convinced to vote No, I leaned toward voting Yes, and now I'm back to No. Aside from the lack of minority party candidates in the general election with a Top Two system, I also became bothered by a few other things about Measure 90. 

Here's one of them.

In nonpartisan races, such as city council elections, seemingly Measure 90 would still allow the current "50 percent plus 1" rule. Meaning, if a candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote in a primary election, he or she becomes the winner and is the only person on the ballot in the general election.

How is this a "Top Two" system?

On the sample general election ballot for Salem City Council, there is only one candidate listed for each ward, because each got more than 50 percent in the primary. So the few people who voted in the May primary got to choose four members of the City Council, not the many more people who will vote in the November general election.

That's screwy. Apparently, from reading Voter's Pamphlet arguments, Measure 90 will continue the screwiness. 

What first drew me to like Measure 90 was that it is an attempt to fix our broken election system. Nobody else is seriously attempting this in Oregon, including the Democratic and Republican parties -- both of which oppose Measure 90, yet to my knowledge haven't suggested any alternative fixes.

So at first I figured that if Measure 90 was disliked by both major parties, I should like it. However, it then dawned on me that Measure 90 also appeared to be disliked by most of the minor political parties in Oregon. 

And this bothered me. 

If Measure 90 passes, Oregon won't ever get a story in the New York Times like the one that ran two days ago, "Senate Contest in South Dakota is a Free-for-All."

One candidate will recite cowboy poetry on Wednesday at a Sioux Falls restaurant. A second thundered against his party as know-nothings who didn’t understand his state. A third until recently had been spurned by his would-be allies and donors, and a fourth runs African safaris in his spare time while railing against the size of the federal government.

In an era of homogenized, data-driven campaigns, a quirky and unpredictable contest has emerged in South Dakota, confounding operatives and experts and potentially deciding who controls the United States Senate after the midterm elections.

A race that most had thought was safely Republican is suddenly the focus of national attention, thanks to the surprisingly successful candidacy of former Senator Larry Pressler, a Republican who is running as an independent. Mr. Pressler, who will do the poetry reading, has a staff of one and a small budget, but has a longstanding connection to South Dakota voters.

I like quirky. I like unpredictable. I like bizarre third party candidates.

So I'm voting No on Measure 90. Much needs to be fixed with Oregon's election system. I just have decided that Measure 90 isn't a good way to repair what's broken. 

Torn about the Open Primary measure in Oregon, I lean toward "Yes"

[Update: I've recanted, flip-flopped again, changed my mind. I'm now a No on Measure 90.

Read why here.]

I'm a flip-flopper when it comes to Measure 90, the initiative Oregonians are about to vote on that would create an open primary system. Meaning, everybody would be able to vote in the primary.

It would be open to all registered voters, including the 650,000 unaffiliated citizens who now are shut out of primaries. This included me for several years prior to 2008, when I decided to no longer be a registered Democrat.

Because I wanted to vote for Barack Obama in the Democratic Party presidential primary, I had to become a registered Democrat again.

With Measure 90, it wouldn't be necessary to do this for state offices (the presidential primary would continue to be guided by federal law). In primaries all Oregonians could pick and choose among candidates of both the major and minor parties, along with unaffiliated candidates. 

Both the Democratic and Republican parties in Oregon are opposed to Measure 90, which is one reason I lean toward supporting it. The current primary system gives too much power to the two major parties.

Since many parts of Oregon have clear Democratic or Republican party majorities, whoever wins the party nomination in the primary is virtually guaranteed to win in the general election.

So if there are 60% Republicans in a district, and a third of them vote in the primary, this means that 11% of registered voters could end up deciding the election (60% / 3 = 20%; a majority of 20% is 11%).

With an Open Primary, the top two candidates go on to the general election.

They could be from the same political party, but then likely one candidate would be more moderate than the other. So in the above example, in the general election a moderate "top two" Republican could be elected in a heavily "R" district, if most of the Democrats voted for that candidate, along with centrist Republicans.

From what I've heard this is more theory than fact in the states that have gone to open primaries (such as California and Washington), but it seems to me that giving moderates a chance in extremely liberal or conservative districts would be a good thing.

I've gone back and forth on Measure 90 just about every time I read a good argument pro or con. Today I came across the best "pro" piece I've seen so far, "Publicly Funded Elections Should Treat All Oregonians Equally" at GoLocalPDX.

