HinesSight

I'm an Oregonian who votes by mail. Everybody should.

It's a no-brainer is an overused phrase. But it sure fits when it comes to vote by mail.

In 1998, Oregon, where I live, became the first state in the country to conduct all elections by mailed ballots. Since, Washington and Colorado have followed suit.

(Coincidentally, or maybe not, along with Alaska these three states also are the only ones to legalize recreational marijuana. So not only can residents of Oregon, Washington, and Colorado vote in the privacy of their own homes, we can also do so while smoking pot. Sweet!)

Having moved to Oregon in 1971, I've experienced both ways of voting: (1) going to a polling place on election day, standing in line, and voting in a cubicle; and (2) getting a ballot in the mail several weeks before election day, filling it out whenever I want, and mailing it in.

Believe me, voting by mail is way better. Us Oregonians can't understand why the whole country doesn't do it. There are no real drawbacks and plenty of positives. 

I've never encountered anyone in this state who longs for the old way of voting.

Sure, voting by mail costs you a first class stamp. But lots of people drop off their ballots at a collection box. Many like to do this on election day. Me, I fill out my ballot and mail it in as soon as possible. This gets me off the list of people who receive phone calls from candidate campaigns asking, "Have you voted yet?"

Here's a report from the Marion County Elections Office showing ballot return rates in the recent May 17 primary election. (Marion County is where Salem, Oregon's capital, is located.)
Download 5-17-16 Ballot Return Rate

The final Marion County return rate was 49%.

Thirty-four percent came in gradually during the two weeks prior to election day; fifteen percent came in on May 17, election day. Most of the day-of-election ballots were dropped off, since there's plenty of warnings not to mail your ballot even a week before election day, because of the risk of the USPS not delivering it in time.

(In Oregon, all ballots have to be received by 8 pm on election day. In Washington state, they have to be postmarked by election day.)

Just about the only halfway reasonable supposed drawback to vote by mail that I've heard is the ability to cast your ballot several weeks ahead of election day. Some people argue that this prevents early voters from considering late-breaking information about a candidate.

Well, I've never had regrets about who I voted for two weeks before election day. And many states have some form of early voting, including the ability to cast an absentee ballot. So this seems like a very weak argument against vote by mail.

Phil Keisling was Oregon's Secretary of State from 1991-98. His recent piece in Washington Monthly, "Vote From Home, Save Your Country," discusses the excellent reasons to have vote by mail everywhere. Higher voter turnout is one of them. 

In 2014, Oregon’s active voter turnout rate was 70.9 percent—23 percentage points higher than the national average—despite having no hotly contested top races. Colorado, which had both a close Senate and governor’s race, logged a 71.9 percent ARV rate in its debut UVBM election. Washington State had no U.S. Senate or governor’s race in 2014, but its 54 percent ARV turnout still handily beat the national average. (In 2010, thirty-eight of Washington’s thirty-nine counties used all mail ballots, and its 71.2 percent rate that year was second only to Oregon’s.)

Voter fraud is virtually non-existent in Oregon, just 13 cases since 2000. That's less than one a year. 

My ballot has my name and address on it. I sign the envelope that the ballot is returned in. My signature has to match the one that is on file with the elections office. When my ballot is received, I get an email telling me this:

Hello Brian Hines,

Welcome to Marion County Clerk - Elections Track Your Ballot.

Your ballot for the November 2015 Election has been accepted and is being processed for counting. Thank you for voting! If you have any questions call 503-588-5041.

Visit http://www.co.marion.or.us/co/elections for more election information.

Bill Burgess
Marion County Clerk

So get with it, you 47 states other than Oregon, Washington, and Colorado that don't let citizens vote by mail. The only reason not to do this is to suppress voter turnout. Which appears to be why Republican/Red states are reluctant to have vote by mail.

Ooh, scary! Lots of people voting! Democracy!

Well, be even more afraid of Oregon, because we also have automatic voter registration when people register with the Department of Motor Vehicles ("motor voter" law). Since January, more than 50,000 new voters have been registered in Oregon this way. 

And then they can vote by mail. Making it easy to vote... works here in Oregon. The rest of the country should give it a try.

"Listen, Liberal" is a must-read book for progressives

I'm finding my progressive views being challenged by Thomas Frank's new book, "Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?"

He's the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?" which took shots at Republicans. Now he's aimed his considerable rhetorical and intellectual skills at Democrats.

To great effect. 

I'm about halfway through with the book. Though I'm still a Hillary Clinton supporter in this year's presidential primary contest, I can now better understand why Bernie Sanders' supporters feel like the Democratic Party has screwed over ordinary people. 

I couldn't resist peeking at the last pages of "Listen, Liberal." As suspected, Frank doesn't cut Democrats any slack in his conclusions.

Now, all political parties are alliances of people with disparate interests, but the contradictions in the Democratic Party coalition seem unusually sharp. The Democrats posture as the "party of the people" even as they dedicate themselves ever more resolutely to serving and glorifying the professional class.

Worse: they combine self-righteousness and class privilege in a way that Americans find stomach-turning. And every two years, they simply assume that being non-Republican is sufficient to rally the voters of the nation to their standard. This cannot go on.

Agreed. 

This is why I've come to feel that if Clinton is the Democratic presidential nominee, as she almost certainly will be, infusing her policy positions with a Big Dose of Bernie will be the best course for both this country and her campaign against Trump. 

Not that Sanders has got everything right. But I've read enough of Frank's book to feel convinced that much of what Democrats have done over the past few decades has been misguided -- even though it seemed justified at the time. (Frank himself admits that he has changed his views over the years.)

I want to finish "Listen, Liberal" before I weigh in on Frank's overall conclusions.

So far, I think his general viewpoint is right on: Democrats have been, and are, way better than Republicans at standing up for ordinary people, the "99%," but still -- in many ways us Democrats have failed the non-professional, non-creative class, non-kale eating/latte drinking citizens of this country.

A few things are bothering me about what I've read so far, though. Frank has a habit of criticizing Democratic policy-makers for doing this-and-that without making much of a case for an alternative approach. 

For example, he castigates President Bill Clinton for assuming that globalization was akin to a force of nature that couldn't be stopped, so the United States needed to adjust to the trend as best we could. Hence, NAFTA and other trade pacts.

Question is, though, how else could this country have dealt with globalization? Trade wars, higher tariffs, and such aren't exactly recipes for economic success. Further, globalization has helped hundreds of millions of people in other countries escape extreme poverty.

Sure, much needs to be done to make their working conditions more fair and equitable. And those hurt by the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country need more than a (Bill) Clintonesque, "The world we face today is the world where what you earn depends on what you can learn." (direct quote in the book)

But globalization is a ship whose course is pretty much set. Democrats need to adjust important details about where the ship is heading, while recognizing that business is going to be increasingly conducted across national borders -- and this is a good thing, overall. 

I also am finding Frank's critique of "new urbanism" folks like me to be a bit off-putting.

Yes, it isn't enough to have cities with marvelous bike paths connecting mixed use areas with art galleries, coffee houses, restaurants, and other attractions for those with enough disposable income to enjoy these amenities. However, there isn't an inherent contradiction between a city being "cool" and being "socially equitable." 

Meaning, we can take care of the less fortunate in this country while also making communities in the United States much more livable. European countries have shown that social democracy and livability go well together. Bicycling isn't just for hipsters; it also is a low-cost, green way to get around. 

In general, though, I like Thomas Frank's style and substance. He presents a way of looking at the Democratic Party which is making me rethink the history of the Clinton years, and onward. These two paragraphs are typical of Frank's blunt prose:

On the financiers, the real Clinton legacy came down to four words: Grab what you can. For them, there were bailouts and trade deals that protected their interests and tax cuts and a timely shot of "liquidity" whenever stock markets seemed to be flagging. And a little deregulation should the laws of the land not meet with their favor.

But the poor needed to learn discipline. That seems to have been one of the ideas behind NAFTA: People employed in manufacturing had to accept working harder for less or else watch their jobs depart for Mexico. Discipline was the point of the '94 crime bill too: The poor were to live in a state of constant supervision where there was "zero tolerance" for those who stepped out of line. Mercy was to be a luxury item now, a thing reserved for those who could make big donations to the Clinton presidential library. 

OUCH! Anyone who thinks my political blog is snarky, read Frank's book for some real snark. 

What Trump's triumph tells us about the nature of reality

Lots of people are talking about what Donald Trump's triumph -- he looks certain to be the G.O.P. presidential nominee -- means for the future of the Republican Party, America, and the world.

To me that stuff is interesting. But I've got my philosophical sights set much higher: on what Trump's ascendancy tells us about the nature of reality. 

More specifically, human reality. So far as I can tell, the rise of Trump doesn't say much about cosmology, dark energy/matter, or how quantum physics and general relativity fit into a theory of everything. 

But having closely watched the Trump phenomenon unfold through my political-junkie eyes for the past however long it has been (seems like forever), I feel qualified to weigh in on its implications for our all-too-human understanding of how the world works.

(1) Life is unpredictable. Obvious statement, right? Hard to argue with. But we Homo sapiens love to believe that we've got a firm grasp on how reality will unfold. Virtually every supposed political expert confidently predicted that Trump would flame out once voters got to know him.

They were wrong. They had no idea. They were surprised by what actually happened. So were we all, pretty much. (I know I was.)

This should have been expected: that expectations were almost certainly going to be wrong. Stock market predictions; long-range weather forecasts; how well a new romantic relationship will work out -- people are crappy at predicting what will happen in the future, by and large.

Yet we keep on believing that next time, we'll get it right. Of course, we probably won't. Life's complex dynamics are way beyond the ability of the human mind to fathom. Also, computer intelligence, so far.

(2) Stories are a sorry substitute for reality. People adore stories. We love telling ourselves Daytime Stories about how the world is, and what will happen in the future. Psychologists and neuroscientists say that story-telling basically is hard-wired into human nature. 

If someone says, "I probably shouldn't reveal this, but did you hear about the embarrassing thing that happened to Sophie on her honeymoon?" we're all ears! Gossip is delicious, even if we're reluctant to admit this. Further, even when happenings can't be linked into a coherent narrative, no problem. 

We'll make up a story that fits what we want to hear.

"Trump is an idiot. He's a political flash in the pan. It won't take long for voters to see through his egotistical bullshit. By spring he'll have dropped out of the race." Except, it's spring, and Trump has won the freaking Republican nomination for president!

There are stories about reality. Then, there is reality. Two different things.

Because we can't know reality as it is, only as how it appears through the imperfect lens of the human mind, we like to make life more coherent than it actually is -- conjuring up stories that tell a pleasing tale about the world. Then, those damn messy facts come along, forcing us to either ignore them, or change our story to fit them.

(We should do the change-our-story thing, but the ignore-them thing is so enticing.)

(3) Nobody is in charge. Not God. Not the "establishment." Nobody. This uncomfortable conclusion fits with my first two points. Life is surprisingly unpredictable, and our stories typically are at odds with reality, because most of us assume that someone or something is purposefully guiding what's happening.

God. Destiny. Gaia. Karma. Cosmic consciousness. The Universe. Unfolding of Our Higher Nature. Whatever...

So we tend to assume that events tend toward a happy ending. Or at least, a meaningful ending. There's got to be a reason this is happening. 

Um, actually, no. Who says there has to be a reason beyond the blind play of cause and effect?

Trump is on track to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States. That's a fact. There is no evidence of a Grand Design behind that fact. In fact (I love that word, fact), every other candidate who believed they were impelled or chosen by God to run for president has dropped out. 

Only chaotic, profane, insulting, irritating, godless (beyond his thin religious facade) Donald Trump is still standing.

I understand the appeal of thinking that there's some ultimate purpose to his presidential candidacy -- he will insure Clinton's election, a Democratic Senate, and progressive Supreme Court nominations, praise Tao!  However, there's no evidence of anyone or anything propelling the 2016 presidential election in any particular direction.

Life just happens. What is, is. 

Just because those words can fit on a bumper sticker doesn't mean they aren't true.

 

How Salem's candidates and other local leaders look upon climate change

On Earth Day 2016, April 22, I asked 30 civic leaders in Salem three questions about climate change.

These were candidates running for Mayor and City Council in the May election (9 people); City councilors not running in this election (6 people); the Mayor, City Manager, and Public Works Director (3 people); Chamber of Commerce execs (2 people); top Statesman Journal and Salem Weekly staff (5 people); Marion County commissioners (3 people); plus KYKN talk show host Gator Gaynor and Salem Health CEO Cheryl Nester Wolfe.

Those folks were non-scientifically selected by me while I was sitting with my laptop at a south Salem Starbucks, thinking about who I should email my three questions to while sipping a grande Pike Place.

My email message and subsequent reminder message are in a continuation to this post, at the very end. I asked the same questions as I did in 2014, spurred by a Salem City Club talk by Jane Lubchenco. In a blog post at the time, I wrote about speaking with her after her talk:

Since Lubchenco mentioned climate change often in her City Club talk, I wanted to ask her if she could think of any reason why local public officials shouldn't be willing to say whether they agree with the scientific consensus about climate change/global warming.

"No," she told me. Which is the answer I expected, since she'd just said that science isn't political.

Science seeks to learn about the nature of shared reality, the world everyone inhabits -- conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, religious believers and non-believers, everybody.

Lubchenco's talk spurred me to compose a message I'll be sending to Salem-area public officials. And other local leaders: newspaper editors/publishers; Chamber of Commerce executives; corporate and non-profit organization leaders; people running for elected office.

Before I discuss the 2016 responses -- and non-responses -- from the 30 Salem-area leaders, here's the results. A blank obviously means the person didn't respond with a YES, NOT SURE, or NO to the three questions I asked. 

So far, I've gotten responses from 10 of the 30 people. Six were candidates in the May election, which says something. (I'll let readers decide on their own what that "something" is.) I also got a narrative reply from Jan Kailuweit, who is running for the Ward 1 City Council seat against Cara Kaser.

Kailuweit said:

Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond. As I'm sure you've been able to tell from my Facebook posts, I'm deeply committed to reducing my carbon footprint. This is one of the reasons why I own an older home (the ultimate act of recycling, as opposed to building or buying a brand new home), why I'm a strong believer in a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly infrastructure, and why I moved to downtown, so I can walk to the office. (Besides, not having to commute, I have more time for family and my car insurance gives me a sizable discount.)

Having grown up in Europe, which is much more densely populated and hence has dealt with pollution and waste reduction for many decades, I believe there is room for improvement in Salem. 

I trust my answer suffices for now.

I also heard back from Jason Tokarski of Mountain West Investment. He said:

Brian, thank you for inquiring of me on this subject. I have long wanted to better understand this subject and have looked for non-biased sources, but to this point have found nothing that I felt was informative without an agenda. Given that, I am not comfortable responding to your survey.

I thanked Tokarski for his directness, saying "I’m a big believer that it’s better to be honest about how we feel about something, rather than say what is politically correct or what we think people want to hear."

Which helps explain why I fondly look upon Warren Bednarz' "NOT SURE" about whether humans are mostly responsible for global warming. I disagree with Councilor Bednarz on some important local issues, and I don't agree that there's any doubt humans are causing global warming.

But I admire Bednarz for directly responding to the questions.

Almost certainly, some of the non-respondents are global warming deniers in one form or another. However, I suspect they're reluctant to admit this in a state and city where most citizens are strong defenders of protecting the environment. And there is no bigger threat to the habitability of our one and only Earth than global warming. 

A 2014 national Gallup poll about global warming found this:

Over the past decade, Americans have clustered into three broad groups on global warming. The largest, currently describing 39% of U.S. adults, are what can be termed "Concerned Believers" -- those who attribute global warming to human actions and are worried about it. This is followed by the "Mixed Middle," at 36%. And one in four Americans -- the "Cool Skeptics" -- are not worried about global warming much or at all.

Those Cool Skeptics, 25% of the adult population, lead decidedly to the right of the political spectrum: 80% are Republicans/lean Republican; 65% are conservative and only 9% liberal. Conversely, 76% of the Concerned Believers are Democrats/lean Democrat.

Thus it wouldn't be at all surprising if a good share of Salem's conservative leaders are skeptical about the scientific consensus on global warming. I just wish they'd be up-front about this, because it would make policy debates more fruitful in this town.

For example, one reason liberals oppose the planned billion dollar Third Bridge across the Willamette is its contribution to increased carbon emissions. But if conservative leaders in this town deny global warming, yet won't admit this, it is difficult to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of the Third Bridge. People talk past each other, rather than with each other.

Lastly, I'll note that Michael Davis, executive editor of the Statesman Journal, told me he wouldn't respond to the survey because Davis doesn't like what I've written and said about him. Well, I readily admit that I'm a frequent and strong critic of what Salem's daily newspaper has become under his leadership.

But as Jane Lubchenco told me (she was Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration from 2009-13), there is no reason local public officials shouldn't be willing to say whether they agree with the scientific consensus about climate change/global warming. I'd add, local private leaders who take part in policy discussions also.

Whether you like the person asking questions about global warming shouldn't matter. However, in Davis' case it did. 

So if anyone else wants to contact the people who haven't responded yet to my survey, and ask them the same three questions, please do. The questions are in the continuation to this post that follows. Email me any responses you get, and I'll update the global warming survey results.

(The email addresses of those who haven't responded are publicly available. But if you can't find them, email me and I'll send you the ones you want.)

Here's the messages I sent out:

"The True Cost" film shows need for fair global trade

Some of the 2016 presidential candidates -- notably Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders -- make it sound like global trade is a bad thing. They talk about bringing jobs back to America and even forcing manufacturers like Apple to make their products in the United States. 

In discussions with fellow liberals, I've questioned the wisdom of this negative attitude toward international trade. 

I'll argue that while global trade agreements have caused some jobs to be lost in this country, overall international trade (a.k.a. "globalization") has been positive for the world as a whole. Many millions of people have been lifted out of abject poverty in Third World nations.

So I enjoyed watching "The True Cost" last night at Salem's Progressive Film Series. 

This is a story about clothing. It’s about the clothes we wear, the people who make them, and the impact the industry is having on our world. The price of clothing has been decreasing for decades, while the human and environmental costs have grown dramatically. The True Cost is a groundbreaking documentary film that pulls back the curtain on the untold story and asks us to consider, who really pays the price for our clothing?

Filmed in countries all over the world, from the brightest runways to the darkest slums, and featuring interviews with the world’s leading influencers including Stella McCartney, Livia Firth and Vandana Shiva, The True Cost is an unprecedented project that invites us on an eye opening journey around the world and into the lives of the many people and places behind our clothes.

There's a lot I could say about the movie, which touched me deeply. It was heartbreaking to see the working conditions in Bangladesh factories where clothes are made on the cheap. But I want to focus on one thing that wasn't spoken about in "The True Cost."

Reversing the globalization push that has led clothing manufacturers to make their wares in developing countries. 

The filmmakers were critical of how cotton is grown with nasty chemicals, how factories mistreat their workers, how environmental pollution spews from unregulated clothing factories, how wasteful the "Fast Fashion" trend is, and such.

But there wasn't any mention of closing down the Third World factories and bringing clothing manufacturing jobs back to the United States. This ship has already sailed, by and large. It may adjust its course, but it isn't making a 180 degree turn in the opposite direction.

Yes, working conditions in developing world factories need to be much improved. The employees need to be paid more. Environmental regulations need to be made stricter. Global trade, though, isn't a bad thing. 

This is the message in a Vox piece I came across today, "Free trade critics love to cite this economist. But he actually thinks trade is essential." It presents a nicely-balanced look at international trade.

Here's some excerpts:

Gordon Hanson is an economist at the University of California San Diego, and you'd expect him to be a fierce critic of free trade. He's a co-author of perhaps the most famous study showing the downside of trade for American workers, which concluded that exports from China in the 1990s and 2000s cost the US a huge number of manufacturing jobs.