Former Secretary of State Phil Keisling and voter rights advocate Caitlin Baggott write:

The measure on this fall’s ballot generating the most agitation among good people everywhere may – surprisingly – not be about legalizing marijuana or telling people what is in their food.

It’s about voting.

This year, Oregonians will vote up or down to grant more than 650,000 taxpaying voters the right to have a say in their state and federal representation. They are currently barred from participating in the election that matters most: the spring primary. A recent Oregonian study showed that nearly 90 percent of those races are effectively decided in the primary – leaving a small number of contested races for the fall ballot in a spare handful of districts around the state.

Why have these 650,000 voters been locked out? Because they choose not to sign up with the big political parties. 

Who hates this proposed change? The big political parties.

And also electioneers who hew to the success of one party or the other. Right to Life and Planned Parenthood are together on this one: They say vote no.

Hence the agitation.

Measure 90 fulfills one of the most basic ideals of our democracy: All voters should be treated equally regardless of their creed or ideology.

If that seems straightforward, that’s because it is. 

Here’s what the Top Two primary would do, from the perspective of voters: Every Oregon voter would get the same ballot. The universal ballot would include every candidate for all state and federal offices.

The information voters turn to most frequently to make their choice – party affiliation – would be provided in far more detail than we receive now. Each candidate would be listed with his or her personal party registration, and also any endorsements he or she chooses to accept.

A whimsical example, from inner SE Portland, where both of us happen to live:

-- Rosy Riveter (Democratic Party). Endorsements – Democratic Party, Working Families Party, Progressive Party

-- Johnny Appleseed (Pacific Green Party). Endorsements – Pacific Green Party

-- Cool H. Luke (No Party). Endorsement – Libertarian Party, Independent Party 

-- Donna Quixote (Republican Party) – Republican Party, 

The two top vote-getters in that election would go to the fall ballot. For the sake of argument, let’s guess that Rosy and Johnny are the favored candidates in this lefty district. 

As in 11 districts in Washington state this year, a minor party candidate would appear as one of two finalists -- and thus, have a very real chance to win the election. (No minor party candidate has won any Oregon partisan election in nearly a half century.) Washington has used a version of the Top Two primary for a few election cycles now. In a recent survey, 76 percent of Washington voters prefer the “pick-a-candidate” system over the “pick a party” system.

Sounds good to me. But my mind isn't completely made up on a "Yes" for Measure 90.

Last Friday the Salem City Club featured a debate between four of the five candidates for the 5th District Represenative in Congress. 

I took this photo from my close-in seat. Marvin Sannes of the Independent Party is standing at the podium. Seated left to right are Republican Tootie Smith, Democrat Kurt Schrader, the moderator, and Constitution Party candidate Raymond Baldwin.

After the debate I went up to Baldwin and told him, "You and Sannes have convinced me to vote no on the Top Two primary measure, because you guys were so entertaining and different. It would have been boring to have just Schrader and Smith debating today."

It does bother me that minor parties usually won't have a voice in the general election if Measure 90 passes. Despite the example given above by Keisling and Baggott, mostly the top two candidates will be Democrat or Republican.

However, under our current system minor party candidates tend to be largely ignored by the media and sponsors of debates. So I'm not sure if the benefit of giving them a voice in the general election is more important than giving the 650,000 unaffiliated Oregon voters a voice in the primary election.

That said, Sannes and Baldwin were definitely worth listening to. They made sense most of the time, but each dove into areas that made me go "Huh?" inside my head. 

Sannes brought this sign along with his campaign poster. He talked quite a bit about a government conspiracy to bring down the Twin Towers on 9/11 for some undisclosed reason. At least, I think it was our government behind it -- Sannes didn't make much sense on this topic. 

Neither did Baldwin when he referred to mandatory "chips" being implanted in people because of the Affordable Care Act, another thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory. 

But in the Q & A period, when I got to ask a question about how each of the candidates felt about Measure 91, which would legalize recreational marijuana in Oregon, Sannes and Baldwin each gave much more coherent responses than Smith and Schrader.

The minor party candidates both favored Measure 91, giving good reasons to support a retreat from the government's wasteful and ineffective War on Drugs. Smith, the Republican, said she would vote no, then launched into an irrelevant anecdote about medical marijuana dispensary people in Clackamas County doing something with cooked cannabis in their driveway that annoyed neighbors.

(I whispered to my seat mate, "Smith should have given out the address so people could go up there and inhale the smoke if they want to.")

Schrader was given an out on answering this question by the debate moderator, who told him "Kurt, we just have a minute left. You can either answer the marijuana question or talk about something else." Not surprisingly, Schrader took the professional politican approach and ducked the question. 

Rather, he expressed his support for Measure 90. 

So I'm torn. I'd like to see minor candidates like Sannes and Baldwin on debate podiums in the general election, but as I said, I don't think this is reason enough to continue shutting out unaffiliated Oregonians in the primaries. 

For now, I'm a "Yes" vote on Measure 90. I might change my mind, though.

Truth Bomb #6: Salem's citizens are too politically passive

After writing my previous Truth Bomb, "Salemians were excluded from police facility planning," that post got a marvelous comment about how people here put up with political crap that wouldn't be tolerated in Portland, Eugene, or Corvallis.

The commenter was Geronimo Tagatac, a really interesting guy. This is from a 2010 profile of him in the Statesman Journal.
Download Sunday_Profile_Geronimo_Tagatac

Salem fiction writer Geronimo Tagatac draws from revelations as varied as a cubicle worker's stark humor, the flashbacks of U.S. Special Forces operations to the wisdom of immigrant Filipino farmworkers picking fruit in northern California.

For Tagatac, 69, it's crafted from as much imagination as from his experiences. In his travels, Tagatac has skirted all over the globe, from Patagonia to the dusty outback of China in Xian to the Vietnamese beaches of Hoi An.

During the Vietnam War, he was a member of the elite U.S. Special Forces. Most recently, he was a civil servant in the Oregon state government for 16 years. For awhile, he danced modern and ballet. He was a folk-singer. He was a wanderer.

Dude, you graduated from San Jose State. Me too! What I like to call the "Stanford of the South Bay" (entirely inaccurately). And you're a Ph.D. dropout. Me too!

Here's what Tagatac said in his comment.

The problem isn't, at its heart, the city council. It's the overall community that elects the city council and is willing to live with its lack of transparency and subservience to the chamber of commerce.

Yes, there's a progressive, reform-minded subculture in Salem, but it's simply not large enough or influential enough to stop what's been going on for decades.

The Corvallis, Eugene, and Portland communities would never put up with such behavior on the part of their elected representatives, the violations of the public meetings law, the conflicts of interest, etc.

Making closed-door deals with a bank to cut down trees would be political suicide in those communities.

The reason that the Salem city council does these things is that they know that the community won't hold them accountable. And there are likely to be few or no whistleblowers to embarrass them, other than yourself and a handful of others.

So true.

Tagatac said what I've been thinking, better than I could have myself, the mark of a good writer. Speaking for the small cadre of serious citizen activists here in Salem, often it feels like you're leading a charge across the battlefield where, when you look back, hardly anybody else is following.

There are good reasons for the passivity of Salem's citizenry.

Willamette University is no U. of O. or Oregon State. Students there rarely get involved in shaking things up in Salem. We don't have a critical mass of environmental, alternative transportation, social justice, or any other sort of activists.

People here strike me as unduly polite.

They either are afraid of making waves, or they are wary of the waves crashing back upon them via political retribution. (The current crop of City officials look nice on the outside, but are notoriously mean-spirited on the inside.)

Thus I think Tagatac hit the bullseye in his comment.

Salem has gotten the sort of city government that it deserves: unethical, dismissive of the broad public interest, controlled by the Chamber of Commerce and this town's version of the "1%." 

Our next-to-useless daily newspaper gets away with froth-filled stories and toothless investigative reporting because no one other than me and a few others is publicly calling them out on their journalistic malpractice. 

Not much will change in Salem until more people have the guts to speak out and act up. 

Rick Steves tells Salem why marijuana should be legal

Not being much of a traveller, I'm kind of ashamed to admit that I'd never heard of Rick Steves before learning he was touring Oregon to talk about "Travel As a Political Act: Ending Marijuana Prohibition in Oregon." 

Steves wrote a book with that title, Travel As a Political Act. His interest in making marijuana legal comes partly from his co-sponsorship of Washington state's successful 2012 ballot legalization measure.

Last night my wife and were part of a packed house, 300 people or so, in downtown Salem's Grand Theatre. This photo was taken before the event started. Eventually the balcony area and lower level were both almost filled.