Yet Hanson is anything but anti-trade. Those job losses, Hanson told me, were inevitable so long as rich countries were willing to trade with relatively poorer countries like China. Those poor countries needed trade, Hanson argues, in order to fuel the massive declines in extreme poverty we've seen since World War II.

"Exports were what allowed China to grow," Hanson told me. "We haven't seen poverty fall dramatically in any country that kept itself closed."

In other words, there was a trade-off: Rich countries lost a significant number of jobs, but poor countries gained enormously. What follows is a transcript of our conversation about why this had to be the case, edited for length and clarity.

[Following are Hanson quotes]

...We haven't seen a country that got rich, and we haven't seen poverty fall dramatically, in any country that kept itself closed. That openness is a necessary condition for development, [though] it’s not a sufficient condition.

[The export-driven growth story] was especially true in the countries that were particularly good in manufacturing, because those are the sectors where you're going to be employing lots and lots of labor. So as you engage the global economy, you're going to see this dramatic improvement in the standard of living. That was the story for East Asia. It’s also been mostly the story for Southeast Asia.

...The US, along with Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, and other similar countries, built the global trading system through multiple rounds of negotiation for the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), which then morphed into the WTO in 1994. Countries that liberalized said, "Okay, we're now going to join the global community of trading nations." They could join the WTO and benefit from access to markets for all those other WTO members.

If you want to think about the aspects of the US trade policy that mattered most for poverty reduction, it was that component. The bilateral deals had been much less important, in part because we're making bilateral deals with countries that had already liberalized quite a bit. NAFTA mattered, but what the US did through the seven or eight rounds of GATT and WTO negotiations over 40 years mattered much, much more.

...I think the fair statement to make is that trade is a necessary but not sufficient condition for poverty reduction.

There are plenty of countries that have fully liberalized their markets and haven’t seen big reductions in poverty. I don't think economists would say, "Trade globalization is the magic bullet. You do this and you're going to see massive reduction in poverty in the country." The evidence just doesn’t support that.

I think the evidence also doesn’t support the idea that you can have massive reductions in poverty without globalization. We just haven't seen it.

I think we've come to realize that when you talk about development, trade policy is one of many changes that need to happen in a society to allow income growth to occur.

Salem City Councilor Warren Bednarz accused of ethics violations

Over on my new Salem Political Snark blog I've put up a post about two complaints that have been filed with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission against Warren Bednarz, a city councilor. 

Check out "City Councilor Warren Bednarz hit with ethics complaints." 

Both relate to Bednarz' failure to declare a conflict of interest when he voted on motions before the City Council that would financially benefit members of his family. 

After a preliminary review of the first complaint, it was considered serious enough by Commission staff to warrant an investigation by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.

...The second ethics complaint is still under review. It seems more serious than the first complaint, since it involved the Bednarz family actually getting money from the City of Salem, $13,000 for property needed to construct street improvements at the Commercial and Kuebler intersection.

Even before I learned of the ethics complaints, I felt that residents of Ward 7 would be much better served by Sally Cook, who is running against Bednarz in the May election. 

Now I'm even more convinced that Bednarz should be retired by voters.

Salem needs fresh, energetic, creative city councilors like Cook who understand that livability is something different from mindless adherence to whatever the Powers That Be in this town want. 

Progressive Salem should endorse Carole Smith for Mayor

I'm a proud member of Progressive Salem, an organization out to get progressive candidates elected to local offices. But I disagree with the board of directors' decision to stay neutral in the upcoming Mayor's race.

Of the two candidates, Carole Smith and Chuck Bennett, Smith clearly seems to be the most progressive. (I couldn't find a web site for Bennett.)

I say this for some good reasons. 

(1) Tom Andersen being on the short side of 8-1 votes. Chuck Bennett currently is a Salem City Council member who represents Ward 1, the downtown area. Tom Andersen was elected to the City Council in 2014 with strong Progressive Salem support. For good reason Andersen is featured on the home page of Progressive Salem. 

Numerous times I've heard Andersen speak about the frustration of being on the short side of important 8-1 votes in City Council meetings. Naturally Bennett was one of the eight who opposed progressive policies.

For example, ending the push for an unneeded billion dollar Third Bridge that would require $1.50 tolls each way on it and the current two bridges, along with decimating homes and businesses in the path of this freeway'ish monstrosity. 

Andersen can rattle off various other issues where Bennett and seven other City Council members stood in the way of progressive policies. 

(2) Bennett's Chamber of Commerce endorsement. When Chuck Bennett announced he was running for Mayor, and an explicit Chamber candidate didn't emerge, it seemed obvious that Bennett was the Chamber's guy.

Now this is definitive. On March 21 the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce endorsed Bennett. Here's how the endorsement was prefaced.

Salem’s City Council is the single most impactful decision making body as it relates to economic growth and prosperity in our community, and is responsible for the governance that determines the rate at which Salem will flourish.

With a sound process that is inclusive to all candidates, the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce reached out to all candidates that filed to seek election to these offices as of late January to answer a questionnaire for endorsement by our organization. This endorsement process also included an interview with our Public Policy Committee, and a vetting by our Board of Directors.

The core of these endorsements surrounds job creation and economic growth, and it is our pleasure to offer endorsements to the following candidates:

Mayor: Chuck Bennett (current Ward 1 Councilor)

The Chamber of Commerce and progressive policies are like matter and anti-matter. They are unable to coexist. If the Chamber likes Bennett, it is because he has voted their way in the past, and they're confident he'll vote for conservative, pro-big business Chamber priorities in the future.

(3) What Bennett said on his Chamber of Commerce questionnaire. This was put on the Chamber's website. To an environmentalist progressive like me, it's ghastly.

Bennett opposes business taxes, such as a payroll tax for mass transit that other cities have successfully used to improve livability and economic vitality. Yet Salem suffers from no weekend or evening bus service, a major embarrassment for Oregon's capital. Bennett said: 

The city has successfully avoided any new business specific taxes or cost increases other than the growth of the property tax or costs that are worked out with all interested parties. 

Bennett favors the above-mentioned billion dollar Third Bridge and, one must assume, the local taxes and tolling needed to pay for this boondoggle. 

It’s clear the city needs to continue to be a major driver in completing the EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] for the third river crossing. That process is near completion with land use decisions planned for this summer but it must be followed as quickly as possible with a design and cost planning program that allows the regional, state and federal partners an opportunity to engage the community on this issue.

Bennett supports a supersized $80 million, 150,000 square foot new police facility that is way larger and more expensive than is needed, and squeezes out much-needed funding for seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall that will make them earthquake-ready. 

The structure needs to be large enough to meet the city’s needs over the next 30 to 40 years and that appears to be about 150,000 square feet if it also includes the 911 center. I am concerned that we not make the same mistakes made at City Hall where the Police Department was already looking for space eight years after it was built.

Also, I know Carole Smith quite well.

I've socialized with her. I've worked with her on various community issues, including trying to save the U.S. Bank trees from being needlessly killed in 2013 after a backroom deal was made between Peter Fernandez, the City of Salem Public Works Director, and Ryan Allbritton, the bank president and incoming Chamber of Commerce president. 

Chuck Bennett supported that backroom deal and the removal of the beautiful, large, healthy trees on downtown's State Street for no good reason. To me, this alone is plenty of reason to not support Bennett for Mayor. 

I'm trying to learn more about why Progressive Salem is sitting on the fence when it comes to the Mayor's race, which will be decided in the May 17 primary election. Hopefully they'll decide to jump onto the side where Carole Smith is waging a vigorous battle to be a genuinely progressive Mayor.

Open letter to Oregon's governor from a pissed-off wolf advocate

Dear Governor Kate Brown, 

You made a big mistake when you signed anti-wolf House Bill 4040 not long ago. I'm a proud progressive who is deeply irritated by this, notwithstanding my agreement with you on many other issues.

Oregon Wild says:

I am sad to report that Monday night, Governor Kate Brown signed HB 4040. This bill shielded the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife from public scrutiny and judicial review of their decision to strip endangered species protections from Oregon’s gray wolves.

There was no signing ceremony. There were no smiling politicians or stakeholders standing behind the Governor as she ratified the bill. There was no press conference. In fact, the bill was signed at night, and a simple statement was emailed by her staff the following day.

If that is not evidence that the Governor is ashamed of this bill, I don’t know what is. But she put her name on it.

 

My wife and I are long-time advocates for top predators such as wolves and cougars. We're familiar with the solid research regarding their benefits to ecosystems through a trophic cascade. 

In the years since the wolf reintroduction, Yellowstone has become a premiere scientific laboratory for wilderness observation and ecosystem recovery.  Scientists have come from around the world to watch the effect wild wolves have on the park.  We have discovered that an ecological effect called the “trophic cascade” has taken over Yellowstone, with the wolves initiating a more natural ecosystem balance than has been seen in over 65 years.

With only 5% of our nation’s wilderness left, people are recognizing the important roles complete ecosystems play in keeping all of us healthy. With new knowledge of the trophic cascade, we can now begin to focus wilderness recovery efforts on a wider variety of ecosystems. Using Yellowstone as an example, we can teach the world about the wolf’s positive and vital role in the wild.

Science. Facts. Reason. These are wonderful things. Until you signed HB 4040, I thought you believed in them. 

Guess not.

Because HB 4040 was written by the Oregon Cattlemen's Association and passed with two-thirds Republican support. (See my previous post: "Why Governor Brown should veto the horrible Oregon wolf bill, HB 4040")

So it's pretty damn obvious that some sort of backroom deal was reached between the R's and D's at the legislature to approve the bill with sufficient Democratic votes for passage, given that Dems control both the House and Senate, plus the Governor's Office.

HB 4040 is an outrageous affront to Oregon's separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Almost certainly it prevents a court's review of the questionable evidence that led the Fish and Wildlife Commission to decide that having about 100 wolves in this state means they no longer are endangered. 

A Salem Statesman Journal editorial said:

The legislation, House Bill 4040, is mystifying. It endorses the state wildlife commission’s decision last fall to take the gray wolf off Oregon’s official list of threatened or endangered species.

In doing so, the legislation apparently would block a lawsuit that conservationists have filed to overturn the commission’s decision.

So here we have the legislative branch of government lining up with the executive branch — the state Fish and Wildlife Commission — to preempt the third branch of government, the courts, from doing its job.

That seems like a blatant violation of the constitution’s separation of powers.

So now the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, which considers that the only good wolf is a dead wolf (I know this, because my wife has testified at numerous legislative hearings where ignorant ranchers in cowboy hats have said as much), is thrilled with your signing HB 4040, while environmentalists like me are outraged.

Well, Ms. Brown, I hope your campaign for another four years as a Democratic governor of this state gets lots of money from the Oregon Cattlemen's Association and their Republican friends, because I don't feel like giving you a dime.

When you signed HB 4040, this was an insult to sound science, transparency in public policy-making, your progressive supporters, and this state's environmental community.

You chose political expediency over doing the right thing. Sure, I understand this is the way governing works, but I don't have to like it, or approve of it. I often don't agree with Statesman Journal editorials, but in this case I do. 

We firmly believe that Oregon and our natural resources are better off when competing interests find areas of agreement instead of resorting to litigation. Ranchers have legitimate concerns about wolves’ impact on livestock.

But it would be grossly unfair, and a bad precedent, for the Legislature to change the rules after the litigation has started.

Besides, aren’t Democrats — who control the Legislature and who drew DeFazio’s ire — the politicians who demand that environmental decisions be made on sound science, not unsound politics? 

Why Gov. Brown should veto the horrible Oregon wolf bill, HB 4040

A lot of Democrats/progressives in Oregon consider the just-completed 2016 legislative session to have been a success.

But in my view the passage of HB 4040, which aligns our state with science-denying, anti-environment right-wing extremism that I'd hoped would be confined to Congressional craziness, is a huge negative that takes away from the positive steps taken: increasing Oregon's minimum wage, eliminating coal as an energy source, promoting more affordable housing.

Here's how the Center for Biological Diversity describes the bill, which awaits Governor Brown's signature.

The Oregon Legislature passed a bill tonight ratifying the delisting of wolves in Oregon and effectively preempting the right to any legal challenge. The 17-11 Senate vote to pass HB 4040 follows the bill’s passage in the House two weeks ago. The bill was introduced by Republican proponents of delisting on behalf of the livestock and sports-hunting industries seeking to block judicial review of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission’s illegal wolf-delisting decision last November.

There's so much not to like here.

(1) Ratifying the delisting of wolves in Oregon. This was a highly controversial action by the Fish and Wildlife Commission -- taking wolves off the list of endangered species in Oregon. As the Center for Biological Diversity points out:

In November 2015 the Fish and Wildlife Commission voted 4 to 2 to strip gray wolves of state endangered species act protections, despite having received comment letters from 25 leading scientists noting significant disagreement with delisting, and 10,000 public comments, 96 percent of which opposed the delisting.

(2) Preempting the right to any legal challenge. HB 4040 fulfills the dream of irrational wolf haters. It made wolf management in Oregon a political matter, rather than a policy issue founded on solid scientific facts and judicial review. 

In December the Center for Biological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild filed a legal challenge to the commission’s decision. Shortly after the 2016 session of the Oregon Legislature convened earlier this month, bills were introduced by Senate and House Republicans to ratify the commission’s decision in order to block judicial review of the delisting decision.

(3) The 17-11 Senate vote...introduced by Republican proponents. Oregonians have elected Democrats to lead our state and reflect our values. So how did an anti-wolf bill pass, given the strong support for environmental protections in Oregon? 

Because HB 4040 was a legislative "bone" thrown out to Republicans as part of session deal-making. Meaning, Democrats knew it was substantively a bad bill, but politically some D's felt inclined to vote for it.

In the end, the bill passed with about two-thirds Republican votes, even though Democrats have majorities in both houses of the legislature. In the Senate, 11 R's and 6 D's voted yes; in the House, 23 R's and 10 D's voted yes.

Editorial page editor Dick Hughes wrote in the Statesman Journal:

Republicans showed they had the parliamentary wits to tie the Senate in knots. R's saw themselves as stacking against the D's hijacking of the legislative session. D's see the R's as hijacking the legislative process. Finally, both sides agreed to session-ending compromise. 

Then came the wolf bill... the political symbolism was huge, which is why the Democratic leadership provided sufficient votes for the minority Republicans to pass House Bill 4040. The wolf bill was a chance to give Republicans a bone after they had been run over by high-profile Democratic legislation.

...HB 4040 is not good policy. But signing it would be good politics for Oregon.

Well, I disagree with Hughes (as I usually do). HB 4040 establishes a horrible precedent for this state.

If this bill becomes law, legislators can point to it as justification for ignoring facts/science when making other environmental decisions, and denying opponents of those decisions a right to challenge them judicially.

What if -- scary thought coming -- Republicans took over the Governorship along with both the state House and Senate? Then they pass a bill saying it is the official policy of the State of Oregon that human-caused global warming does not exist, and this (erroneous) conclusion can't be challenged in court.

They can point to HB 4040, should it be signed by Governor Brown, as a precedent that supports politicians making final decisions that, up to now, have been challengeable through our judicial system.

The wolf bill is bad for Oregon in many ways. Please urge Governor Brown to veto it.

Phone her at 503-378-4582. Email her via the Governor's web site.

Tell Brown you are opposed to HB 4040 both because it enshrines ill-considered wolf policy, and sets a dangerous precedent for ignoring science and cutting off the right of citizens to challenge state agency decisions in court.

If you need more convincing that HB 4040 is a bad idea, check out Quinn Read's opinion piece in the Oregonian, "Governor should veto anti-wolf bill."

Put simply, if Oregon wants to maintain its national leadership role in wolf conservation, Gov. Brown must veto this anti-wolf bill. She must show her constituents that Oregon's imperiled wildlife are not political bargaining chips and that decisions about wildlife management should be based on the best available science, not politics or the wishes of powerful special interests. A veto of this bill will allow Oregon's wildlife officials to get back to the real task at hand: ensuring robust protections are maintained for Oregon's fragile population as the wolf plan is updated.

Salem citizens: save lives by sending an email to the City Council

Look, I know it's a cliche: "It's about saving the children." But in this case it's true.

And not only the children -- we're also talking about saving the lives of everybody who works at or visits the Salem City Hall and Library. 

I feel strongly about this, earthquake-proofing the Civic Center buildings so they won't collapse in a major earthquake. We in the Pacific Northwest know this is a matter of when, not if, because hugely powerful Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes occur with semi-predictable regularity. 

And Oregon is due. For The Really Big One.

Unfortunately, City officials have lost interest in making essential seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library.

Why? Because the money this would have cost, $20 million or so, is now slated to be spent on a supersized, overpriced police facility whose price has jumped from $30-$40 million to $60-$80 million in just a few years, owing to a doubling of its size from 75,000 to 150,000 square feet. 

Yes, Salem needs a new police facility. The current one on the ground floor of City Hall is too small. Also, the area where the Police Department is housed likely will be crushed under three floors of rubble when The Really Big One earthquake strikes.

So a few years ago, City officials correctly recognized that Police Department staff needed to be in a seismically sound building. They also correctly recognized that if it is important to save the lives of police staff, it also is important to save the lives of everybody who works at, and visits, City Hall.

In 2014 the plan was to build a new 75,000 square foot police facility on the Civic Center campus, AND earthquake proof City Hall. (Making seismic upgrades to the Library also was being considered, in response to public pressure from Salem Community Vision and others to do this.)

This is the first slide in a January 2014 City Council work session presentation. The proposed three story 75,000 square foot police facility with underground parking is on the right, overlooking (and partially over) Mirror Pond. A renovated and seismically reinforced City Hall is on the left, in the background.

Note the title of the presentation: NEW POLICE FACILITY, CIVIC CENTER SEISMIC REINFORCEMENT. Two complementary goals, to be paid for by a Public Safety bond.

Make the Police Department staff safe by getting them out of the unsafe City Hall building. Make everybody else also safe by seismically reinforcing the Civic Center. Other renovations to the Civic Center also were planned .

Total cost estimate for all of this in 2013: $70.5 million, with about $35 million being the direct cost of constructing a new 75,000 square foot police facility with expensive underground parking.

Now fast forward to yesterday, February 22, 2016. The slide below is from a presentation made to another City Council work session -- after the size of a proposed new police facility at a different location doubled to 150,000 square feet.

(Click to enlarge.) The cost of building the supersized police facility at either of two possible sites is $80 million. Not surprisingly doubling the size of the police facility doubled its cost.

The Mayor, city councilors, and other City officials no longer talk of making seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library. Naturally the clear and present danger of The Really Big One earthquake hitting the northwest and devastating Salem still remains. 

As does the validity of this quote from Linda Norris, the former City Manager, in an October 2013 Statesman Journal story:

"The way it is, right now, city employees wouldn't even be able to get out of the building alive, much less use the building.”

 

The building she refers to is City Hall. The same applies to the Library.

Visitors and staff at the Library, including children enjoying StoryTime, wouldn't be able to get out alive if a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake hit.

This bothers me. A lot. I hope it bothers you also -- enough to get you to email the Mayor, city councilors, and other City officials: [email protected]

Say that you are submitting testimony for the February 29 City Council meeting where the only agenda item will be a public hearing on plans for a new police facility.

Urge the Mayor and City Councilors to restore funding for seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library. 

Tell them that if it is vital to save the lives of Police Department staff by getting them out of the unsafe Civic Center, it is equally vital to save the lives of everybody else who works at, or visits, City Hall and the Library.

Remind them that a January 2014 poll of 400 registered voters commissioned by the City of Salem found that the preferred answer of a clear majority, 59%, was to do BOTH: seismically upgrade City Hall and the Library, and build a new police facility.