It was pleasing to see way more people here than attended any of the misleadingly-named Oregon Marijuana Education Tour meetings featuring anti-marijuana legalization zealot Kevin Sabet. Sabet doesn't tell the truth about cannabis, while Steves was pleasingly honest, humorous, and candid.

Steves' 90 minute or so presentation started off on the travel as a political act theme. He said that travel opens our eyes, showing Americans that just as we think the United States is the greatest country in the world, so do people all over think their country is the best. 

Europe is his main travel focus. Steves talked about how Europeans are much more advanced that we are in many areas -- such as high speed trains, social equality, food appreciation, quality of life, and, yes, drug policies.

I recall him saying that in Belgium, or wherever, on a midweek afternoon he saw a bunch of middle-aged guys in a large rowboat drinking beer, chatting, having fun. From a bridge he yells, “What are you doing? Is this part of a festival or something, a special event?”

“No,” one yelled back. “It’s just Wednesday. We take off work and do this every week at this time.”

Steves went on to say that Europe produces the same economic output as the United States with 400 million people rather than our 300 million. So they are willing to be 25% or so less wealthy in order to have time and the opportunity to enjoy life more.

That's a tradeoff most in Europe are happy to make, while Americans overwork themselves with fewer vacations, fewer benefits, longer work hours, and more stress.

He gave several examples of how Europeans are much less moralistic than we are, which leads to wiser social policies. We lead the world in imprisoning people, often for victimless crimes like drug use. Europe helps drug users break their habit through education and other means, rather than viewing them as moral failures.

Likewise, he showed photos of Amsterdam's "red light" district where prostitution is regulated instead of being driven underground where a woman has to call her pimp if a customer gets abusive, not a police officer. 

 

 

Steves was equally entertaining and persuasive when he got to the Yes on 91 part of his talk. You can get a good feel for his message via an Oregonian interview with him.
Download Rick Steves campaigns for marijuana legalization in Oregon: Q&A | OregonLive.com

Here's some excerpts:

 

Steves, 59, of Edmonds, Wash., argued that marijuana legalization is a civil liberties issue that other countries have successfully grappled with. He pointed to the Netherlands' experience with pot as a prime example, saying that country's relatively liberal marijuana laws have not resulted in increased consumption. 

 

..."I just feel very strongly that the laws that are on the books right now are counter productive. They are expensive. They are racist. They are based on fear and misinformation. This is not just my hunch. A lot of it might be counterintuitive but my experience is based on talking to people who have been dealing with the same challenges in other countries for the last two decades.

 

In Europe my friends tell me a society has to make a choice: tolerate alternative lifestyles or build more prisons. And they always follow up that with this annoying comment that Americans lock up 10 times as many people per capita as they do. They say, 'You guys are either inherently more criminal or there is something screwy about your laws.'

...As far as my business goes, I have been talking about this quite candidly for a long, long time. Every once in a while somebody is going to say, 'I know what you think about marijuana and I am not going to buy your guidebooks. I am not going to take your tours.'

All I can think is Europe is going to be more interesting and fun without you."

I scored a free lawn sign on my way in. It's now proudly displayed at the end of our driveway. We live in a pretty conservative rural south Salem neighborhood.

 

But Steves made clear that legalizing marijuana isn't an R vs. D or conservative vs. liberal thing. It is a common sense vs. illogic thing. Also, a liberty vs. control thing. From the Oregonian piece, here's some lines that Steves also used last night:

I have smoked very casually ever since I was a student.

It’s not a big deal in my life. I just really believe in civil liberties. I am a tax-paying, kid-raising, church-going, hard-working American citizen.

If I work hard all day long and I want to go home and in the privacy of my own living room and smoke a joint and just stare at the fireplace for three hours, that is my civil liberty.

Truth Bomb #5: Salemians were excluded from police facility planning

Here's a non-shocker: an elected official, in this case Salem Mayor Anna Peterson, not telling the truth.

Fortunately, this town has a blogger superhero -- humble ME! --who is ready, willing, and able to stand up against City Hall truth-shaders with his Truth Bomb superpower.

Today I wield it against a decidedly false statement by Peterson in a newspaper story about a blue ribbon panel charged with considering options for Civic Center renovations and construction of a new police facility.
Download Panel reviews plans for new Salem police station

To date, talk of spending millions of dollars to make the civic center safer and build a 75,000-square-foot police station has produced a lukewarm response, at best, from Salem residents. Critics assert that the city settled on one plan for the civic center and excluded the public from the decision-making process— allegations the mayor strongly denies.

Well, the mayor can deny all she wants, but facts don't lie.

I've dug deep into how City officials decided on their own that a new police facility should be built next to Mirror Pond just north of the current Civic Center structure, complete with very expensive underground parking.

Contrary to what Mayor Peterson says, there was no attempt to involve Salem's citizens in this all-important decision.

All-important, because once the Civic Center location was settled on, the price tag for a new police facility was destined to be much higher -- maybe even double -- the cost of building elsewhere. Read all about it in  "Geoffrey James tells City of Salem how to save $30 million."

The factual foundations of this Truth Bomb are described in my previous blog posts on this topic. These have been shared with City officials. No one has proven me wrong. They just keep on repeating the same tired falsity about citizens having a chance to be involved with the Civic Center siting decision. 

Wrong. See:

"How the City of Salem decided to build a new police facility at the Civic Center"
"How City of Salem planned police facility in secretive manner"
"City of Salem planned new police facility in backwards way"
"Will Salem Mayor Anna Peterson admit she spoke falsely?"

Here's some excerpts from these truth-telling posts.

--------------
The City of Salem decided to build a new police facility at the Civic Center without any public hearings or public discussion. City staff and the Mayor made this decision. 
--------------

Investigative blogger that I am, it gives me great pride to share the results of my non-award-winning research into how officials at the City of Salem (Oregon) spent five years secretively planning a $70 million -- now $80 million -- new police facility, along with renovations to the Civic Center.

Citizen involvement in all this by, you know, those people who pay the bills for spendy government projects, was virtually zero. Nil. Nada. Zilch. 
--------------

There was basically no opportunity for citizens to be involved with planning for a new police facility, or to weigh in on the pluses and minuses of locating this facility in a brand new building at the Civic Center. Even City Council members complained they were kept in the dark about this project.
--------------

...This is Day 1 of the Mayor Anna Peterson apology/retraction watch. No response yet to the email I sent her, with a cc to the Salem City Council... I said what I did after listening to Peterson make a preachy, inaccurate mini-speech during a testy exchange at last night's City Council meeting.

... I couldn't believe that Mayor Peterson was actually claiming that the process used to select the Civic Center as the best location for a new police facility had been open to public view, and offered citizens good opportunities to weigh in on the decision.

...I believe an apology and retraction is in order. The Mayor of Salem shouldn't use the City Council podium as a soapbox for spreading inaccurate information. This degrades trust in City government, which already is low. 

Like the saying goes, we all are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. I have done my best to uncover the facts about how the City made a decision to site a new police facility at the Civic Center. I’ve asked City staff to correct any misunderstandings I might have. None were pointed out.

 

If you have new information to share on this issue, please send it to me with appropriate factual documentation. Otherwise I will continue to assume that what I said is true: "The City of Salem decided to build a new police facility at the Civic Center without any public hearings or public discussion. City staff and the Mayor made this decision.” 

Fortunately, Salem Community Vision is reporting that the task force appointed by Mayor Peterson will be charged with looking into alternative sites for a new police facility.

Also the article says that the charge of the committee is to "develop a set of recommendations for the civic center site, 555 Liberty Street SE, and present them to Salem City Council." But the chair of the committee told our representative, Geoff James, that "the committee will look at all options" for siting the police facility. That's good news, because the Mayor once said in a council meeting that the committee would not be allowed to "think outside the box." 

Be assured that our representative on the blue ribbon task force will be thinking outside the box, and he will be advocating strongly for an adequate but affordable new police facility, and an affordable seismic upgrade to our civic center, including the library.

Hopefully Peterson has finally realized that a decision about where a new police station should be located deserves broad community input after open consideration of a range of siting options, rather than being made unilaterally by City officials behind closed doors.

Living in Salem, I have Portland envy

One of Salem's biggest problems is that it is so close to Portland. My home town would seem a lot more with-it if Salem was plunked down in the middle of Oklahoma, say. 

Wow! Coffeehouses. Vegetarian food. Bicyclists. Environmental activism. Brewpubs.

But since Portland is so much cooler than Salem in every way I can think of, Oregon's capital city to the south richly deserves its in-state nickname of So-Lame. 

Here's an example that caused Portland envy in me as I watched last night's KGW 11 o'clock news.

(Salem doesn't have any television stations of its own, nor a "real" airport with actual flights to somewhere, so we're dependent on Portland for these things and much else.)