To me it is morally wrong to risk the death of children at the Library because City officials have chosen a supersized and superexpensive 150,000 square foot police facility over a perfectly adequate 75,000 square foot police facility -- which the Mayor and Police Chief were happy with until recently.

Please consider coming to the Monday, February 29 public hearing in the City Council chambers (6:30 pm; arrive a bit early to sign up to testify) and speaking in person about how you feel. 

Lastly, I encourage you to read the highly readable Salem Community Vision position paper, "Salem's New Police Facility: The Best Way to Achieve It." Yes, I wrote it, so I'm biased. But it really is highly readable.

Download Police Facility Position Paper

Eye-opening, disturbing, inspiring: "Where to Invade Next" movie

My wife and I just got back from seeing Michael Moore's new movie, "Where to Invade Next," at Salem Cinema. We hugely enjoyed it. 

It should be a political game-changer for the United States.

Unfortunately, the people who should see it, those who really need to see it -- the right-wing flagwavers who wrongly consider America is #1; the tax-cutting fanatics who don't believe in the efficacy of government programs; the strong-military zealots who fail to understand the harm our giant defense budget is doing to this country -- they won't risk having their delusions challenged by seeing the movie.

Hey, even an ardent progressive like me had my eyes opened repeatedly by Moore.

Before we bought our tickets I knew that his core theme was correct: other developed countries provide a much higher quality of life for their citizens than the United States does, so we should steal their more enlightened social policies (hence, the name of the movie).

But I still came away deeply disturbed about many of the specific ways European nations kick our red, white, and blue ass. "Where to Invade Next" convincingly shows that the United States is way behind in...

-- Providing vacation time, sick days, and maternity leave to employees
-- Educating our children
-- Making it possible to attend college without running up big debts
-- Running an effective prison system
-- Dealing with drug use
-- Holding Wall Street criminals accountable
-- Feeding elementary students tasty nutritious meals
-- Guaranteeing reproductive health care to women
-- Teaching sex education in ways that work
-- Etc. Etc. Etc.

Now, Moore points out that many of the policies other nations have implemented so effectively originated in the United States. We've just fallen away from putting them into practice. 

Much of the blame falls on the increasingly radical slash-and-burn social policies of the Republican Party, along with the outrageously large percentage of our taxes that feeds bloated military spending.

The movie makes clear that while Americans pay a somewhat lower percentage of our income in taxes that Europeans do, we're still screwed over economically because of the much higher personal "taxes" we pay to go to college, get health care, care for a newborn baby, and obtain other necessary services that other countries provide more efficiently and effectively through public programs.

Over and over, interviews with ordinary citizens in other countries, along with interviews with foreign business leaders and government officials, showed how uncaring the United States is.

Our national morality sucks.

Harsh words, but true. In lots of ways we really don't give a shit about other people, because the United States is so focused on individuality, watching out for our own personal interests, letting those in need do without instead of offering a helping hand.

This was evident right here in Salem not long ago when the Chamber of Commerce, Salem Hospital, and other corporate types (including some small businesses) were unwilling to support a small payroll tax that would provide weekend and evening bus service for people who need mass transit to get around.

Opponents of the payroll tax only were concerned about themselves. They had a lot of compassion for keeping their own pocketbook as fully stocked with cash as possible, but couldn't muster up empathy for people who don't own a car, can't drive, or choose not to drive.

By contrast, "Where to Invade Next" is filled with talk by people in other countries who view caring for others as a main purpose in life.

They said that they wouldn't be happy living in the United States, where GOP negativism toward government, plus our inherent ego-centered sense of individuality, leaves so many citizens in terrible situations.

Sick. Lonely. Homeless. Abused. Disrespected. Unhappy.

I could go on and on about how Moore's movie affected me. But I'll just share a few other parts of the film that hit me hard.

The way we treat prisoners, and especially prisoners of color in this country, is super shameful. So is the general approach to policing in the United States, which is way more militaristic and heavy-handed than policing practices in European countries. 

The movie shows police in those countries saying the obvious: treat people with respect, even (and especially) if they have broken the law. Let prisoners vote. Do away with the death penalty. Rehabilitate, don't punish.

Lastly, it was moving to learn how extensively Germany continues to remind its citizens about the horrors of the Nazi past. Children are educated about the injustices that were done. Plaques on city streets memorialize the houses taken from Jews.

Yet the United States does its best to cover up our history: slavery, lynchings, genocide of Native Americans, stealing of land from those who inhabited our territory before Columbus arrived. 

Germany faces historical injustices head-on. Too many people in the United States pretend they never happened. So in no way are we the greatest nation in the world. We've got pluses and minuses, strengths and weaknesses.

Our goal should be to learn how to do better from other countries who are surpassing us in various areas. Thank you, Michael Moore, for making a movie that does this.

Here's the trailer, along with a good Thom Hartmann discussion of the film. 

 

 

 

What's most dangerous about the Malheur militants' mentality

I'm glad the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge standoff is over. I'm equally pleased that Cliven Bundy has been arrested and charged with crimes that could lead to him spending the rest of his life in prison. 


I readily admit that, like lots of other people here in Oregon and elsewhere, I became quasi-obsessed with the twists and turns of this drama -- especially after the four militants remaining at the refuge started broadcasting a live audio feed featuring their wacko rants and bullhorn pleas from a FBI negotiator to surrender peacefully.

So it's good to have the Malheur situation on the road to getting back to normal. The folks in Burns, Oregon must be way happier than I am that this is happening.

What worries me, though, is that even though this band of supposed "patriot" militants has been dealt with, there are many people in the United States who have the same sort of twisted mentality. It isn't stretching the case much, if at all, to say that these right-wingers pose more of a threat to this country than ISIS/ISIL does.

Consider this excerpt from the Oregonian story about the crimes Cliven Bundy has been charged with, stemming from the 2014 standoff at his Nevada ranch. I've boldfaced the scariest parts.

On March 15, 2014, Bundy is accused of publicly stating that he was "ready to do battle'' with the federal land management bureau and would "do whatever it takes'' to protect his property, the complaint says.

On April 12, 2014, Bundy ordered his followers to get the cattle, directing a crowd of hundreds to travel more than five miles to the site where the cattle were corralled while another group kept officers at bay at the main entrance to the site. The complaint alleges Bundy organized his followers into bodyguards, armed patrols and security checkpoints to prevent officers from carrying out federal court orders.

"The most immediate threat to the officers came from the bridges where gunmen took sniper positions behind concrete barriers, their assault rifles aimed directly at the officers below,'' the complaint says.

Federal law enforcement officers backed off because they were outnumbered, the complaint says. More than 400 Bundy followers, openly brandishing assault rifles and others bearing side arms had converged at the cattle impound site, the complaint says. About 40 supporters were on horseback, and there were "militia snipers concealed on the bridges'' with rifles zeroed-in on officers, Willis wrote in the complaint.

"Outnumbered by more than 4:1, unwilling to risk harm to children and other unarmed bystanders who had accompanied the Followers, and wishing to avoid the firefight that was sure to follow if they engaged the snipers on the bridge who posed such an obvious threat to their lives, the officers had no choice and were forced to leave and abandon the cattle to Bundy,'' the complaint says.

Amazing.

Bundy and his supporters were in open rebellion against law enforcement officers trying to enforce court rulings. They weren't engaged in a peaceful protest against supposed government overreach. No, they had sniper rifles trained on the officers.

Worse, a good share of Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and, especially, members of the so-called Patriot Movement, thought this was OK. 

Listening to the audio feed of the four militants' rantings and ravings helped me grasp how dangerous this bizarre way of looking at the world is. People who share the Bundy mentality actually believe that they, and only they, understand the Constitution of the United States.

Not the courts, including the Supreme Court, which naturally is the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what isn't -- under the freaking Constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government's ownership of land is completely constitutional.

Yet the Malheur militants believe it isn't. So do lots of other people who agree with their view of the Constitution, though not their gun-toting attempts to take over federal land and return it to private ownership.

So this is one big worry: that so many Americans are willing to toss the Real Constitution aside and replace it with a Fake Constitution of their own making. That way lies insurrection, chaos, instability, loss of respect for law and order.

Feeding into and supporting that worry is the theocratic nature of how Bundyists see the world. Like Islamic fundamentalists, most of them believe that God is on their side, and that their own imaginary conception of what God wants them to do supercedes the law.

This way of thinking even is on display among the GOP presidential candidates. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have spoken of their religion being a more powerful guiding principle for them than the Constitution. 

Listening to the audio feed of the militants' blathering, which was aided and abetted by outside supporters who were on the phone with them, I felt like throwing up after the millionth (roughly; I stopped counting) time they paused for prayer.

Prayer?! 

You're heavily armed. You're illegally occupying a federal facility that belongs to the public. You're calling the FBI officers who are trying to get you to peacefully surrender horrible obscenities, along with "evil" and "going to hell." 

And you think your beloved Jesus is going to help you if you pray? I am so glad I'm an atheist. 

Religiosity is bad enough by itself. It is way worse when fantasized religious beliefs are used to justify illegal and immoral actions. Those with a Bundy mentality actually think that God is on their side. Even after the FBI arrested them peacefully, I saw mentions of "praise God, He answered our prayers." 

No, God didn't. The militants kept praying that they'd be able to leave the refuge without being charged with crimes. So their prayers didn't work. They couldn't work. There is no evidence that God exists. 

Yet when right-wing wackos believe God is guiding their anti-government steps, this adds theological fuel to their dangerous insurrectionist fire. Normal conservatives try to limit government through political action: voting, lobbying, public pressure, and such.

This is fine.

What isn't fine is picking up an assault rifle and pointing it at federal law enforcement officers who are trying to enforce legal court orders. What isn't fine is taking over federal property and strutting around with guns, intimidating both police and citizens who disagree with you.

It's good to see that the government is cracking down hard on this sort of behavior. I'll end by quoting a Facebook post I put up this morning:

Great. David Fry just gave himself up.

Now, I'm waiting for condemnations of the absurdly-named Patriot Movement from Republicans, property rights activists, Christians, and others who may share their wacko right-wing views, but should disavow their twisted view of the Constitution, propensity to threaten gun violence, and what their demented minds think Jesus wants them to do.

Conservatives are always saying, "Mainstream Muslims need to disavow Islamic extremists." Well, now let's see a bunch of disavowing from mainstream Republicans and Christians. 

"You're a dick" often means "You're telling the truth"

I don't hear "You're a dick!" very often. Maybe never. But my citizen activism leads to me being called other derogatory names, like bombthrower. 

I've made that into a term of endearment. Here's what I said in a 2014 post:

I've been called a bomb-thrower by folks at City Hall. I guess this is supposed to be an insult. I consider it a compliment.

I'm proud to speak out loud and powerfully when I see stuff going on in Salem that shouldn't be. My goal is to throw truth-bombs that open up minds and demolish barriers to seeing what is happening behind closed doors.

So when I came to a chapter called Fighting the Good Fight in David Silverman's book, "Fighting God: An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World," I enjoyed what he had to say on the subject of being a dick.

Usually this is viewed as an insult. But Silverman has an appealing take on the term that rings true to me.

Understandably, he uses atheist activism as an example in the passages below (Silverman is the president of American Atheists). However, the principles of dickishness he talks about apply to every circumstance where truth is valued more highly than getting along for the sake of niceness.

Excerpts from David Silverman's book, Fighting God:

I'm sick of being told not to be a dick, and not just because I dislike gender-specific insults (which I only use in this case because it's what some people call me).

It's sometimes important to do things that make people call you a dick. I'm going to spend some time talking about why acting in a manner that some people regard as dickish is not only appropriate, but also necessary to the movement and the country, and, in an important way, downright nice.

So, what's a dick?

The definition varies from person to person, but to many I'm a dick whenever I say something that makes theists angry or even mildly puts them out. If I call a religion a myth, I'm a dick. What I say may be true, but I'm still a dick... I simply tell the truth and use labels that are accurate, if not politically correct.

...I may be called a dick for speaking the truth, but some of the real dicks are the atheists who tell me not to be one. Some verbally attack me with a holier-than-thou attitude usually reserved for the most pompous of preachers, laced with bile and vulgarity reminiscent of the crap we get from the Religious Right.

...I am not saying all "nice guy" atheists are assholes, just those who are so shortsighted they can't see how quickly and by how much this movement would lose its steam without firebrands to blaze the way for discussion by breaking the barriers of political correctness.

Not calling bullshit on bullshit is bullshit. 

...Diplomacy alone cannot trump greed, money, and power. That's why diplomacy alone will always ultimately fail to produce the results all atheists seek in a timely manner.

...Enter the firebrands. We chip away at privilege, disrespect the unrespectable, and refuse to obey someone else's religious rules. We laugh at threats of hell, literally and loudly, while demanding total equality. 

We attract everyone's attention to atheists' existence and issues. Firebrands are the movement's awareness generator. Firebrands go on TV complaining and shouting and demanding, and then the diplomats come out to soften our statements -- sometimes emphatically so. 

In the end, the firebrands look like "bad atheists," the diplomats look like "good atheists," and guess what that means to believers? Good atheists do exist.

This is called "shifting the Overton window" (a new name for an old strategy), and it is well described by Josh Bolotsky at beautiful trouble.org as follows:

The Overton window...designates the range of points on the spectrum that are considered part of a "sensible" conversation within public opinion and/or traditional mass media. 

The most important thing about the Overton window, however, is that it can be shifted to the left or the right, with the once merely "acceptable" becoming "popular" or even imminent policy, and formerly "unthinkable" positions  becoming the open position of a partisan base. 

The challenge for activists and advocates is to move the window in the direction of their preferred outcomes, so their desired outcome moves closer and closer to "common sense."

There are two ways to do this: the long, hard way and the short, easy way. 

The long, hard way is to continue making your actual case persistently and persuasively until your position becomes more politically mainstream, whether it be due to the strength of your rhetoric or a long-term shift in societal values.

By contrast, the short, easy way is to amplify and echo the voices of those who take a position a few notches more radical than what you really want.

Because of the firebrands, change is happening not on an individual level, but rather on a national level... It is the firebrand who primes the theist for the diplomat.

 

Rubio and Clinton are the odds-on favorites in presidential race

OK, let's get this straight right off the bat: I'm pretty much clueless about betting. So if I make some dumb-ass mistake about odds and what-not in this post, that's because I'm a betting dumb-ass. 

(I'd say there's at least a 50-50 chance of that happening.)

That said, I'm a believer in prediction markets. Which basically involves a bunch of people betting that something will, or won't, happen. 

A Washington Post story, "Why Marco Rubio now has the best chance of winning the GOP nomination," caught my eye today. 

Marco Rubio placed third in the Iowa caucuses Monday, but observers liked what they saw from the Florida senator's campaign. Now, the most likely outcome of the GOP presidential primary season is a victory for Rubio, according to bookmakers.

On Monday, bookies gave Rubio a 1-in-3 chance of winning the nomination. Since the results from Iowa came in, Rubio's chances are now better than even, according to data aggregated by Oddschecker.

To be sure, Rubio has a long way to go. Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) won more delegates than he did in Iowa. Rubio was trailing those two by a wide margin in the most recent national polls.

All the same, economists say that betting markets often better predict the outcomes of elections than polls. When there is cash on the table, people are less likely to be swayed by attention from the fickle media, which might momentarily inflate a candidate's polling. On the other hand, bettors who are prepared to put their money on a candidate might be more familiar with that candidate's strengths before the general public is aware of them. 

Naturally I had to click on over to Oddschecker. Where I instantly was abjectly confused, given how little I know about how betting works. 

I had no trouble finding the Republican and Democrat Presidential Candidate Betting Odds. But the numbers confused me. A "Help" section on Odds and Winning, um, helped. 

Key terms used to express the odds:

Odds on - The probability of this event occurring is judged to be more than 50%, so the amount you win is less than the amount you stake.
Evens/Even money - The probability is judged to be 50%, so the amount you win is the same as the amount you stake.
Odds against - The probability is judged to be less than 50% so the amount you win is more than the amount you stake.

Ah... so if the number on the right side of the backslash thingie is bigger than the number on the left side, that's Odds On, more than a 50-50 chance of winning. And vice-versa. That cleared some things up. 

Then I noticed some small type on the Oddschecker site that said "sort by fav/name," and "fav" was highlighted. So since the Republican candidate page had Rubio first, then Trump, then Cruz, that told me these guys were 1-2-3 in the betting game.

Rubio did indeed have numbers like 5/6 and 8/11 on various betting sites. Odds-on!

I'm not completely sure what single numbers like 100 and 200 in the Ben Carson row mean. Probably that's shorthand for 100/1 and 200/1 -- which seems about right in the case of Carson. 

The most lucrative potential bet appeared to be Carly Fiorina at 500/1. However, I don't think I could bring myself to bet a buck on Fiorina, even if it meant I'd win $500 if she became the GOP presidential candidate. 

(Well, on the plus side, now that I think about it, $500 would buy a lot of pot and booze, which is exactly what I'd need to get through four years of a Fiorina presidency.)

On the Oddschecker Democrat page, Hillary Clinton was rocking it. Typical were odds like 1/5 and 1/6, really odds-on. Sorry, Berniacs.

I can't resist noting that last October I made a bold prediction that Clinton and Rubio would be the presidential candidates. Guess I should have placed some bets at that time. My vice-presidential prediction on the GOP side wasn't so great, though: Fiorina.

Could still happen, of course -- a depressing thought. 

Is the presidential race over yet? It's gone on too long already.

Way back when, I thought I'd be more excited tonight, what with the Iowa caucuses finally kicking off voting that will culminate in November 2016 with a new president of the United States.

Problem is, it feels to me like the campaigning has already gone on forever, plus or minus a few eons. 

I just looked at the online New York Times front page. With most of the Iowa voting counted, Ted Cruz appears headed to a narrow victory, as does Hillary Clinton.

Whoopee. That's my lack of enthusiasm talking. And I'm a political junkie. 

There's something wrong about an election process that leaves people like me feeling burnt out as soon as the first actual flame has been lit on the primary campaign fire. 

When I read that Bernie Sanders (I think it was) raised $20 million last month, I thought, "What a waste of money." 

It isn't a waste because Sanders got the cash. It's wasteful because the whole U.S. election process stinks. Campaigns start way too early before the election. Way too much energy, money, and attention goes into the campaigning.

Sure, in the big economic scheme of things $20 million, or $200 million, or even $2 billion isn't a huge amount of money. But I keep thinking of much better ways to spend it. 

In other countries an election to decide who gets to run things only takes a few months, or even less maybe. That sounds about right to me. Short and sweet. How many times do we need to hear candidates say the same things, over and over?

With the Super Bowl coming up, a football analogy is in order.

What if the pro football season lasted years, rather than months? What if most of the early games had essentially zero impact on who becomes the final champion? What if most of the sports talk revolved around what might happen during the extremely long season, rather than what actually has happened?

Then pro football would be as boring as the campaigning for president.

People have been obsessing over who is going to win in 2016 since 2014, if not earlier. It's well known that winning in Iowa, and even in New Hampshire, doesn't have a lot of predictive value for becoming president. Because of the drawn-out campaign process, where nothing much happens for a very long time, all pundits have to talk about is how the political game could turn out in the future.

As I write this paragraph, with 94% of the Iowa caucus vote counted, Clinton has an estimated 49.8% of the delegates and Sanders has 49.6%. Yet tomorrow there will be much talk about who won and who lost. 

Yawn. Wake me up when something has really begun to be decided. Like after Super Tuesday on March 1. 

Most irritating thing about the Malheur Wildlife Refuge takeover

Like so many other people in Oregon, I've been avidly following developments over in Harney County, where a bunch of wacko right-wing militants have taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for bizarre reasons only their twisted minds have a chance of comprehending.

(The Portland Oregonian has extensive coverage of the takeover, now in its 24th day.)

Every morning I fire up my laptop and head to the Oregonian's "What you need to know today" page. There's always something newly irritating -- a fresh outrage by Ammon Bundy and his band of no-nothings.

As we enter the third week of the thoroughly illegal takeover, with no end in sight, I've been thinking about what is The Utterly Most Irritating Thing about it.

Opinions will differ, but here's my nomination:

Inaction by law enforcement -- federal, state, local -- supports the oft-heard contention by gun nuts that only by owning lots of weapons can the heavy hand of government overreach be prevented from taking away citizens' God-given constitutional rights. 

Is there any doubt that if Bundy and company weren't heavily armed, they would have been kicked out of the refuge a long time ago?

Or at least, had the electricity cut off, and been prevented from freely traveling around the countryside to do whatever they choose, then return unimpeded to the refuge headquarters?

I'm no conspiracy theorist. I generally believe government officials are honest and competent.

But I can sure sympathize with those who see clear signs of racism and discrimination operating here, given how law enforcement has let the militants do whatever they want after their takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.

If these guys weren't white, wearing cowboy hats, and heavily armed, almost certainly they would have been arrested and charged with numerous crimes by now. Early on in the standoff, an Oregonian story said:

When black residents took to the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, to protest the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, the National Guard responded. The guard called protesters "enemy forces" and "adversaries," according to documents that became public this year.

When Ferguson residents’ anger spread and African Americans across the country protested, too, local police responded while wearing riot gear.

Why then, some people across the country wondered this week, were there no law enforcement officials confronting the 20 or so white men occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters?

The men carried pistols and long rifles to the refuge. One man told Oregon Public Broadcasting he came prepared to die. Yet reporters on the ground said they saw no police officers.

Since, things have gotten worse.

The militants have attacked another group of "patriots." They've used federal computers and accessed confidential information. They've destroyed a refuge fence. They've intimidated law enforcement officers. They've stolen refuge vehicles. They've urged ranchers to defy federal law. They've threatened to unleash "rapid response teams" against federal employees doing their jobs.

And we need to remember the previous 2014 Bundy Standoff in Nevada. 

BLM enforcement agents were dispatched in response to what were seen as threatening statements by Bundy, such as calling the events a "range war." There was no armed battle. When those guns were brandished, multiple violations of federal and state law occurred: It is a felony to point a weapon at a law enforcement officer and a federal felony to take aim at a U.S. government agent. And yet there were no arrests that day — no meaningful action has yet been taken against anyone involved.

So its no wonder Ammon Bundy and his fellow militants feel that they're above the law. Nothing ever happens to them. Law enforcement officials let them do whatever they want. A million dollars in grazing fees the Bundy family owes remains unpaid.

Why? Again, the only reason I can come up with is because they're white, wear cowboy hats, and are heavily armed.

The militants spout nonsense about defending the Constitution and converting federal land to private ownership. They plan to have citizen panels indict people for going against their bizarre views. They go to public meetings with their guns and intimidate locals in Harney County, almost all of whom want them to go home.

Irritating. Super irritating. 

Problem is, I'm just about as irritated at President Obama, the FBI, the federal Justice Department, Harney County Sheriff David Ward, Oregon Governor Kate Brown, and every other public official who has encouraged Bundy and the other militants to keep on doing what they're doing by not doing anything about them.

It sure seems like the lesson for other protesters is, carry a gun and nothing will happen to you. Oh, unless you're black. Then, even if the gun is fake, law enforcement will deal with you harshly (very harshly).

Why the Malheur militants aren't like the Occupy protesters

Being a proud progressive, I'm committed to rationality, fairness, sound arguments, and fealty to facts. (Which makes me much different from most right-wing conservatives these days.)

So I've been pondering whether I'm justified in being outraged at what the militants who have taken over the Malheur Wildlife Refuge here in Oregon are doing, given that I was supportive of the Occupy Movement. 

After all, both groups took over public property in an attempt to bring attention to their causes.

Which basically are transferring federal land to private ownership in the case of the militants, and reducing social/economic inequality in the case of the Occupy protesters.

But after giving this quite a bit of thought, I've concluded that I'm justified in feeling angry at the militants while mostly admiring the Occupy Movement. Here's why.

(1) Guns versus being unarmed. Ammon Bundy and his band of anti-government militants brought a bunch of guns with them to the wildlife refuge. They're armed and dangerous, given the history of a previous protest involving Bundy and his father where federal agents had guns pointed at them in a threatening manner (they should have been charged with a crime, but haven't been so far).

By contrast, the Occupy folks were unarmed.

There's no mention of "gun" in the Wikipedia article about the Occupy Movement. So the moral high ground goes to them. Armed protesters are sending the message, "Don't mess with us, or we'll shoot." To my mind, whatever justification they might have for protesting an injustice gets obliterated once firearms are brought into the picture.

This relates to...

(2) Patriotism versus insurrection. Since my college days, I've done a lot of protesting during the past fifty years. None of the groups I was involved with advocated going against the Constitution of the United States, or overthrowing the federal government in any way.

We understood that if we broke the law, there would be consequences, even though the law might appear to be unfair.

However, the Malheur militants consider themselves to be above the law, above the Constitution, above the Supreme Court rulings that confirm the legality of the federal government's ownership and management of public lands.

This makes the actions of Bundy and Co. much more akin to insurrection, than patriotism. They don't want to work within the Constitution; they have weird ideas about setting up an extra-legal court system that goes against the principles on which this nation was founded.

The Occupy Movement never advocated overthrowing constitutional law or the authority of the federal government. So here also, the militants are morally inferior. 

(3) Reasonable versus unreasonable demands. A legitimate protest movement either makes reasonable demands, or recognizes the pie-in-the-sky nature of what is being asked for. In other words, the protesters either call for changes that are possible, or understand the impossibility of this happening.

The Occupy Movement didn't say, "Until tax rates on the wealthiest 1% are raised substantially, we won't leave the public spaces we're occupying." But the Malheur militants have strongly implied that they won't leave the refuge until a process for returning federal land to private ownership is instituted.

This won't happen.

It can't happen without an act of Congress and approval by the president. Even Greg Walden, the Republican congressman who represents eastern Oregon, says this won't happen -- even if the GOP captures the White House this year. 

Overall, then, it's one thing to stage a peaceful unarmed protest to draw attention to your cause, knowing that you'll have to face legal consequences if you break the law, while making reasonable demands that either are possible to fulfill or accepting that the requested changes can't happen now, if ever.

This is what the Occupy Movement did. Kudos to them for doing it.

But it's a whole other thing for gun-wielding militants to take over public property, vowing to remain there until their extremely unreasonable demands are met, including returning federal lands to private ownership in a completely unconstitutional manner.

So get out of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, Ammon Bundy and your fellow unpatriotic troublemakers.

Accept whatever charges law enforcement throw at you for your illegal acts. Be happy that your crazy ideas have been publicized way beyond what they deserve. Go home and try to change this country for the better through the rule of law and political action, not via unreasonable armed threats.

I was pleased to learn about the #GOHOMEMALHEUR movement.

They're requesting daily donations for three organizations opposed to the militants' goals that will be made until the illegal occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge ends. I like this effort, but preferred the option of making a one-time donation to the Friends of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Index investing lets me relax in a stock market crash

Nobody likes to peek at their investment portfolio after a day like today: a 390 point drop in the Dow (-2.4%), with the S&P 500 not much better at -2.2%.


But even though I toyed with the idea of brewing up a Cheerful Cocktail before I logged in to our Schwab account -- recipe: equal measures of anti-depressants, whiskey, potent marijuana, and caffeine extract -- I realized that our index fund investing approach would leave me feeling fine after I inspected our holdings.

Not happy. Not ecstatic. But fine.

Why?

Because since 2002 I've been a happy passive investor, having kicked the addiction of believing that I, or anyone else for that matter, can consistently beat the market. (See "Index Funds: the 12-Step Recovery Program for Active Investors.")

I described this approach in a 2009 post, "Index investing rocks and Jim Cramer sucks."

I've been a fairly serious investor for about twenty-five years. For quite a while I was the type of guy who'd be a Cramer acolyte. I subscribed to investing newsletters, researched stocks, tried to devise foolproof investing schemes.

Until I realized that I was acting foolishly. And started reading about index investing.

Since 2002 we've had a big chunk of our investments in DFA (Dimensional Fund Advisors) index offerings. DFA is a pleasingly geeky outfit. Their approach is highly sophisticated, as you'll see if you take their philosophy tour -- which starts on this page.

I don't claim to understand all the economics jargon. But I do know that I sleep a lot more soundly now that I've given up trying to outsmart the market.

Today our investment portfolio dropped in value by 1.1%.

That's exactly half of the S&P 500 decline of 2.2%. Which is typical, and unsurprising, since I aim for a roughly 50-50 mix of stocks and bonds. If stocks go down 2.2%, bonds will stay about the same or even increase in value as investors flock to safety. 

Hence, we lose half as much as the stock market loses. But this isn't the only reason, or the biggest reason, why I'm largely unbothered by how global financial markets are behaving currently.

It's the passive investing, doing almost nothing in good times and bad times alike, that has made such a big difference in my outlook about our investment assets. I talked about this in a 2008 (bad times!) post on my Church of the Churchless blog, "Profitable spiritual investing."

As the world financial crisis deepens, conversations tend to turn toward money rather than other subjects. Last night I was with a group of people who discussed the ins and outs (not to mention the ups and downs) of investing in tough times like these.

I didn't have a whole lot to say.

Briefly I held forth on the Buddha-like nature of index fund investing, where you don't try to beat the market through some clever scheme but rather rest content with rising and falling in concert with the overall financial tide.

I told my friends, "If the world and national economy go to hell, so will our investments. If things improve, so will our portfolio. It's a humble way to invest, since you're happy to be average."

About all I do, other than embrace my average'ness, is try to keep our investments balanced fairly close to 50-50 between stocks and bonds/cash.

Right now they're at 56-44, which is close enough. (Aside from index funds, we own shares in an actively managed total return fund that aims for a 60-40 stock/bond split; since I have no control over what it does, I shoot for 50-50 with the index funds we own.)

Index investing has improved my life a lot. I used to worry when markets went down. Now I'm much more tranquil -- even without a Cheerful Cocktail. 

There's a lot to like about having a "we're all in the same boat" philosophy of investing. To illustrate this, here's excerpts from a Morningstar X-Ray report on our investments I just printed out.

Asset Allocation: Your portfolio is moderately risky. Financial planners typically recommend this type of portfolio for investors who have three- to 10-year investment horizons and who are concerned by volatility and not preoccupied by it.

Stock Style Diversification: Your portfolio's stock exposure is spread evenly across the market and includes a good mix of small, medium, and large companies, as well as a fairly even mix of conservatively priced value stocks and high-flying growth stocks. For most investors, maintaining such broad-based market exposure is a prudent way to invest.

Stock Sector: You have a core portfolio. Compared with a benchmark with a similar investment style, you have very normal exposure to all market sectors. 

World Regions: You have a fairly healthy stake in foreign stocks. Comparing your foreign exposure to a common international index, you have a pretty standard regional breakdown. 

Fees & Expenses: The mutual funds in your portfolio tend to have very low expense ratios. This is good, because expense ratios have been shown to be a major factor in mutual-fund performance over the long term.

So there we are. These words aren't exciting, but they're just how I want our investments to be described.

"Moderate." "Spread evenly." "Good mix." "Prudent." "Very normal." "Pretty standard." 

We're average. Happily average. How the U.S. and global markets go, is how we go. That's the beauty of index investing.

You trade feelings of being a genius, or an idiot, depending on how your active investing strategy is working out, for a peaceful Ces't la vie.

Congressional Republicans refuse to applaud a cure for cancer

Watching Obama's 2016 State of the Union address last night, my wife and I were struck by how rarely Republicans applauded anything Obama said. 


The Daily Kos has a partial list of the subjects that left Republicans cold and apathetic in "What did Republican lawmakers hate about President Obama's State of the Union address?"

For those keeping score at home, here are just some of the issues that President Obama raised during Tuesday’s State of the Union address that Republican Senators and Congressmen in attendance refused to clap for, let alone get off their asses and cheer:

• Nearly 15 million new jobs and the unemployment rate being cut in half.
• Equality for all Americans.
• Cutting pollution levels.
• A good education for our children.
• Fighting terrorism.
• The idea that America is the strongest nation on earth.
• Avoiding war.
• Making it easier to vote.

And—drumroll, please—saving the best for last …

• Curing cancer! 

File this one under shit-you-can’t-make-up.

What made this display of extreme partisanism even more disturbing was this: while Republicans were deliberately failing to applaud things that are good for all Americans because Obama was mentioning them, Obama was talking about the urgent need to improve the atmosphere of our political discourse.

Here's some of what Obama said. I've boldfaced especially pertinent lines.

And that brings me to the fourth, and maybe most important thing that I want to say tonight. The future we want, all of us want — opportunity and security for our families, a rising standard of living, a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids — all that is within our reach. But it will only happen if we work together. It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates. It will only happen if we fix our politics.

A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country, different regions, different attitudes, different interests. That’s one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, fiercely, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.

But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t — it doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, it doesn’t work if we think that our political opponents are unpatriotic or trying to weaken America.

Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise or when even basic facts are contested or when we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get all the attention. And most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some special interest.

Too many Americans feel that way right now. It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency — that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. I have no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.

But my fellow Americans, this cannot be my task — or any president’s — alone. There are a whole lot of folks in this chamber — good people — who would like to see more cooperation, would like to see a more elevated debate in Washington but feel trapped by the imperatives of getting elected, by the noise coming out of your base. I know; you’ve told me. It’s the worst-kept secret in Washington. And a lot of you aren’t enjoying being trapped in that kind of rancor.

Well, I'm not so sure about those last sentiments. Last night Republicans sure seemed like they enjoyed sitting on their hands when Obama talked about subjects that everybody in this country should support.

Like, curing cancer. And generating many millions of jobs the past seven years.

People often wrongly say that both sides -- left and right, liberal and conservative -- are responsible for the breakdown in Congressional cooperation. 

Well, there's some truth to that, but Republicans have moved much farther to the right over the years than Democrats have moved to the left. This is a fact, as graphically illustrated in the Washington Post's "How Congress became so partisan, in 4 charts."

Here's the 2012 chart.

Ideology is along the horizontal axis. Conservative is to the right; liberal is to the left.  Party unity scores are along the vertical axis. Greater party unity is up; less party unity is down.

You can see that Republicans (in red) are considerably more rightward ideological than Democrats (in blue) are leftward ideological. Numerically, .675 versus -.394 (0 is ideologically neutral). And quite a few more Democrats fail to vote with a majority of their party.

Here's how things looked back in less rancorous days, 1992.

It's cool how this chart looks like the wings of a bi-colored bird. Because back then, members of Congress could actually get together and agree on things in a bipartisan fashion. 

Tellingly, the ideological scores for the two parties were much closer together then than they are now: Republicans were at .359; Democrats were at -.317. 

So in twenty years, Congressional Republicans went rightward from .359 to .675. That's 88% more conservative. 

During the same time period, Congressional Democrats went leftward from -.317 to -.394. That's 24% more liberal. 

Thus Republicans have moved over three times more to the right than Democrats have moved to the left. Which means they are mostly responsible for the parties being so much farther apart these days.

Obama is trying to bring our country together again. Democrats like me are ready and willing to help with this. We just need some interest from Republicans.

Failing to applaud curing cancer, putting Americans back to work, and fighting terrorism isn't helping with this, GOP.

I'm fed up with news being replaced by guesses about what might be

News and political junkie that I am, the presets on my car's satellite radio prominently feature the POTUS (Politics of the United States), MSNBC, CNN, and NPR channels. 

Usually I listen to them. But today I kept channel surfing -- listening for a short while, then mentally blurting out a profanity and clicking on either my Chill or Classic Rock music channels. 

My willingness to hear blather about what might be, what could occur, what the future possibly could bring, it's sunk to a low level. 

I've been gradually heading in this direction for quite a while.

Today, though, I felt more disdain than ever before for the almost non-stop frothy guesses about what will, before too long, become solid reality.

"What do you expect President Obama to say in his State of the Union speech tonight?," a host would ask. Then several people would pipe up, expressing opinions about what is going to be a freaking fact in just a few hours.

I realized that I didn't give a damn what they thought. Tomorrow, after the speech has been given, I'd like to hear some informed analyses about what Obama said.

But what's the point in spending lots of air time trying to predict an unpredictable future?

It used to be that news shows actually reported -- shock! -- on what has actually happened in the world. Now, though, the 24 hour news cycle apparently requires that 23 of those hours be devoted to guesses about what might happen newswise in the future.

"Polls show Sanders narrowing the gap with Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire. What does this mean for Clinton's presidential chances?"

I'd think, Here's what it means... nothing! Or so close to nothing, let's round it off to exactly nothing.

Astonishingly, someone on the satellite radio channel would point out the truth -- that in previous elections, polling in Iowa and New Hampshire at this point in the presidential election season had nothing to do with who eventually became this nation's leader.

And then the show's guests would ignore that fact, going back to guessing about who is going to win in those states in coming weeks based on the most recent polls.

The inanity and uselessness of it all hit me hard.

Listening to an actual "blast from the past" on the Classic Rock channel felt so much more real than all the blathering about what might be. A David Bowie song would play. It wasn't a possible David Bowie song. It was a song that Davie Bowie truly sang. 

So refreshing.

Probably my increased distaste for future news forecasting, as opposed to actual news reporting, is linked to my re-reading of Alex Rosenberg's marvelous book, "The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions."

Rosenberg, a philosophy professor with a strong background in science, likes to talk about the human predilection for story telling. We're almost hard-wired for this, he says. (See this post on my other blog.)

Natural selection made us crude conspiracy theorists, using the introspective markers we mistake for our own plans and designs to cause behavior, and using other people's noises and inscriptions to figure out their behavior. 

This sort of conspiracy theorizing to predict other people's behavior has limited but long-standing adaptive value. That's why Mother Nature found a way of addicting us to it.

We use other people's behavior, including the noises they make (their talk) and the inscriptions they scratch out (their writing), along with our own silent markers and mental images to guide our expectations about other people's behavior.

When we get it right, there's the relief from curiosity and the psychological satisfaction that makes us keep doing it. 

...Because the markers that move around our introspectable minds only crudely indicate what is really going on in each person's brain, folk psychology doesn't do a very good job. It breaks down badly once you use it to predict a lot of people's actions.

...The thoughts about human actions that are supposed to give them meaning and purpose have no reality in the brain. Our own apparent thoughts about things are crude indicators of the real causes of our behavior.

We guess at the thoughts of others from their behavior, their actions, their statements and speeches, their letters and diaries. But the results of our guessing are equally unreliable indications of what actually moves people.

Which is why I'm coming to feel that guessing what one person, such as President Obama, or lots of people, like voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, will do is absurd. 

But we'll keep on doing it because it is fun. Even if it has little or nothing to do with reality.

Trans-Pacific Partnership not looking good to me after Salem City Club talk

I've been on the fence about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

On the whole, free trade makes sense to me. But opponents of this proposed agreement between the United States and eleven other Pacific Rim countries have made some good arguments against it. 

So I went into today's Salem City Club talk, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Look at the TPP Through an Oregon Lens," with an open mind. 

I'm good friends with Russ Beaton, who gave the talk. Russ is a retired economics professor at Willamette University. He's heavy into sustainability, progressive politics, organic gardening, and other Good Stuff. 

I don't always agree with Russ, but I usually do.