This weekend a three-block section of Portland's Old Town was turned into a pedestrian plaza by the Better Block PDX folks. Naturally, with the active encouragement of City officials, including Mayor Charlie Hales.

On the KGW web site I couldn't find video of the story I saw last night. It showed the pedestrian plaza in action, on Friday or Saturday I assume. One lane of traffic on SW 3rd Avenue was left open. The rest of the street became bike lanes and space for dining, games, and other non-auto activities.

Hales was shown playing ping-pong. He talked about how this experiment was looking so good, it might become permanent.

This KGW story appeared on Friday. The video is well worth watching, even though it doesn't show activities in the pedestrian plaza. 

A new experiment started Friday morning at 7 a.m. in downtown Portland's Old Town district. A three-block section of Southwest 3rd Avenue is turning into a pedestrian zone for the entire weekend.

It's an effort to revitalize the area, and keep business owners happy.​

It's being called a pop-up plaza and organizers want to make it nice looking. Wooden planter boxes and cones have shut down 3rd Avenue from Northwest Davis Street to Southwest Ankeny to all traffic, with the exception of a middle lane for traffic and a designated bike lane.

Burnside traffic will not be affected. Pedestrians will use the regular crosswalks to get from one plaza zone to the other.

Mayor Charlie Hales planned to tour the area Friday night and Saturday afternoon, according to Sara Hottman with the mayor's office.

"The bar owners are stepping up to address a problem in their own neighborhood," said Hales. "It's to their credit that this proposal is moving forward. We will take the time necessary to study the results of this experiment and then will move forward together."

It's difficult to imagine this happening in downtown Salem even though, like Portland's Old Town, there are lots of vacant storefronts and it is equally pedestrian and bicycle un-friendly (well, more so). 

Salem's Mayor, Anna Peterson, doesn't manifest much creativity or enthusiasm when it comes to revitalizing downtown. She and the City Council have a Big Plan for a third bridge that would suck half a billion dollars out of the economy so people could speed away from Salem's Historic District and shop/visit/dine elsewhere.

Last month the Salem Sunday Streets event, which is a pale shadow of Portland's Sunday Parkways, featured a potential street revamping similar to what actually was done in Old Town this weekend. 

Note those two words: "potential" and "actually."

This is what's so frustrating about living in Salem. The town has a lot of potential, but City officials, the Chamber of Commerce, and other members of the powers-that-be are set on keeping Salem way behind the times (the theme of one of my Strange Up Salem columns in our alternative newspaper, Salem Weekly).

Here's a photo of my outdoor elliptical bike posed in front of the sample Salem Sunday Streets lane revamping. 

In the middle, between the red barriers, is a two-way bike lane. Cars, I believe, would travel in the single right hand lane, as was done in Portland. The traffic lane on the left would be available for streetside dining or other people-friendly activities.

So instead of the main streets in downtown Salem having three car lanes, as many as I-5, there would be two travel lanes -- one for bicycles and one for cars. The other lane would become a "streetscaped" visitor attractor.

Salem needs this. As an experiment, for sure. Permanently, almost certainly. (See a previous blog post, "Downtown Salem, Oregon needs to lose some lanes".)

All that is stopping us is the inability and unwillingness of our City leaders to recognize that Portland, Corvallis, Eugene, Ashland, Bend, and other Oregon towns are kicking our butt when it comes to being attractive to people who want to live in the 21st century, rather than 1950. 

Until that changes, I'm going to have Portland envy.

Why everyone in Oregon should vote to legalize marijuana

Today the realization came to me -- why every voting Oregonian should check "Yes" on Measure 91, the initiative to legalize recreational marijuana.

It was so clear, so evident, so marvelously apparent. Just six words, directed at the different slices of the political spectrum.

Imagine, liberals...Governor Dennis Richardson. Senator Monica Wehby.

Imagine, conservatives...Governor John Kitzhaber. Senator Jeff Merkley.

Depressing, right? If either comes to pass, about half of voters are going to be seriously upset for the next four to six years. You're going to need something to cheer you up.

Hey, no problem! 

Because Oregonians had the smarts to pass Measure 91 in November. Not too long after, everybody who is bummed by how the election turned out will be able to find the marijuana strain they need in a local pot store.

Start browsing now. Under Effect, choose "happy." Or if you expect to be really bummed out, go for "euphoric."