After listening to what he had to say about the TPP, asking a question from the audience, and hanging around after the meeting for more discussion with Russ and other City Club members, I now lean toward the bad idea side of the Trans-Pacific Partnership debate.

As Russ told us, the TPP is one of those issues where strange bedfellows hook up. Many on the far right of the political spectrum dislike the TPP because Obama is for it. Many on the far left dislike the TPP because they see it as being dominated by corporate wish lists.

I like to think of myself as a left-leaning moderate.

Thus when Russ said early on in his talk that if the TPP is approved by Congress (on an up or down vote; no tinkering with the proposed agreement is allowed) centrist politicians will be the reason, I thought, "This seems to mean that politically the TPP is pretty well balanced."

Well, by the end of the hour I'd changed my mind. Here's the key things I learned that made me turn mostly sour on the TPP.

Not so much aimed at free trade as unfettered profits.
I'd been viewing the TPP as a way to eliminate unfair barriers to trade between Pacific Rim countries, like when the United States subsidizes our sugar producers to give them a competitive advantage. But reportedly most tariffs already have been removed between the TPP countries. 

Russ explained that much of the hugely lengthy TPP agreement (over 5,000 pages, I recall) has to do with non-tariff trade barriers. I don't claim to really understand what these are, but my general impression is that they are aimed more at guaranteeing corporate profits, rather than free trade. 

For example, after I got home from the City Club meeting this Climate Progress post caught my eye, "TransCanada Just Gave Environmentalists a Huge Boost."

For many, the Keystone XL pipeline was a catalyst for environmental action, and when the State Department denied developer TransCanada’s permit application in November, it was a signal that the environmental movement had triumphed over corporate and fossil fuel interests. So when the tar sands company announced this week that it was filing a claim against the United States for $15 billion, under provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), many were outraged.

But TransCanada’s heavy-handed use of the Clinton-era agreement might be the rallying point activists need to stop another, perhaps even more far-reaching, federal action: the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP is a massive, Pacific Rim trade agreement that would apply NAFTA-like provisions — including prohibitions on interfering with private investment — to the relationships between the United States and 11 other countries, including Japan, Malaysia, and Vietnam.

The United States treated the Keystone XL pipeline fairly. There wasn't a bias against TransCanada, no policy "tariff," so to speak. But apparently NAFTA and the TPP allow corporations to file claims against member countries for, basically, lost profits.

Meaning, even if the economic playing field is level -- such as a rule that requires cigarette pack labels to look a certain way, as happened in Australia -- a foreign corporation could complain that even though it is being treated just like a domestic corporation, that rule has kept it from making as much money as it would have otherwise.

(See "Philip Morris Sues Australia Over Cigarette Labels. Why?")

Russ told us that corporate attorneys have been heavily involved in drafting the language of the TPP. A prime goal has been to get things in there that their corporations haven't been able to get Congress to approve, and/or Obama to sign into law.

That's disturbing. As is...

The TPP isn't so much an EU, as a legalistic nightmare. 
I came to this conclusion after asking a somewhat muddled question from the audience that, if I'd framed it more clearly, would have gone like this:

Progressives like me are drawn to the idea of One World where national borders take a back seat to shared human interests -- sort of like how the European Union has been set up. This requires countries to give up some sovereignty so international agreements can be formulated that provide wide-ranging benefits. So where is the harm in the United States giving up some control of what happens in this country, if this leads to improvements in living conditions both here and in other countries?

Russ did a good job of sorting the confusing language in my question from the makes-sense parts.

From his answer, and what he said during the rest of his talk, I came to realize that while People coming together to form international unions is one thing, Corporations coming together are a whole other thing.

As already noted, the TPP drafting process has been dominated by corporate interests. Labor unions, environmentalists, and others have been on the outside looking in. Russ told us that even Oregon Senator Ron Wyden hasn't been able to get a copy of the TPP agreement.

(Most of what we know about it has come from WikiLeaks.)

Further, the process used to adjudicate disputes over TPP provisions doesn't sound like something that would happen in a warm and fuzzy One World. Three-person panels made up of corporate attorneys, who likely would have been involved in the TPP drafting process, would hear complaints.

From what Russ said, ordinary people, or even non-governmental organizations, wouldn't be able to take part in the panel hearings. Attorneys from aggrieved corporations would make their case before corporate attorneys hired by the TPP.

Not an appealing picture. Especially since Russ raised the prospect of the attorneys switching sides at some point -- an attorney who works for a corporation could end up being part of a TPP complaint panel.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how the debate over the TPP goes in Congress. Russ had a slide where he showed "pro" and "con" arguments for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. There are good reasons to vote aye and nay on the TPP. 

Unless I learn more about the agreement that changes my mind, I'm leaning toward asking my representatives in Congress to vote no.

Malheur Refuge militants ignore reality of "welfare ranching"

Anti-government militants' takeover of buildings at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge here in Oregon has a lot of absurd aspects. 

For example, the ranchers (convicted of federal crimes) they supposedly are supporting have disavowed the militants. Seemingly most of the people in Harney County, where the refuge is located, want the outsiders to leave.

Also, the militants claim to be defending the Constitution. But the founders of this country set up a method to decide how the Constitution is to be defended. It's called the Supreme Court. Until that court rules federal ownership of land is unconstitutional, those who say otherwise have no legal leg to stand on.

So they should be raising money for court battles, rather than carrying guns around and shooting their mouths off about claiming the Malheur Wildlife Refuge for private ownership. 

My favorite absurdity, though, is how right-wing supporters of the refuge occupiers like to frame the dispute as a battle between hard-working independent cattle ranchers and an overbearing federal government.

The truth is that "welfare ranching" is alive and well in Harney County, as it is throughout the West.

Taxpayers heavily subsidize those who raise cattle on public lands. So it is ridiculous that the militants are complaining about federal control of those lands, when ranchers benefit so much from publicly financed giveaways. 

The welfare rancher label applies to all ranchers who hold permits to graze the vast public spaces of the West, both delinquent and not. It includes the Wright brothers; the ranchers in Iron and Beaver counties in Utah complaining that wild horses eat too much; and 21,000 others. 

They are all welfare ranchers subsidized by US taxpayers, and you know who are the biggest welfare ranchers of all, grazing livestock on the hundreds of millions of acres of public grass and forest land, all assisted by public subsidies paid for by US taxpayers? 

Billionaires that populate Forbes rich lists. 

The .01 percenters. They are the nation’s biggest welfare ranchers, according to numerous environmental and policy groups; and it’s time they brought some attention to themselves, and the federal grazing program they’re exploiting to waste as much as $1 billion a year of taxpayer money while causing long-term damage to one of the public’s most treasured assets. 

Treasured is the right word. Citizens say they want federal land to be protected for future generations, with livestock grazing being a much lower priority. 

Which makes sense, even economically. 

"Taking Stock of Public Lands Grazing" is an economic analysis from the 1990s, but likely the conclusions still hold true. 

Given that agriculture is the direct source of only a small fraction of total economic activity, that livestock grazing is only a fraction of total agricultural activity, that federal forage is only a fraction of the total feed required by western livestock, and that feed is only one source of the value created in livestock production, it should not be surprising if that federal forage supports only a very small fraction of total economic activity in the West.

At the time of the study, just 0.1% of income in Harney County came from economic activity due to grazing on federal lands. That's one-tenth of one percent. And only 3.1% of jobs in the county were supported by federal land grazing.

So recreation, tourism, wildlife conservation, and such likely are more important to Harney County than welfare ranching. 

Update: I just came across a typically geeky-correct post on this subject from the 538 folks: "The Armed Oregon Ranchers Who Want Free Land Are Already Getting A 93 Percent Discount." Excerpt:

According to a 2015 report by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bureau of Land Management’s fees for grazing cattle on public land are much lower than the fees charged by private landowners, and they’ve only become cheaper in recent years.

...So getting to buy grazing rights from the Bureau of Land Management is a steal, unless, like the Bundys, you think the government is trying to charge you for what’s rightfully yours.

I've written several blog posts on this subject. Since it's a pleasure to quote myself, I'll do just that. 

Rancher thinks public land is "private"

I don't like ATVs wrecking nature. But I also don't like the attitude of "welfare ranchers" who get to graze livestock on public land for ridiculously low fees, then complain that they're not able to do just what they want on their property.

Such as killing wolves, even though these natural predators account for only a minuscule percentage of livestock losses.

Also, keeping people off of leased public land... It'd help if ranchers paid higher lease fees that truly covered the cost of both the grazing right and the environmental damage done by their livestock. Then they'd have a better argument for keeping other taxpayers off of the public land they're leasing.

Oregon cattlemen out of touch with wolf reality

Face the facts, ranchers. You're feeding at the public trough.

Government is keeping you in business if you graze cattle on federal land. So this is one reason why you need to go along with the public will regarding wolves. Which currently is saying, "Let them become part of the balance of nature again."

Ranchers wrongly believe that wolves are a much bigger threat to livestock than they really are, so they jump to an erroneous conclusion -- wolf kill! -- when they see a dead animal.

Again, ranchers need to remember that when they're using public land, they're getting a taxpayer funded benefit, just like welfare recipents do. They should feel grateful for that subsidy of their operations and not complain when reasonable restrictions are placed on their use of public property.

Ranchers overly afraid of the big bad wolf

Ranchers should chill about wolves and spend their energy worrying about other more serious problems. Like, how much longer is the public going to let them get away with welfare ranching?

Many ranchers in Oregon graze their cattle on public lands. According to the “Welfare Ranching” book, federal permittees pay only $1.35 per month to graze a cow-calf pair while the average monthly cost of grazing a cow-calf pair on private lands is $11.10. So us taxpayers should have a lot to say about what happens on public ranchland, since we’re the ones subsidizing the ranchers.

Anti-abortion zealots supporting domestic terrorism have blood on their hands

Today it became totally clear that the man who shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado, Robert Dear, was motivated by a hatred of abortion and those who provide abortions. 

From the New York Times story, "Colorado Shooting Suspect Declares 'I'm Guilty' in Court."

In a bizarre scene at what was expected to be a routine hearing, Robert L. Dear on Wednesday disrupted his first in-person court appearance since a shooting rampage at a Planned Parenthood clinic here with angry outbursts, a declaration of his guilt and vehement expressions of his anti-abortion politics.

“I’m guilty. There’s no trial. I’m a warrior for the babies,” Mr. Dear, bearded, unkempt and in leg and arm manacles, shouted during a hearing in which he was charged with 179 felony counts, including first-degree murder. “Let it all come out. The truth!” he exclaimed another time.

Mr. Dear was arrested on Nov. 27 after the attack on the clinic, which left three people dead and nine wounded. He was arrested by the police after a tense standoff.

And it was a vivid reminder of the horror and stakes in the Colorado shooting which was almost immediately eclipsed by the shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. five days later. Aside from Mr. Dear’s reported reference to “no more baby parts” his motivation had remained somewhat unclear.

But in repeated outbursts on Wednesday, he seemed to leave little mystery about his view of the Planned Parenthood attack.

As Judge Gilbert Anthony Martinez of Colorado’s Fourth Judicial District and the lawyers discussed which parties might be affected by a pretrial publicity order, Mr. Dear, 57, shouted: “Could you add the babies that were supposed to be aborted that day? Could you add that to the list?”

Before getting into who, other than Robert Dear, deserves blame for the Planned Parenthood shootings, let's review some facts about abortion in this country.

(1) It is legal. The Supreme Court has determined this.
(2) It is legal for a woman to donate fetal tissue from an abortion for medical research purposes. 
(3) And it is legal for Planned Parenthood, or any other abortion provider, to be reimbursed for the cost of providing that fetal tissue donated with the consent of the woman choosing to have an abortion.

Planned Parenthood hasn't been found to do anything illegal with "selling baby parts," as anti-abortion zealots such as Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump, and other GOP leaders have wrongly claimed. 

So aren't they supporting domestic terrorism, in much the same way as radical Muslims who chant "Death to America!" are supporting Islamic terrorism? 

I don't see much difference here.

Anyone who opposes abortion and calls abortion providers "murderers" is spouting a lie that gives aid and comfort to those who commit violent acts against Planned Parenthood clinics/staff. Like I said, abortion is legal. So obviously no murders are being performed by Planned Parenthood.

Yet wackos like Robert Dear hear these lies come from the mouths of nationally recognized Republican leaders. To my mind, those leaders -- which include a good share of the GOP presidential candidates -- have blood on their hands when violence is committed against an abortion clinic. 

What anti-abortion advocates should do is speak like this:

"Abortion is legal. I wish it wasn't, but it is. Those who provide abortions aren't breaking the law. They are doing what they believe is right, though I personally believe it is wrong. Let's work to elect a president who will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade, thereby making abortion illegal again. Until then, we can peacefully protest against abortion, but we can't interfere with the legal provision of abortions."

Until this happens, until all talk of "murderers," "killers," "selling of baby parts," and such disappears from public discourse about Planned Parenthood, those who fan the flames of violence against abortion providers are partly responsible for the lives lost in clinic attacks.

Another mass shooting. No more "thoughts and prayers." Gun control ACTION!

Another week, another mass shooting in America. At least 14 dead, another 14 wounded. And what are we going to do it about it?

Mostly offer our "thoughts and prayers" to the victims. And their families And the first responders. 

Which, obviously, does precisely zero, nada, zilch to stop the next mass shooting. And it will come soon. Because the next one always does.

Only in America do we have this much gun violence. Why? Because we have way more guns per capita than any other nation. So we have way more gun deaths. 

Responsible gun control is the answer. 

Thoughts and prayers are useless. They accomplish nothing (if a person directly affected by a shooting is told you are personally thinking of them, then they might feel a little bit better, but this rarely happens).

So, please Americans, stop with the thoughts and prayers.

All these rote expressions of sympathy accomplish is relieve your guilt that you're not doing anything to stop the needless gun violence.

Instead, ACT!

Support those calling for universal background checks and other reasonable gun control measures. Refuse to vote for politicians who mindlessly do the bidding of the NRA. Put pressure on federal, state, and local officials to prevent more mass shootings.

It's fine to feel for the victims. But if this is all we do, feel, we're being uncaring, not compassionate. One direct action to stop gun violence is better than a thousand thoughts and prayers.

Salem's Climate Justice march/rally: 3 things to know

Yesterday I took part in the "Salem to Paris: Support Climate Justice" march and rally that was sponsored by our local 350.Org group.

It was part of a worldwide movement to support the climate change talks in Paris -- one of the largest gatherings of world leaders ever.

Here's three things you should know about Sunday's event:

(1) People in Salem turned out! Yay for citizen activism! 
Since this was the weekend after Thanksgiving, I headed to the intersection of Court and High in downtown Salem figuring that just twenty or so aging baby-boomers would march to Riverfront Park, where the climate justice rally took place.

But way more people marched -- including a bunch of youngsters (of course, at my age just about everybody is a "youngster" to me). This photo was taken at the gathering spot adjacent to Courthouse Square. We then walked through downtown to the park. Here's a video I took on Court Street.

 

(You'll hear a guy at the end of the video say "Homeless children..." As we walked the rest of the way to Riverfront Park, he told me about the urgent need to find places for homeless children to live. Our Mayor and City Council aren't doing enough about this. But that's a subject for another blog post.)

(2) Dealing with climate change is a Big Freaking Deal. The problem is seriously real.
Walking along with the crowd, enjoying the signs, chanting, singing, and such, some lyrics of a Buffalo Springfield song from the 1960's, "For What It's Worth," came to mind. 

What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying, "hooray for our side"

Sure, that's the nature of most demonstrations. Not the climate justice march, though.

There is no "other side" when it comes to preserving the habitability of Earth. Who is in favor of allowing human actions to endanger civilization as we know it? 

Well, some people are -- those who are either willfully or ignorantly failing to heed the facts about climate change. So even though these facts are very well known, and beyond scientific dispute, here's a summary of the situation: a New York Times piece, "Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change."

Some excerpts:

In the end, though, experts do not believe the needed transformation in the energy system can happen without strong state and national policies. So speaking up and exercising your rights as a citizen matters as much as anything else you can do.

...But even if those computer forecasts did not exist, a huge amount of evidence suggests that scientists have the basic story right. The most important evidence comes from the study of past climate conditions, a field known as paleoclimate research. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has fluctuated naturally in the past, and every time it rises, the Earth warms up, ice melts, and the ocean rises. 

...Most of the attacks on climate science are coming from libertarians and other political conservatives who do not like the policies that have been proposed to fight global warming. Instead of negotiating over those policies and trying to make them more subject to free-market principles, they have taken the approach of blocking them by trying to undermine the science.

(3) Climate change deniers likely are running the City of Salem. 
Efforts to combat harmful climate change have to occur at every level: global, national, state, local. Close to home, there's a lot that needs to be done right here in Salem. Unfortunately, Mayor Peterson and her right-wing City Council majority appear to be climate change deniers. 

I wrote about this last January in a Salem Weekly Strange Up Salem column, "Salem fiddles while the planet burns."

This sort of giving-the-finger to people who care about preserving what’s left of the natural world may play well in Texas, but its become a major irritant to environmentally-minded Salemians.

Officials at City Hall currently are led by a Mayor, City Manager, and city councilors whose general attitude toward caring for our one and only Earth is decidedly at odds with the values of most local citizens and Oregonians as a whole.

Last year I wrote to them, asking if they believed global warming was happening, humans are mostly responsible, and we need to do something about it.

Only two out of the ten top City of Salem officials said “yes.”

The rest cowered in a science-denying hidey-hole, unwilling to admit that their support for environmentally destructive actions was at odds with the obvious necessity to do everything possible to avert catastrophic changes to the ability of our planet to support human civilization.

So while both the Earth and the western United States experienced record warmth in 2014; while ski resorts in Oregon face steadily declining snowpacks as hotter air causes more precipitation to fall as rain; while drought becomes an ever-increasing threat to farmland and forests…

Salem’s clueless politicians and corporate executives go on their merry Screw the Planet way.

We need to hold their feet to the fire, so Earth doesn't burn up. Every city leader -- in both the public and private sector -- needs to be asked the questions I asked of our Mayor and City Council last January. And the questions need to keep being asked until clear answers are given.

(1) Do you believe that global warming is occurring, and is causing the Earth's climate to change in various ways?

(2) Do you believe that humans are mostly responsible for the global warming/climate change that is occurring?

(3) Do you believe that humans need to engage in actions to deal with both the causes of global warming and its detrimental effects on humanity?

Like I said, this isn't a matter of "my side" and "your side." This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing, or a Democrat vs. Republican thing. 

This is about preserving the habitability of Planet Earth for humans and other living beings, including our children, grandchildren, and future generations. 

If our City leaders don't know the climate change facts, they need to be educated.

If they know the facts and choose to deny them, they need to be voted out of office (if an elected official) or otherwise pressured to change their ways.

Why do poorer areas, in Salem and elsewhere, vote against their own interests?

Laurel and I picked a great weekend to visit my daughter, Celeste, and her family for the first time in Laguna Niguel, California, where they moved the rea few months ago.

The late November weather was in the 80's. The sky was clear and sunny.

Here we are in a triple-selfie -- Laurel, Celeste, me -- enjoying the nearby Dana Point beach, where bikini-clad southern Californians defied the calendar (I guess there were men on the beach also, but I didn't notice them).

Soon after we landed at the Orange County Airport and reached the Laguna Niguel area I started to repeat what would be an oft-stated mantra to my daughter and her family: Everything looks so perfect here. 

The streets are broad, smoothly paved, litter-free. There aren't any tacky billboards or other large signs. The architecture of both homes and businesses flows together beautifully. Almost everybody is well-dressed, attractive, and fit. There's even a more lightly-traveled toll-freeway for those with disposable cash who want to avoid the rush hour crush on I-405.