Take a few imaginary puffs. Feel yourself relaxing. Enjoy the fantasy buzz.

Richardson, Kitzhaber, Wehby, Merkley -- they're all just people, man... send them some love... it'll be OK, no matter who runs the state and country... reality extends way beyond all this political bullshit... just BE.

Now, if you haven't tried marijuana, you might be thinking "Why can't I vote no on Measure 91 and continue to drink myself into oblivion when I'm depressed like I always do?" To which I reply:

Dude, picture yourself getting drunk without all of the nasty drunkenness parts.

You feel good, but aren't really physically impaired. No stumbling around. No throwing up. And psychologically, have you ever wondered why people talk about "happy drunks" and "angry drunks," but not happy stoners and angry stoners?

Because marijuana rarely makes people angry. Have you ever heard of a bar fight? How about a pot party fight? 

So now I've made an unarguable case for both liberals and conservatives voting for Measure 91. Whichever side of the political spectrum an Oregon voter is on, there's a good chance he or she will be disappointed after the election.

Remembering But Measure 91 passed! will ease the pain. Trust me. 

Those who are reluctant to feel better fast through a safe, effective, and essentially side-effect-free herbal "medication" should consider a few things.

First, how many substances do you ingest, because you want to feel better, which are a lot more harmful than marijuana? These could include alcohol, tobacco, plus both non-prescription and over-the-counter drugs. 

That Vicodin is way riskier than, say, your White Widow cannabis strain. 

I can't think of any reasonable reasons to not vote "yes" on Measure 91. Whether someone believes God created man in his own image, or evolution formed us through natural selection, the plain fact is that the human brain has receptors for THC.

God, evolution, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all want you to feel happy no matter how the 2014 Oregon election turns out. Vote for Measure 91. You're going to feel good that you did.

Lastly... what if the only issue you care about on the November ballot is defeating that damn marijuana legalization effort, Measure 91, and it passes?! Then you're going to be REALLY depressed. 

Dude, you're going to need some cheering up --  how about some Silver Super Haze?

Lake Oswego's Wizer Block uproar has land use echoes in Salem

My wife and I recently discovered how cool downtown Lake Oswego is. We hadn't been there for a long time, so made a northward pilgrimage from Salem last Friday. 

The Lake View Village development on the lakeshore impressed us. Here's a Google Images photo of sidewalk dining.

This is what an urban core should look like.

Walkable, bikable, people-centered, enticing retail shops on street level. Millennium Park is adjacent, with the lake just beyond. Here's a photo I took of the open area next to Lake View Village.

Note that word: "village."

This is the look and feel we enjoyed about Lake Oswego -- village'y. Yes, it is a city. But a city that didn't feel like a Big City to us. Downtown Lake Oswego struck us as an appealing place that hasn't lost its small town roots.

Wanting to learn more about Lake Oswego -- heck, we might even want to live there someday when our ten rural acres and non-easy-care house get to be too much for us -- I took a look at the Lake Oswego Review newspaper today.

And learned about a major downtown controversy in "Wizer Block opponents vow to appeal Council's decision to overturn DRC." What's a stake here is the village-like character of Lake Oswego. 

Opponents of plans to build a 290,000-square-foot, mixed-use development on downtown Lake Oswego's Wizer Block said this week that they will take their fight to the state Land Use Board of Appeals. 

“This is just the beginning for us,” said Lita Grigg, founder of the group Save Our Village, after the City Council voted 5-2 last week to pave the way for a new Block 137. 

After nearly nine hours of public testimony, the Council overturned the Development Review Commission’s rejection of developer Patrick Kessi's plan to build three four-story buildings at the corner of A Avenue and First Street. The development would include 207 residential units and about 36,000 square feet of retail space. 

“The City Council did not honor the DRC's decision with their vote of no," Grigg said. "The reason (the DRC) voted no was because (the design) did not meet 'small-scale structure,' it did not meet 'village character,' and it did not comply with the compact shopping district. We will be going forward with the appeal.”

The newspaper helpfully had links to other stories about this hot issue. In "Council's Wizer Block decision ignores concerns of so many" I saw a mention of the Zeppo's restaurant shown in the first photo above.

Our mayor and four city councilors have overruled our Development Review Commission (a commission comprised of qualified professionals), and instead have given developer Patrick Kessi’s Wizer Block proposal the green light. Only councilors Karen Bowerman and Lauren Hughes upheld our DRC’s decision to deny the development.

Councilor Bowerman expressed concerns about traffic and parking problems around the bottlenecked block, the development’s monolithic buildings and the small amount of retail. Most retail will be for apartment residents’ private use — a private library, media room, gym and courtyard. (City code deems this commercial/retail.) A pittance of retail will be left for the public.

...On Saturday, I also talked with several out-of-state visitors, some from as far away as New York City. All were happy to be going to a farmers market in beautiful Millennium Park. They’ll be disappointed next time when the farmers market has moved, due to Kessi’s development. Do you think they’ll come back to our downtown, to sit outside Zeppo’s in the large shadow of Kessi’s 58-foot-tall apartments?

This reminds me so much of similarly crappy land use decisions that keep on being made by the current crop of folks who run Salem's City Hall. The public interest and broad citizen input get pushed away by short-sighted bowing to special interests, often behind closed doors.

Salem's Mayor and City Council have done this with Pringle Square, the unneeded half billion dollar Third Bridge, killing of the U.S. Bank Trees, Howard Hall, and other issues.

I feel for you, Lake Oswego'ians. Another story in your newspaper, "Council ignored plea to save our downtown," hit home to me.

When Mayor Kent Studebaker campaigned, he said, “Lake Oswego is a great place, and I’d like to make sure we maintain that quality and character of the town. I’d like to make sure people can afford to stay here and they’re not worried about what the government is doing to them.” 

Did Lake Oswego citizens witness disloyalty and misuse of leadership by Mayor Studebaker and four members of City Council when they voted to overturn the Development Review Commission? The DRC, led by expert architects and a specialized attorney, twice rejected the Wizer proposal. The DRC reasonably determined that the proposed development, too large to even fit on a Portland city block, did not meet code for village character in mass and scale, and that the apartment complex, proposed for a block clearly designated in the Urban Design Plan as our “compact shopping district,” lacks critical retail. 

Lake Oswego citizens have a government that ignored a year-long plea by a majority of citizens to preserve our downtown, deny this project and ask the developer to break up the buildings into smaller scale and add more retail to the ground floors as required by the DRC.

Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Gudman, Jordon, Gustafson and O’Neill had seven months — since February — to carefully study code and testimony regarding the most important decision our community is facing. Instead, they appeared unfamiliar with relevant issues, including details of parking and traffic, the actual size of the proposal in relation to other buildings downtown and the history of downtown development plans. Despite an overwhelming outpouring of citizen concerns, they appeared to rely on a staff that citizens called out for driving this redevelopment in favor of the developer. 

These five council members appeared to ignore citizens’ concerns that letters were submitted in favor of the project by a Portland PR firm on behalf of Kessi and residents of Kessi’s Northwest Portland building. None of the writers of the supportive form letters had a connection to Lake Oswego. Yet, the vast majority of Lake Oswego organizations and residents rejected the proposal in favor of smaller-scale buildings and more retail. Only Councilors Bowerman and Hughes represented the interests of those who elected them.

Well, it's time for Lake Oswego to unelect the Mayor and city councilors who support this ghastly project. Big money too often controls political decisions these days.

I bet if the lid could be lifted on how the Wizer Block really got approved, a whole lot of unseemly lobbying and backroom dealmaking would pop into view.

This is how things are done in Salem, where the Chamber of Commerce is proud about how it throws money into city council elections, gets most of its candidates elected, then reaps the rewards when councilors ignore citizens and/or the law in order to give sweetheart deals to our version of "the 1%."

In Lake Oswego, much the same thing is happening. 

Our mayor and four city councilors have chosen to ignore the concerns of so many of us who support our DRC’s decision. They’ve sold us out and handed $6 million of our tax dollars to Patrick Kessi and his investors, who will make a lot of money on this deal while they destroy the character of downtown and beauty of Millennium Park.

I was pleased to sign the Save Our Village petition put up by the group's organizer, Lita Grigg, even though the Lake Oswego city council now has voted to approve the Wizer Block development.

An appeal is being made to the Land Use Board of Appeals, and Lake Oswego officials need to know that lots of people are unhappy with them selling out to special interests. I hope the Save Our Village folks will fight on for as long as it takes to get justice -- Court of Appeals, Oregon Supreme Court, whatever.

(This KOIN news video shows what the development might look like. It would be OK in another city, or maybe even elsewhere in Lake Oswego. But I agree with Save Our Village that it is wrong for downtown Lake Oswego.)