Also, the residents are mostly white. And well-to-do.

Driving around, I didn't see one homeless person. Nor did we encounter anyone asking for money. This part of southern California struck me as almost eerily perfect, given a certain definition of that word, "perfect." 

But getting into that subject would lead me astray from the point of this post. Which is that it is completely understandable why Orange County in general, and the area where my daughter's family lives in particular, would lean strongly Republican. 

Life is good there.

The average cost of a nice, but not extravagant, house seems to be around a million dollars. Lots of good-looking people are out and about shopping, dining, recreating. The bird of the American dream has come to roost in Laguna Niguel and the even-more-chic artsy oceanside town of Laguna Beach.

So why not vote for the politicians who promise to keep taxes low and government small? Most people here have plenty of money. They aren't dependent on social programs -- aside from the retired folks who push away the reality of how Medicare works.

But why would people in much less affluent areas vote Republican against their own interests?

This is a perplexing question. I've thought that the reason lay in social issues such abortion and same-sex marriage, where firmly-held religious/moral beliefs trump a voter's economic and other interests.

However, a New York Times story, "Who Turned My Blue State Red?: Why Poor Areas Vote for Politicians Who Want to Slash the Safety Net," casts a different light on this issue. It looks like the working poor are more irked at the non-working or barely-working poor than they are at the GOP's wildly excessive tilt toward the interests of the 1%.

It is one of the central political puzzles of our time: Parts of the country that depend on the safety-net programs supported by Democrats are increasingly voting for Republicans who favor shredding that net.

...In eastern Kentucky and other former Democratic bastions that have swung Republican in the past several decades, the people who most rely on the safety-net programs secured by Democrats are, by and large, not voting against their own interests by electing Republicans. Rather, they are not voting, period. They have, as voting data, surveys and my own reporting suggest, become profoundly disconnected from the political process.

...The people in these communities who are voting Republican in larger proportions are those who are a notch or two up the economic ladder — the sheriff’s deputy, the teacher, the highway worker, the motel clerk, the gas station owner and the coal miner. And their growing allegiance to the Republicans is, in part, a reaction against what they perceive, among those below them on the economic ladder, as a growing dependency on the safety net, the most visible manifestation of downward mobility in their declining towns.

...I’ve heard variations on this theme all over the country: people railing against the guy across the street who is collecting disability payments but is well enough to go fishing, the families using their food assistance to indulge in steaks. 

Though Salem, Oregon, where I live, isn't really a poor area, or a "red city," some of the same dynamics are playing out here. 

People in the wealthier parts of town -- south and west Salem -- both lean conservative and vote at a considerably higher rate than the lower income, more liberal people in other areas.

This is a big reason why a recent vote on a ballot measure to impose a very small (.21%, one fifth of a percent) payroll tax on Salem businesses failed.

Salam is the only city of its size in the Northwest that doesn't 'have evening or weekend bus service. The payroll tax would have restored these services, making it much easier for people without a car to get about (including getting to their jobs) outside of 9-5 Monday-Friday.

This wasn't a radical proposal. Cities to our north and south, Portland and Eugene, impose a much higher payroll tax on businesses to fund decent mass transit.

But the measure failed for a couple of reasons: the Salem Chamber of Commerce funded a sleazy anti-payroll tax campaign filled with falsities and half-truth; and voter turnout was very low. Apparently the lower income people without cars who would benefit most from improved bus service didn't bother to turn in their ballots in this off-year election. 

Those opposed to the payroll tax implied (both explicitly and implicitly) that users of the Cherriots bus system were undeserving: out of work, not paying their way, lazy, undeserving feeders at the public trough. The reality, of course, is much different. 

People ride the bus for a wide variety of reasons: personal, financial, environmental, health.

Mass transit benefits the entire community, yet Salem's right-wingers argued that only those who use mass transit should pay for it -- an obviously absurd notion that would mean only families with children should pay for public education.

So the New York Times story appears to point to widespread political truths. 

That pattern is right in line with surveys, which show a decades-long decline in support for redistributive policies and an increase in conservatism in the electorate even as inequality worsens. There has been a particularly sharp drop in support for redistribution among older Americans, who perhaps see it as a threat to their own Social Security and Medicare.

Meanwhile, researchers such as Kathryn Edin, of Johns Hopkins University, found a tendency by many Americans in the second lowest quintile of the income ladder — the working or lower-middle class — to dissociate themselves from those at the bottom, where many once resided.

“There’s this virulent social distancing — suddenly, you’re a worker and anyone who is not a worker is a bad person,” said Professor Edin. “They’re playing to the middle fifth and saying, ‘I’m not those people.’ ”

I scream at the TV during the Republican presidential debate

Well, I've got to give credit to the GOP and the Fox Business Network for this: last night they got this proud progressive involved in Republican presidential politics.

OK, briefly involved -- for as long as the debate went on.

And my involvement consisted of me loudly yelling at our television when I heard one of the candidates say something especially stupid or wrong. Which was frequent.

PolitiFact has put together a partial truthfulness scorecard of what was said by Trump, Carson, Rubio, et. al.

They didn't fare well on the truth scale. Nobody got better than a "Half True." Florina got a richly deserved "Pants on Fire" for saying Obamacare isn't helping anyone.

So I felt perfectly justified yelling out corrections to the B.S. being spread over the airwaves last night. If I hadn't done that, my head would have exploded from a build-up of right-wing political crap entering my fact-loving liberal brain.

For example...

That's absurd, you freaking idiots! when every candidate (I'm pretty sure) rejected the idea of raising the minimum wage, with Trump even claiming that wages are too high now, causing jobs to be lost to other countries. I guess we're supposed to pay our workers whatever they'd get in China. Which is less than $5,000 a year.

Impossible, you fools! erupted from me when almost all the candidates blabbed on about their plan to have a low (10-15%) flat tax on billionaires and fast food restaurant workers alike. Somehow lowering tax revenues by trillions of dollars was supposed to lead to a balanced budget through the fantasy of "dynamic scoring," where reducing taxes mythically leads to more government revenue. 

No way, you imbeciles! roared out of my lips when several GOP presidential hopefuls vowed to kick millions of undocumented workers out of this country, claiming they are lowering wages and harming our economy. Actually they help the economy, especially in the agricultural sector, which couldn't function without these workers.

Lies, lies, lies! was my loud response to the repeated claims that Obamacare needs to be repealed and replaced with... something or other. Yeah, right, like things were so great before Obamacare, when insurance companies could deny applicants with preexisting conditions and the "high risk pools" Fiorina praised were doing next to nothing to provide quality comprehensive health care to people without insurance. Going back to those not-good-days would be a disaster for this country.

Florina richly deserved her Pants on Fire for saying that Obamacare isn't helping anybody. 

But so did all of the Republican candidates at some point last night. It's ridiculous that this is the best the GOP can come up with. None of these guys or gals struck me as competent to be president. 

This is the first time I've felt that way.

For example, I had a lot of criticisms about Mitt Romney and John McCain. However, I could envision them doing a half-decent job as president. Meaning, I could see them implementing conservative ideas that I disagreed with in a way that might harm our country, yet wasn't completely bat-shit crazy. 

Jeb Bush and John Kasich were the only candidates on the stage last night who seemed at all reasonable. And right now they are trailing in the polls behind the Bat-Shit Crazy Contingent. 

Looks like I'll be doing more yelling at the TV during the upcoming Republican presidential debates.

My advice to Cherriots bus system: be true to Salem's values

Tomorrow is the one week anniversary of last Tuesday's disappointing defeat of the small (.21%) payroll tax that would have paid for much-needed improvements to Salem's behind-the-times Cherriots bus system -- which lacks late evening and weekend service.

Cherriots faces some tough choices now. As do others in this town who care, or claim to care, about creating viable, appealing, modern mass transit options in Salem. 

Two recent letters to the editor in the Statesman Journal did a good job of summing up the situation.

Defeat of transit tax ruined Salem's chance to shine

What a sad day for Salem.

Salem-Keizer Transit General Manager Allan Pollock’s comment, “This sucks,” in response to the failure of Measure 24-388, is an understatement. The fact that the Salem Hospital spent $50,000 in fighting the measure — the same amount that Cherriots gave it to improve transportation — is unconscionable.

To the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce, businesses that fought against the measure and those who voted against the tax, shame on you. You had an opportunity to improve the lives of those with limited transportation options economically, educationally and socially and with an overall positive impact on the city.

This was a chance for Salem to shine and you blew it.

Thomas Hedge 
Salem
---------------------
When will those opposed to transit tax step up with solution?

Now that 21 percent of the eligible voters in the Salem-Keizer area have voted against expanding our city’s bus services, we are left wondering what this vote reflects:

• The desire to ensure that Oregon’s capital continues to have no late-night, weekend or holiday bus service?

• A rejection of the concept that students, the disabled and the working poor should have someone else assist them to afford public transportation?

• Or maybe just support for our business community (which spent heavily to defeat the measure), believing they alone should not shoulder the cost?

Whatever the reasons, we now await what positive actions the measure’s opponents will take to help meet our community’s unmet transportation needs.

Who — Salem Hospital, large business leaders, small business owners — will make the first call to Cherriots’ volunteer board and supporters who have struggled year-after-year to define and tap our community’s sense of community, offering to work with instead of against, to find community solutions to our community need?

We wait by the phone, looking forward to your call.

William Dalton
Salem

Both letters speak the truth. The Chamber of Commerce and other opponents of the mass transit payroll tax did indeed blow it.

Members of the Cherriots Board of Directors met four times with leaders of the Salem Chamber of Commerce prior to deciding to put a payroll tax on the ballot. The Chamber rejected this attempt to collaborate on finding a way to pay for evening and weekend bus service.

So the question asked by letter writer Dalton -- who will now work to find community solutions to our community need? -- almost certainly isn't the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber had its chance to work together with Cherriots and said "no way."

Thus here's my three-part advice to the Cherriots Board:

(1) Don't expect the Chamber of Commerce to change its anti-tax philosophy. It isn't much of an exaggeration to say that the Chamber, along with Salem's right-wing Mayor and City Council majority, want this town to be the Mississippi of the Willamette Valley.

Meaning, a conservative outlier among cities that lean liberal: Portland, Corvallis, Eugene. This takes deception, since Salem also is a liberal town. In general elections such is evident. In off-year and primary elections marked by low voter turnout, such as last Tuesday's election, it isn't.

Just because most of our local Chamber of Commerce leaders and elected City officials seem like moderates, doesn't mean they are.

Actually they are just as Tea Party'ish as other right-wing ideologues in Congress and elsewhere. They don't like taxes and government, except when government funnels tax dollars to business special interests. Further, our local right-wingers tend to be anti-environment global warming deniers.

So it's wishful thinking to believe that suddenly Chamber of Commerce leaders are going to turn into avid mass transit supporters who will back a new funding source for Cherriots.

(Their claim that Oregon Lottery funds can be tapped for Cherriots operating expenses is ludicrous; I give this a 5% chance of succeeding, at best.)

(2) Cherriots needs to stay true to mass transit values, which are shared by most people in Salem. As the letter writer said, a small minority of Salem voters decided this off-year election. If the payroll tax had been voted on in November 2016, when the turnout will be much higher, the outcome might well have been a "yes" majority.

Right-wingers try to maintain control in Salem by pumping a lot of money into low-turnout elections. The mayoral and city council races usually are decided in a May primary. This produces a divisive situation: a liberal town being led by conservatives who got into office via special interest money, which makes them beholden to those same special interests.

Cherriots, as a mass transit agency, should stay true to its values.

Environmentalism. Social equity. Compassion for the elderly, infirm, and those carless by necessity or choice. Just because a fifth of Salem registered voters turned down a mass transit payroll tax doesn't mean Cherriots should jump into the political arms of the Salem Chamber of Commerce.

Most people in Salem, and most voters in Salem, don't share the Chamber's values.

They want taxes to be used to provide necessary services to our community. They want carbon emissions lowered through the wise use of mass transit and other means. They want the rich and powerful in this town to pay their fair share for community improvements.

(3) Cherriots should play hardball with the Chamber of Commerce, just as the Chamber does. I'm a proud progressive/liberal who was raised by a fervent Republican mother. Having grown up reading National Review and thrilling to the words of William F. Buckley, I understand the appeal of genuine conservatism. 

But that isn't what is being peddled by the Salem Chamber of Commerce. Over the years conservatism in this country has hardened into a rigid doctrinaire anti-tax anti-government fundamentalism that isn't interested in compromise or collaboration.

So, Cherriots board members, there is little chance that the Chamber is going to play nice with you now that the payroll tax has been defeated.

What Chamber officials will try to do is bring you into their fold, hoping to buy you off with lofty impractical promises that their lobbying team will be able to find a mythical non-tax Pot of Gold that will pay for evening and weekend bus service.

If Cherriots goes along with this game, you'll lose the trust and respect of the people you need the most: Salem's liberal-leaning voters.

I urge you to play hardball with the Chamber, just as they did with you in the recent election. However, the Chamber spread falsities and half-truths about the payroll tax. The Cherriots board should be more ethical, while just as tough.

Tell the Chamber of Commerce that you're reconsidering your support for the Third Bridge. My understanding is that if Cherriots rescinds this support, the Third Bridge can't move forward. Which it shouldn't, being an unneeded billion dollar disaster in the making. 

Most Salem voters would respect you for this. You will have taken a stand for fiscal responsibility and protecting our planet. The Third Bridge would be a major contributor to increased carbon emissions, sprawl, and environmental degradation. 

Salem's mass transit agency shouldn't be supporting these negative effects. Go all in on mass transit values and good things will happen. Of course, maybe you still won't be able to find funding for evening and weekend bus service. 

But it would be better to take a firm stand for what's right for Salem, instead of compromising Cherriots values in a fruitless attempt to make friends with the Chamber of Commerce which, believe me, isn't your friend. Nor the friend of most people in Salem. 

 

Daylight savings time should be permanent -- no more "fall back" time change

Ah, this is the horrible day Daylight Savings Time ends.

Time for another speaking of truth to the few people in this country who think it's a good idea to have the sun set an hour earlier in the already depressingly-early-sunset seasons of fall and winter.

Last spring I shared the reasons for making Daylight Savings Time full-time in "Let's make daylight savings time permanent." Excerpt:

In my extensive personal research regarding this issue, which includes (well, totally encompasses) brief conversations with friends and asking a plumber who is working in our house right now how he feels about daylight saving time, everybody loves it. 

They prefer having more light in the late afternoon and evening than early in the morning. After all, after work/school is when people have an opportunity to go for a walk, bike, run, or otherwise get outside and do stuff.

When daylight saving time ends and we put our clocks back an hour in the fall, I've never heard someone say "Oh, joy, now it is going to get dark at 5 rather than 6. I can walk the dog with a flashlight!"

Today the wise folks at Vox updated their highly persuasive article on this subject, which I cited in my post. Check out "It's time to make daylight savings time year-round." 

There's really no good reasons not to do this. The farmers need it argument is weak, as the Vox piece points out. 

One particular group has been opposed to DST from the start: farmers.

Unlike most other workers, farmers can't easily do some of their work when it's dark out. This is the original reason DST is only in effect part of the year — because, due to the late-rising winter sun, year-round DST would mean it'd still be dark out when the clock says farmers should get up to work.

But there are also far fewer farmers than there used to be. In 1918, when daylight saving time went into effect in the US for the first time, farmers made up nearly 30 percent of the US population. Today, that number has dwindled to about 2 percent. So the compromise system we now have means that for 98 percent of the population, DST isn't in effect during the part of the year when we'd benefit from it most.

And those benefits are substantial. More opportunity to get outside after work/school to exercise, recreate, shop, relax. Less crime. Fewer traffic-related deaths. The Vox article makes all this clear. 

Hopefully legislators will realize that daylight savings time shouldn't end in fall; it should be year-round. I quoted from the original Vox piece in my previous post...

Lots of social problems are really hard to solve. There are often big, powerful players with a stake in keeping the status quo, or the actual solution is messy and hard to implement.

This isn't the case with yearlong DST. An act of Congress — just like the act that extended DST in 2005 — could instantly fix this problem, saving us the annoyance of switching our clocks and giving us more sunlight to enjoy during our leisure hours. Over time, even farmers' opposition to DST has softened, and most people simply want to stop switching their clocks twice a year.

...Let's make this weekend the last time we set our clocks forward — and let's leave them there forever.

Salem faces an existential moment: vote on mass transit payroll tax

Recently I was talking with someone about the November 3 ballot measure vote on a small (1/5 of a percent) payroll tax to support much-needed improvements to Salem's underfunded Cherriots bus system. Including evening and weekend service.

I said, "This is an existential election." Followed by, "Well, maybe existential isn't the right word." And then, "No, I can't think of a better word -- existential it is."

Though back in college I used to be an admirer of Sartre -- I loved "Being and Nothingness" -- I don't really mean that Salem voters should be wearing a beret, drinking expresso from little cups, smoking unfiltered cigarettes, and saying "Life... there is nothing to it except the meaning we ascribe to meaninglessness."

Rather, I see the vote on the payroll tax as being another in a series of watershed moments for Salem. Which reflect dynamics goings on in the entire country.

Opponents of the payroll tax have most of the money and power in this town. The Salem Area Chamber of Commerce has gobs of money to spend through its Create Jobs PAC, largely donated by giant corporations like Salem Health.

The anti-payroll tax campaign has been marked by the lies, half-truths, and sleaze that are the hallmark of Chuck Adams, the New Media NW consultant that the Create Jobs PAC has hired repeatedly. 

So once again, the Chamber of Commerce is resorting to dirty tricks, even though they already have the advantage of way more money and power than the good-hearted, but comparatively destitute, supporters of the small payroll tax possess.

It's deja vu all over again.

Back in 2010, Marion County voters were asked to decide on Measure 24-292, an initiative to reform and improve county government. I blogged a lot about this, and wrote a piece for Blue Oregon called "GOP flack Chuck Adams sleazes up Marion County charter change campaign."

The Salem Chamber of Commerce is leading the opposition to the Measure. This is to be expected, given the extreme pro-development and anti-environment leanings of two current commissioners, Sam Brentano and Patti Milne. The Measure is threatening to those in the Marion County power structure, because it would make the commissioners more accountable to ordinary citizens rather than special interests.

Even so, I've been wondering why the "No on 24-292" campaign has been so especially sleazy. Opponents have been way over the top with their untruths and fabrications. Today I learned the likely reason: Chuck Adams is the consultant supporting the Salem Chamber of Commerce's political action committee. 

Adams is a long-time strategist for right-wing causes who fell on hard times back in 2007 when he was booted by the Republican leadership. He's been involved in some nasty "Swiftboating" campaigns, and has been called a "hit man," "pit bull," and "flack." I can believe it, given the nasty deceptions in a letter opposing the Measure from Walt Beglau, the Marion County District Attorney, that arrived in voters' mailboxes last Saturday, May 1.

The same game plan is being used by the Salem Chamber of Commerce this time around. Hire hit man Chuck Adams again. Spend lots of money on deceptive mailings. Hope that voters can be fooled. 

In one of my 2010 posts, I said something that, with a few changed words, applies equally well to the current ballot measure battle:

Whether it passes or fails, a Marion County citizen initiative which got on the May ballot after almost 6,000 citizens signed petitions to improve county government, has served one important purpose:

We've learned how far the existing power structure in Marion County is willing to stretch ethical bounds in order to keep the political system running along in its dysfunctional special-interest-favoring way.

Same old, same old... this time around. 

So VOTE YES, damn it, if you live in Salem and haven't already. It just takes a first class stamp, though with Tuesday rapidly approaching, it'd be safest to drop off your ballot at a collection box. 

The only way the broad community interest is going to be elevated over narrow special interests in this town is when voters get fed up with Salem's version of the 1% trying to control everything.

Voting is the equalizer -- the way ordinary citizens can say "no way" to lies, sleaze, and shady campaigning.

If the Good Guys win on this ballot measure, it will increase the chance that the general public will win out over self-serving special interests on other issues facing Salem. 

More evidence that Salem Health violated IRS rules on political donations

Last Thursday I filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) against Salem Health, the parent company of Salem Hospital. You can read all about it in "Salem Health hit with IRS complaint for $50,000 anti-payroll tax PAC donation." 

Also, in a piece recently published by The Lund Report: "Salem Health Hit with IRS Complaint Over Political Gift Giving."

I've heard from a few people who question whether Salem Health really did anything wrong when this tax-exempt organization gave $50,000 to the Create Jobs PAC set up by the Salem Chamber of Commerce. 

My answer is, only the IRS can decide this. But there is enough evidence pointing to a violation of IRS regulations to warrant an inquiry. 

The situation is pretty simple. I laid out the basic facts in my first blog post. 

The Create Jobs PAC is opposing Measure 24-388, which would institute a small payroll tax to pay for much needed improvements to Salem's Cherriots bus system. However, the Create Jobs PAC is not a "measure committee," which only takes positions on ballot measures.

It is a "miscellaneous committee."

Meaning, a Political Action Committee that can both support or oppose candidates running for public office, and support or oppose ballot measures. So donations to the Create Jobs PAC goes into a pool of money that can be used for several purposes -- including supporting individual political campaigns. 

This seems to be an IRS no-no, as described in "Frequently Asked Questions About the Ban on Political Campaign Intervention by 501(c)(3) Organizations." However, a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization such as Salem Health can donate to a ballot measure committee -- which the Create Jobs PAC isn't. 

11. May a section 501(c)(3) organization make a contribution to a political organization described in section 527 (such as a candidate committee, political party committee or political action committee (PAC))?

No, a section 501(c)(3) organization may not make a contribution to a political organization described in section 527 (such as a candidate committee, political party committee or political action committee (PAC)). Nor may such an organization establish and maintain a separate segregated fund under section 527.

12. May a section 501(c)(3) organization make a contribution to a ballot measure committee (committees supporting or opposing ballot initiatives or referenda)?

Yes, a section 501(c)(3) organization may make a contribution to a ballot measure committee (committees supporting or opposing ballot initiatives or referenda), but it must include such contributions in its lobbying calculations for purposes of determining whether a substantial part of its activities consist of attempting to influence legislation.

Now, the Secretary of State web site has detailed information on PACs registered in Oregon. When I clicked on the "History" link on the Create Jobs PAC page, I learned that this PAC has morphed over the years. 

In 2006 it was called "Help the Chamber of Commerce Keep Salem Liveable." Originally it was a Measure PAC committee that supported three annexation measures being voted on. In 2009 it became a Miscellaneous PAC commitee that can support/oppose specific candidates or ballot measures. 

Soon thereafter the name was changed to Create Jobs PAC. The current "Nature of Committee" statement is support measures and candidates who favor private sector job creation.

So Salem Health donated $50,000 to a PAC that supports individual political candidates.

Again, this seems to be prohibited, given the language in the #11 FAQ above. A tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization may only make a contribution to a ballot measure committee -- which the Create Jobs PAC stopped being in 2009.

It is up to the IRS to decide how to handle my complaint. If it turns out that Salem Health did indeed violate IRS regulations, another FAQ shows that the penalty can be severe.

13. What happens if an organization engages in prohibited political campaign activity?

Violating this ban may result in denial or revocation of the organization’s tax-exempt status and the imposition of an excise tax on the amount of money spent on the activity. 

Update: I just shared these thoughts with someone who emailed me about this issue. The analogy I came up with sure seems to apply here.

The more I check into the IRS rules, the more valid this complaint appears to me. An analogy helps out in understanding the situation.

 

A street person holds a sign asking for food money. You give him $5, saying “Be sure you don’t use this for beer; I’m giving it to you for food.” But once he stuffs the money in his pocket, it gets mingled with all the other cash he has. There’s no way to know what your $5 bill went for, since one bill looks like any other.

 

In the case of the $50,000 donation from Salem Health, the co-mingling of money is even less traceable. A mark can be put on paper money. No mark follows money once it is deposited in the Create Jobs PAC checking account.

 

If you look at the transaction history of that PAC on the Secretary of State’s web site, there’s just a string of payments (along with donations) going to various businesses, campaigns, and such. As someone from the Elections Division told the friend who researched this issue before I filed the complaint, there’s no way to trace how money donated to a “miscellaneous” PAC is used.

 

It could be used to support a ballot measure campaign; it could be used to support an individual running for public office. The former use is OK for tax-exempt organizations to support; the latter isn’t.

 

This is why the IRS FAQs cited in my second blog post say an organization like Salem Health can contribute to a Measure PAC, but not to a Miscellaneous PAC that can support/oppose political candidates along with supporting/opposing individual political campaigns.

 

A Miscellaneous PAC like the Create Jobs PAC just has a single co-mingled checking account that can be used for a purpose at odds with IRS regulations guiding donations from 501(c)(3) organizations.

Salem Health hit with IRS complaint for $50,000 anti-payroll tax PAC donation

Hey, filing a complaint against Salem Health with the Internal Revenue Service isn't my favorite thing to do. But I was pleased to spend several hours this afternoon working on Form 13909, Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form.

I did this after some other citizen activists laid the groundwork for the complaint.

They discovered that Salem Health, the parent company of Salem Hospital, seemed to violate IRS rules when $50,000 to defeat the mass transit payroll tax ballot measure was donated to the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce's Create Jobs PAC (political action committee).

The Create Jobs PAC was organized as a "miscellaneous committee" to support or oppose individual candidates running for public office, along with supporting or opposing ballot measures. It isn't a "measure committee" PAC, which can't get involved with political campaigns. 

Salem Health is a tax-exempt organization.

So it is prohibited from contributing to people running for public office. But the $50,000 Salem Health contributed to the Create Jobs PAC has been commingled with money that WILL go to Chamber of Commerce-backed political campaigns.

Hence, the IRS complaint was filed on behalf of the citizens of Salem, with the support of Salem Community Vision. I'm a member of the Salem Community Vision steering committee. We talked about this issue at our bi-monthly meeting yesterday and decided the IRS complaint should be submitted. 

Salem already has too much special interest money being used in attempts to buy elections.

In this case, Salem Health may have spent big bucks on trying to influence the mass transit payroll tax in a way that wasn't legal. So after we Salem Community Vision folks agreed it was important to file an IRS complaint, I said I'd do it.

Below is what I sent off to the IRS this afternoon.

Yeah, it's kind of geeky. But not all that difficult to understand. The $50,000 from Salem Health (Salem Hospital's parent organization) went into a pot of PAC money that can be used to support or oppose individual candidates running for public office.

This appears to be a no-no for tax-exempt organizations under IRS rules.

That's why Salem Community Vision felt a complaint was in order. I and the other SCV folks are committed to transparency and doing things in this town that boost the general public interest, rather than special interests. 

Read on if you're interested in perusing what probably is the first, and maybe only, Form 13909 complaint you'll come across in your life.

---------------------

EMAILED TO IRS:

Here is a completed Form 13909 containing a Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint against Salem Health.

Download Form 13909 Complaint

 

Salem Health contributed $50,000 to the Create Jobs PAC, a Miscellaneous PAC (Political Action Committee) set up by the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce. Here is the Statement of Organization for the Create Jobs PAC from the Oregon Secretary of State’s office. This confirms that the Create Jobs PAC is a Miscellaneous PAC that can make contributions to individual political candidates.

 

 

This Transaction Detail page from the Oregon Secretary of State’s ORESTAR reporting system shows a transaction date of 08/05/2015 for a $50,000 cash contribution from Salem Health to the Create Jobs PAC. Because it isn't super obvious, I’ll point out that the “Create Jobs PAC” name is on the right side above the “Help” symbol.

Download Salem Hospital PAC contribution

To provide some background on Salem Health’s wrongful $50,000 donation to the Create Jobs PAC, here are two stories about this issue. 

 

Download Salem Health Opens Wallet to Lead Fight Against Payroll Tax for Public Transit | The Lund Report

 

Download Salem Hospital contributes $50,000 to fight expanded bus service - News in Salem Oregon - Willamette

 

Salem Hospital and its parent organization, Salem Health, is opposed to a mass transit payroll tax ballot measure that is being voted on this November. A friend sent me this information about the legality of the $50,000 contribution to the Create Jobs PAC.

"Alma" of SOS [Secretary of State] Elections Division confirmed on October 8, 2015 that if Salem Health had donated the $50,000 to a “Measure Committee” that the funds could only be used for that measure. However, the donation was to the Create Jobs PAC which is a “Miscellaneous Committee” and can make contributions to individual candidates. The reporting of expenditures through the SOS office has no way of accounting for the commingling of funds between measure related expenditures and candidate expenditures.

Thus there is no way to track how much of the $50,000 will be used by the Create Jobs PAC to oppose the ballot measure, and how much of the $50,000 will be used to fund political candidate activities not allowed by the IRS for tax-exempt organizations such as Salem Health.

 

Here is a page from the Create Jobs PAC web site that says "Contributions of up to $50 per person ($100 per married couple filing jointly) are a direct credit as political contributions on Oregon State Income Tax filings.” This supports my contention that Salem Health has made a $50,000 political contribution — which isn’t allowed under IRS rules. 

 

Download Invest in the PAC

 

I am submitting this complaint because Salem Health’s $50,000 contribution to the Create Jobs PAC, a “Miscellaneous” PAC that is able to financially support both political candidates and ballot measures, is at odds with the IRS prohibition on tax-exempt organizations being involved with campaigns for elective public office. This is an excerpt from the attached document.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. 

Download The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

 

This prohibition is echoed by the Oregon Secretary of State on p. 66 of the Campaign Finance Manual. I’ve boldfaced the distinctions between a “miscellaneous committee” PAC and a “measure committee” PAC. As already noted, Salem Health donated $50,000 to the Create Jobs PAC, a miscellaneous committee. This means that some or all of the $50,000 can be used by the Create Jobs PAC to support or oppose specific candidates for public office, which tax-exempt organizations such as Salem Health are prohibited from doing. 

Type of Political Action Committee

Identify the type of committee.

A “miscellaneous committee” is a committee that supports or opposes one or more of the following:

 specific candidate(s);

 entire ticket of a political party;

or

 candidate(s) and measure(s).

A “measure committee” is a committee that exclusively supports or opposes one or more measures that are certified to the ballot. A measure committee must not contribute money to candidates, miscellaneous committees, political parties, caucus committees, recall committees, or fund independent expenditures in support of or in opposition to candidates. If a measure committee wishes to make such expenditures, it must amend its Statement of Organization to become a miscellaneous committee.

A “political party committee” is a major or minor political party qualified under ORS Chapter 248 or a committee established by a major or minor party under party bylaws (e.g., county central committees). 

l look forward to learning the results of your review of this apparent failure of Salem Health to comply with IRS regulations governing tax-exempt organizations. 

 

Please note that I left unchecked the box which says “I am concerned that I might face retaliation or retribution if if my identity is disclosed.” I’m fine with being contacted about this complaint and having my name disclosed as the complainant. 

 

Brian Hines

Statesman Journal vs. Willamette Week -- investigative reporting pissing contest

On Sunday, October 11, the Salem Statesman Journal finally engaged in some serious investigative reporting. Problem is, the theme of the stories that took up five full pages in the front page section was...

Criticism of Willamette Week's investigative reporting on the Kitzhaber email scandal. 

I found this bizarre, given that the Statesman Journal -- the newspaper in Oregon's capital city -- had done essentially zero original investigative reporting of its own during all the uproar in late 2014 and early 2015 that led to Governor Kitzhaber's resignation.

Plus, under executive editor Michael Davis, the Statesman Journal has been asleep at the journalistic wheel when it comes to substantive reporting on either local or state issues. 

I used to think that calling the Statesman a "USA Today clone" was an insult. But Salem's paper has gone so far downhill, now the sections that come directly from USA Today are the best part of the Statesman Journal. 

(Some previous rants posts of mine about the Statesman are here, here, here, and here.)

The October 11 barrage of stories in the Statesman Journal included:

"Former Gov. John Kitzhaber breaks his silence"
"The destructive power of one word clobbered Kitzhaber"
"Willamette Week stands by Rodgers"

The supposed Big New News from the Statesman Journal was that Kitzhaber had been unfairly maligned and driven out of office by inaccurate reporting from Portland's Willamette Week and Oregonian papers.

It wasn't true, said reporter Carol McAlice Currie and executive editor Michael Davis, that Kitzhaber had wanted to destroy/delete emails stored on State of Oregon computer servers. 

For one thing, that wasn't possible to accomplish, since there were several backups of those emails. For another, Kitzhaber just wanted to "review" the emails, not "destroy" them. This was the theme of Davis' destructive power of one word editorial.

He started his piece off with:

Oregonians, including many in the news media and in politics, wrongly portrayed Gov. John Kitzhaber as seeking to destroy emails.

Well, those were fighting words to Willamette Week. A story soon appeared: "WW Editor Mark Zusman Responds on OPB to Statesman Journal's 'Puzzling' Kitzhaber Coverage."

In its Sunday, Oct. 11 edition, the Salem Statesman Journal made a case for former Gov. John Kitzhaber.

...The Statesman's Oct. 11 stories claim that Kitzhaber was drummed out of office by misleading reporting. The stories take particular aim at the claims of Oregon Department of Administrative Services manager Michael Rodgers, who refused a request to remove Kitzhaber's emails from state servers and instead leaked them to WW.

The Statesman argued those emails were never in danger of deletion, and Rodgers had no reason to believe that Kitzhaber was trying to delete them.

The Statesman's Oct. 11 package relied heavily on Janet Hoffman, the criminal defense lawyer currently representing Kitzhaber in a federal investigation. Kitzhaber also provided the paper with a statement.

In an editorial that set the tone for the Statesman's package, editor Michael Davis claimed that contrary to WW's reporting, Kitzhaber never sought to "destroy" 6,000 emails that his assistant, Jan Murdock, asked be removed from state servers but instead merely wanted to "review" those emails.

Davis' assertion is contrary to emails that WW and other publications have printed that show Department of Administrative Services staff were very uncomfortable with Murdock's request.

Oregon State Police investigators later reinterviewed those DAS staffers, and they reiterated their discomfort with one of them characterized as a "bizarre" and "unethical" request from Kitzhaber's longtime personal assistant.

Today, WW editor and publisher Mark Zusman responded to the Statesman Journal in an interview on Oregon Public Broadcasting, calling the Oct. 11 stories "puzzling." The interview airs today at noon, and again at 8 pm.

The Statesman Journal, Zusman told OPB, is "arguably a pawn in this game." 

Sure seems like it. 

As the Willamette Week story says, the Statesman Journal's attempt at investigative journalism relied heavily on statements from Kitzhaber and his criminal defense attorney, Janet Hoffman. Not surprisingly, Kitzhaber and Hoffman thought that Kitzhaber hadn't done anything wrong.

Oregon Public Broadcasting interviewed Willamette Week editor Mark Zusman on its Think Out Loud program. You can listen to the interview via an associated OPB story: "Conflicting Coverage of Kitzhaber Ethics Scandal." 

One person you won't be able to hear in the interview is Statesman Journal executive editor Michael Davis, the other side of the "conflicting coverage." OPB said:

A recent story in the Statesman Journal calls the email whistleblower’s claims into question and shows Kitzhaber’s lawyer has asked Willamette Week for a retraction, which the alternative Portland paper has declined to issue.

The Statesman Journal declined to join us on the air, and sent this statement:

At this time, the Statesman Journal’s leadership team wants our stories from Sunday’s edition to be read and considered. We may reconsider an opportunity to appear on “Think Out Loud,” at a later date.

Huh? Read and considered? Wouldn't part of being "considered" include the Statesman's lead journalist, Michael Davis, defending the five pages of stories the paper published? 

I listened to the 11 minute Zusman interview. He wasn't kind to the Statesman Journal.

At about the 6:30 mark Zusman says that he reached out to Michael Davis and Davis didn't want to engage in a conversation. He calls the Statesman Journal "a pawn in this game" at about the 10:20 mark.

I can't think of a reason why the Statesman Journal wouldn't want to engage with the editor of Willamette Week, if the Statesman staff were truly confident in their reporting.

Instead, they declined to appear with Zusman on the OPB show, which makes it look like their criticisms of Willamette Week were shaky. I hope Davis (and maybe also Currie) will choose to debate/discuss Zusman soon. 

Given my disdain for how journalism currently is being practiced at the Statesman Journal, I suspect that Willamette Week is more likely to be correct about what went on with the Kitzhaber emails than the Statesman is.

But I could be wrong.

So let's bring this journalistic pissing contest between the Statesman Journal and Willamette Week into open public view and see who wins. Debate/discuss with Mark Zusman, Michael Davis. Sooner the better.

Conrad Hilton's godson urges you to vote "YES" on Salem business payroll tax

Yeah, I admit it. The title of this post arguably is citizen activism clickbait.

I want to grab the attention of voters here in Salem, because it is really important that the issue on the November 2015 ballot -- whether to pass a small payroll tax to fund much-needed improvements to this town's Cherriots bus system -- PASS. 

Hopefully I'm using my godfather's name not in vain. Here's my baptism certificate, for anyone who doubts my Catholic pedigree.


If some people decide to vote "Yes" on the payroll tax as a result of this endorsement from Conrad Hilton's godson, it's worth throwing around the name of my famous relative.

(I'm also Paris Hilton's second cousin. But I'm prouder of my familial connection with Conrad, than with Paris.) 

What led me to bring up hotelman Conrad Hilton -- he was my mother's uncle, and my grandmother's brother -- was how disturbed I was by how the Salem Chamber of Commerce representative in today's City Club debate about the mass transit payroll tax made businesspeople look extremely selfish. 

T.J. Sullivan was that guy.

His basic message was: "Taxes are bad. Businesses already are taxed too heavily. Salem businesses can't handle another one, even a payroll tax of 1/5 of a percent. If the Cherriots folks can't show how evening and weekend bus service will generate more profits for Salem businesses, we can't support a payroll tax."

Sullivan's lack of compassion for people who don't have a car, by necessity or choice, and need to get around by bus was astounding. The Chamber of Commerce party line was all about me, me, me -- the "me" being the narrow financial interest of businesses. 

There was very little, maybe no, talk on Sullivan's part about the need to better serve citizens of Salem: the poor, the handicapped, those employed in low wage jobs who have to work nights and weekends, young people, old people who can't drive any more. 

This is so far removed from how I remember Uncle Connie, as I called Conrad Hilton during my youth, viewing the responsibilities of businesspeople.

Several times a year my mother would drive her and me down from central California, where we lived, to Bel Air (near Beverly Hills), where Conrad Hilton lived. So from about age 7 to 17 I was able to hang around with my adult relatives as they conversed with Uncle Connie. 

Conrad Hilton, with his arm around "cute" (?) little me

Naturally much of that talk went over my head, especially in my younger years. There was talk of hotel acquisitions and openings. There was talk of relationships; my godfather was quite the ladies man, a situation complicated by his devout Catholicism. 

What there wasn't talk of was how business people owed nothing to their community, unless it helped them make more money. Nor was there talk of how taxes are bad, to be avoided at all costs. 

I started spending time with Uncle Connie in the mid-1950s. Back then taxes were way higher than they are now. The top income tax rate in 1956 was 90%! 

Yet T.J. Sullivan kept telling the City Club audience that if Salem businesses had to pay an extra dollar on every $500 of payroll -- the .21% mass transit payroll tax -- it would be freaking disastrous.

Well, somehow in the 1950s, along with before and after, businesspeople in the United States were able to make a shitload of money when taxes were much higher than they are now. And some people, like Conrad Hilton, were able to make a super-shitload of money. 

(Note: my godfather left me exactly nothing in his will. He loaned me some money to start a health store business while I was in college. But Uncle Connie got every dime of the loan back. Sadly, I didn't even get a free pass to Hilton Hotels when he died. So scammers can hold off on emailing me.)

I have little doubt that my godfather would have been aghast to hear all of the Chamber of Commerce talk at today's City Club debate about how it is unfair for businesses to fork out 1/5 of one percent of payroll to improve bus service in Salem.

What I most remember about Conrad Hilton, Uncle Connie, is that he was a good man. Sure, a great businessman. But first and foremost a good man. 

Those were the days when conservatives weren't infected with today's Tea Party virus.

Aside from my godfather, I grew up in a family with other successful businessmen -- my grandfather and uncle ran a large materials handling/lift truck company that I was supposed to take over, as the oldest male heir, until I went rogue and got a psychology degree from San Jose State College instead of a business degree from Dartmouth.

Taxes weren't evil back then. My hugely Republican relatives rarely, if ever, complained about paying their fair share.

Like I said, somehow they could make good money while paying high taxes -- while here in Salem the Chamber of Commerce is bemoaning a very small mass transit payroll tax that is less than one-third what businesses in Portland and Eugene pay.

So I'm channeling my godfather.

I hear Conrad Hilton saying, "Good grief -- pass the damn payroll tax. If it benefits the Salem community, that's a good thing. Businesspeople aren't just takers; they also are givers. Taxes are a way of giving back to the people who make businesses profitable. Any business who goes broke because of a tiny .21 percent payroll tax, $210 on a $100,000 payroll, can't blame that on the tax."

Vote YES on Ballot Measure 24-388, the payroll tax. 

Hateful Obama protesters didn't represent Roseburg

l've been bothered by the photos and stories of right-wing Obama-hating wackos protesting our President's visit to Roseburg. President Obama came to speak with the families of those killed in the horrific Umpqua Community College shootings.

He didn't politicize the event, though he certainly would have been within his rights to call for steps to prevent gun massacres like this from ever happening again. 

I was reassured to come across this message from a Roseburg resident on a local radio web site. Addressing the national media, Peggy Long says a large percentage of the Obama protesters came from out of town. They don't represent Roseburg.

Here's Long's message, with some parts boldfaced for emphasis. Thanks, Ms. Long, for telling us that people in Roseburg don't go along with the disgraceful displays of disrespect toward President Obama that were broadcast last Friday. 

How those jerks can call themselves "patriots" is beyond me. It is almost beyond belief that a presidential visit to console the families of those killed in the mass shooting would generate such vitriol and hatred. 

---------------------------------------------------------

DEAR BLUNT ADVICE: They are not from here.
by Peggy Long

[I've added boldface emphasis to parts of Long's excellent message to the national media.]

Dear National Media:  As a citizen of Roseburg, Oregon, I just want to express how embarrassed and dismayed I am over the protesters during President Obama's visit to our town.  I don't even know who those people were and I am sorry about the vile names they called you and the disrespect they showed the President of the United states.  It wasn't what the families of the victims wanted, and it wasn't what the majority of the citizens wanted.

What you saw on display isn't the embodiment of this community.  Being from this town, I can tell you we are all still reeling from this - but it has been an unspoken agreement that this is a time to help the families.  The families' needs are all that concern us now.  What I have witness since the tragedy took place is inspiring.  I can't keep track of all of the fundraisers going on around town.  

From people selling t-shirts, staging car washes, baking cookies, organizing rallies and concerts, giving their services for free to the victims and families of the victims - to little kids selling dough hearts in front of the grocery store - all of the money from these acts are going to those hurt the most by this tragedy.  The people of this town work hard, and when they aren't at work they try to help in any way they can.  We are exhausted, but still we keep rolling and giving of our time and money.  These people are amazing and I wish you could see that.  

I wish these images were the ones being propped up in the media of what Roseburg is about, but unfortunately it's not....

This is:

I can't even begin to tell you about these people because I don't know who they are.  A large percentage of the protesters aren't even from this community,  but there they are... standing in front of the High School that I graduated from, in the city and county that I pay taxes in, "speaking for our community" by screaming insults to the National media and telling the President of the United States to go home - that "we don't want you here".  Really? Do they even know anything about "Here"?

"Here" is a community that heads to the High School to watch football every Friday night and puts on their Ducks or Beavers t-shirts for the games on Saturday.  "Here" is a community of hunters, of sportsmen, and have their latest "Big Catch" saved as their background on their iPhone.  There are gun owners "Here" and have been for generations. "Here" is a community that honors the flag and has record turn outs for events on Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Veteran's Day.  "Here" is a community of character, and of charity, and know the definition of "Community".  "Here" is where people have gigantic hearts and their friend's back.  If something horrific happens to one of us "Here" it happens to all of us. "Here" is a county that votes predominately Republican, who didn't vote for the President, and more than likely don't support his views on gun control. 

But we also know someone who lost a life, or were hurt, or are friends with someone who had a family member affected,  so we understand that the time and the place for political agendas is not now and not "Here".

Some may argue that the President's visit was to push his gun control agenda, but the majority of the people "Here" know that it wasn't.  He came for the families.  He made it known that he wasn't going to make any speeches that he was only going to meet privately with those who were hurt and the families of those who lost their lives.  There were no photo ops.  There were no gun control statements.  He was just bringing comfort to the families and letting them know that the Nation is praying for them.  The people "Here" may not agree with the president, but they are humble enough to put their feelings aside for the sake of the families' wishes.  It has been widely expressed that if he could ease the pain or provide any comfort to those who were hurt or lost someone, then the people of this community would welcome the President "Here". 

These protesters aren't from "Here". They just used our tragedy as an opportunity to thumb their nose at the President and prance around with their guns on their hips. They came "Here" to co-opt an event for the victims' grief so they could call the National press vulgar names and wave their misspelled signs at the President in our name.  Because they don't live "Here" they had no qualms about packing up and leaving us with their mess to clean up. They don't care how their agenda made those who live "here" look to the rest of the world.  I do have to give it to them though, they really drove home the fact that the gun isn't the one that causes the damage - people do. They ruined our reputation and any good will from our Nation that these families gained without firing a single bullet. Their work "Here" is done.

So my advice to you, National Media, is... take a second look at this community before you lump us in with extremists.  Understand that our agenda is to continue to support the families and to heal as a community.  Spend some time "Here" and witness what I have had the privilege to see.  We are tired, and this week has been a blur of emotionally trying events.  And though we struggle, we rally to give each other support and help where we can.  Please let that be your story.  Let that be how you define us.  Don't put up photos of people who don't represent us and don't understand the nature of this Community.  Stop saying that they are from "Here".  That is not who "We" are.

My bold (and probably wrong) 2016 President/VP matchups

With the first Democratic presidential debate coming up next week, and two Republican debates already done and gone, it seems like it's time for me to go out on a limb and predict who will be each party's nominees for President and Vice-President.

Naturally I'm doing this for bragging rights in case -- wonder of wonders -- I actually turn out to be right.

In case I'm wrong, which is much more likely, I'll either do my best to forget that I ever wrote this post, or take solace in the possible fact that I got one or two of the four nominees correct.

2016 is a tough presidential election year for prognosticating. Pundits have been spectacularly wrong so far, expecting Donald Trump to self-destruct (he hasn't) and Hillary Clinton to waltz to her coronation (she isn't).

So I suspect that unforeseen surprises -- are there any other kind? -- are going to make these predictions seem ridiculous in retrospect. But like I said, there's a small chance I'll end up being right. In which case I will trumpet my brilliance, a blogger's favorite activity.

OK... let's get to it.

Being a proud progressive, I find it easier to predict the Democratic nominees. Rather uncreatively, I'm going with Hillary Clinton for President and Julián Castro as her VP running mate. 

I just don't see anyone beating out Clinton.

Bernie Sanders isn't going to have much momentum once the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries are past. Martin O'Malley is, well, Martin O'Malley. Enough said. There's a few other candidates, but since I can't remember who they are, I assume nobody else will either.

On the Republican side, I had to do more pondering about the likely nominees. In the end I decided to go with Marco Rubio for President and Carly Fiorina as his VP running mate.

Personally, I don't find Rubio very appealing, even when I try to put myself in a conservative frame of mind. Rubio always sounds like he's reciting canned lines when I hear him speak. I don't feel much of a real person behind his candidate persona. 

But Tea Party types like him.

And that counts for a lot in today's Republican Party. Florina makes sense as a vice-presidential candidate. She's aggressive and (duh...) a woman. Nice qualities if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic choice for president.

Part of my reason for choosing Julián Castro as Clinton's running mate, an utterly unoriginal idea, is that the Dems need to counter the possibility of Rubio siphoning off much-needed Latino/Hispanic votes. 

Well, like I said, I'll probably be wrong. If I'm right, though, GENIUS!

 

Some thoughts are like a rainbow, but others are more grounded

After about three months, I'm continuing to enjoy my daily morning Headspace guided meditations. (I've blogged about Headspace before, here, here, and here.)

Today I heard Andy Puddicombe -- the Headspace founder who does the guiding -- talk about how thoughts are like a rainbow. Meaning, they are insubstantial, coming and going, while the "blue sky" of the mind is the ever-present backdrop to thoughts and feelings.

In We Are Not What We Do, Puddicombe says:

Sure, we have responsibility as to whether we choose to engage the thought and take it to the level of speech or action, but a thought is just a thought. It is like a rainbow in the sky... bright, colorful, amazing, inspiring, full of potential and yet, ultimately, there is nothing tangible there at all.

OK. I get his point.

A thought is just electro-chemical reactions. These are tangible. However, given the present state of neuroscience and brain imaging, it usually isn't possible for someone else to delve past the curtain of an individual's subjectivity and comprehend a thought.

(I said "usually," because intriguing research has begun to lift the veil on the general sorts of thoughts that are in a person's mind.)

However, when I pondered what Puddicombe said about thoughts being like a rainbow, I wanted to qualify that blanket statement. In truth, some thoughts are a lot more grounded than others.

Meaning, they point to something actually existent. I think about our dog, Zu Zu. The thought is admittedly intangible. But our dog is very substantial. Here she is, with my wife on a hike in central Oregon.

So a rainbow and our dog both can be seen. Both also can be thought about. But our dog exists whether or not someone is seeing her or thinking about her. A rainbow doesn't. There is nothing substantial at the end of a rainbow, where it seems to touch the ground. 

By contrast, where our dog seems to touch the ground, she actually is. 

Thus this is why I want to modify Puddicombe's rainbow metaphor. Some thoughts point to objectively existent realities. Other thoughts don't. While all thoughts are insubstantial, some are about tangible truths, and others aren't. 

If we don't accept this distinction, we're left in a murky Alice in Wonderland world where "subjectivity" and "objectivity" lose all meaning. 

Which brings me out of the realm of meditation and philosophy into politics and policy-making. 

A few days ago, after another mass murder by a heavily-armed gunman, this time right here in Oregon, I wrote "More guns, more people killed by guns. It's obvious!" In part I said:

Facts are wonderful things. They can save lives. But this country keeps on ignoring facts about the relationship between gun ownership and gun deaths.

More guns, more deaths. That's a fact. Guns kill people. The more guns there are, the more people are killed. 

Today Vox put up an informative piece, "Gun violence in America, in 17 maps and charts." Here's some of the disturbing key facts.

This led to some interactions with commenters on my blog post and associated Facebook post. It didn't come as a surprise to me that right-wing Tea Party types were dismissive of the facts that I shared. 

Understand: they weren't my facts. They didn't reflect my personal thoughts.

They came from respected authorities who make it their business to keep track of statistics about gun ownership and gun deaths in various countries around the world, and various states in this country. 

Yes, in a way every statement of a fact can be viewed as an insubstantial thought. This seems to be how those aforementioned conservative gun lovers saw my blog post: as an evanescent rainbow, intangible, insubstantial, inconclusive.

One local right-winger told me that he and I could talk forever about whose facts were right. I told him, no, you're wrong. We could honestly and openly examine those various facts. Then, some facts would turn out to be true and some wouldn't. 

This reflected my proud liberal/progressive view that, as the saying goes...

Such seems unarguable to me. But, man, arguing with right-wing Tea Party types about gun violence sure leads me to believe that they would argue with the seemingly clear distinction between opinion and fact.

Which is a rainbow sort of worldview. Everybody has a different perspective on reality. What seems to exist from one standpoint doesn't exist from another standpoint. There is no way to decide which is more true:  "More guns means more gun deaths" or "More guns means fewer gun deaths."

Yet actually, there is a way to arrive at the truth. This is the promise of science and the scientific method.

We aren't doomed to live in a world of truthiness, rather than truth. Thoughts may be mostly intangible, but reality isn't. Some thoughts are more true than others.  

More guns, more people killed by guns. It's obvious!

Another day, another mass shooting. This time, right here in Oregon. 

Time to face facts. And get political. Not later. Now!

Obama got it exactly right today. I've boldfaced parts of what he said that I especially liked.

And, of course, what's also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue.  Well, this is something we should politicize.  It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic. 

I would ask news organizations — because I won't put these facts forward — have news organizations tally up the number of Americans who've been killed through terrorist attacks over the last decade and the number of Americans who've been killed by gun violence, and post those side-by-side on your news reports. 

This won't be information coming from me; it will be coming from you.  We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. 

And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths.  How can that be?
 
This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America.  We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction. 

When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer.  When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer.  When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities.  We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives. 

So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesn't make sense.

Facts are wonderful things. They can save lives. But this country keeps on ignoring facts about the relationship between gun ownership and gun deaths.

More guns, more deaths. That's a fact. Guns kill people. The more guns there are, the more people are killed. 

Today Vox put up an informative piece, "Gun violence in America, in 17 maps and charts." Here's some of the disturbing key facts.

Homicides per firearm per 1 million people. That's the United States down at the bottom. Our homicide rate is six times greater than Canada and 21 times greater than Australia. Are Americans really that much more immoral and violent than Canadians and Australians? 

No. The reason for our much higher homicide rate by firearms is...

We have an astounding number of guns. The United States has about 4% of the world's population and 42% of the world's guns. If guns keep people safe, we should be the safest country in the world. Except, we aren't, as the first chart showed. Here's more proof.

Developed countries with more guns have more gun-related deaths. Guns per 100 people is along the bottom. Gun-related deaths per 100,000 people is along the side. That's the United States way off by itself in the top right corner. 

We've got way more guns than any other developed country, and also way more gun-related deaths. Seems obvious, right?

A country with more cars is going to have more car-related deaths. Same holds true for guns -- as is clear from the diagonal line showing the relationship between gun ownership and gun-related deaths in developed countries.

More guns means more gun-related deaths holds true on the state level. Percentage of households with guns is on the bottom. Gun deaths per 100,000 population is on the side. New Jersey, Hawaii, and Massachusetts have both low rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun deaths. Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska the opposite -- high rates of gun ownership and high rates of gun deaths.

So are we going to put up with all of the unnecessary gun deaths in this country?

This chart shows that mass shootings happen on almost every day of 2015. We only hear about the most dramatic mass shootings, but they're happening all the time.

Why? Because we don't do anything to stop them! 

Or at least, hardly anything. Oregon required background checks for all gun purchases in the last legislative session. That's something. But we need to do a lot more. 

Again, Obama got it right in his remarks today.

There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America.  So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer? 

We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths.  So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence.
 
We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings.  Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours.  So we know there are ways to prevent it.

Update: Here's a satirical piece from The Onion that isn't really satire. Too many people in this country actually feel this way -- that there's no way to markedly reduce gun violence, even though every other advanced nation in the world has been able to do just that.

Check out 'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.

ROSEBURG, OR—In the hours following a violent rampage in southwestern Oregon in which a lone attacker killed 10 individuals and seriously injured seven others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place.

“This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations.

“It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

Marion County might ban marijuana businesses -- secretly

[September 26, 2015 update: Yes, the Marion County Board of Commissioners did prohibit marijuana businesses in the unincorporated parts of the county, aside from "grandfathering" in two currently licensed medical marijuana dispensaries. 

A vote in the November 2016 election will determine whether the prohibition on marijuana businesses continues. If it doesn't, the 3% tax on recreational marijuana sales passed in another ordinance will go into effect. 

Here's what the county Public Information Officer, Jolene Kelley, told me when I asked what happened at the September 23 meeting.

Attached are the two ordinances the commissioners approved on Wednesday. Ordinance 1358 "opts out" of the six different types of marijuana businesses described in HB 3400; however, grandfathers in current medical marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated area of Marion County. The two existing dispensaries in Marion County may begin the early start recreational marijuana sales on October 1, 2015, as allowed under state regulations. The ordinance refers the issue to the voters for the November 2016 general election. 

 

The board also approved a second ordinance establishing a 3% tax on the sale of recreational marijuana that goes into effect based on the outcome of the November 2016 election. 

 

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Here's the files Kelley included with her message.
Download 09-23-2015 ORd. prohib marijuana bus in unincorp areas
Download 09-23-2015 Ord, three percent tax - marijuana ]

-------------------------------------

Wow, secrecy about banning marijuana sales and businesses is epidemic here in Marion County, Oregon.

Someone just told me about an agenda item on the Marion County Board of Commissioners' September 23 meeting, That's the day after tomorrow.  It says:

ACTION

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1. Consider adoption of an ordinance prohibiting marijuana businesses in the unincorporated areas of Marion County, by emergency procedure. – Scott Norris 

Norris is a Marion County Assistant Legal Counsel.

Here's the agenda, which hasn't yet appeared on the Marion County web site, even though the board meeting is the day after tomorrow.
Download 09-23-2015 Board Session Agenda (1)

It seems really suspicious that the County Commissioners would take steps to prohibit marijuana businesses in unincorporated Marion County on an emergency basis.

Don't they realize that Measure 91, which legalized recreational marijuana in Oregon, was approved by voters in November 2014? Almost a year ago! What's the emergency, dudes?

The person who emailed me the agenda thought county officials were trying to avoid the uproar that followed the City of Salem putting up an agenda item regarding a possible ban on early sales of recreational marijuana just two business days before the meeting.

(See my blog post, "Salem City Council might ban marijuana sales -- secretly.")

Now the Marion County Board of Commissioners is doing the same thing. This isn't the way government is supposed to work.

But it sure seems to be the way the Republican members of the Board are trying to sneak through a ban on marijuana businesses.

Update: after I sent in some testimony to the Board of Commissioners, urging them to take more time on deciding whether to prohibit marijuana businesses, I got this reply from the county public information officer. The agenda was indeed posted last week, but it wasn't easy to find.

Mr. Hines,

Thank you for contacting the Board of Commissioners Office. I have forwarded your email for inclusion as Public Comment for tomorrow's Board Session. 

 

The Board Session agenda and packets were added to the Marion County website on Friday, September 18. Here is a link to our board session web page: http://www.co.marion.or.us/BOC/WkCalAgen.htm. 

 

Please note that the county will launch a new website on Monday, September 28, and the direct page URL (as listed above) will not longer work. You will still be able to access board session information from www.co.marion.or.us then visit the Meetings and Events page. 

 

Thank you. 

Jolene Kelley

Marion County | Public Information Officer

Republicans, including Fiorina, lie in their presidential debate

Though I'm a proud progressive, I readily admit that Democrats, and liberals in general, shade the truth at times. 

But Republicans, and conservatives in general -- they often engage in total eclipsing of the truth, blanking out virtually every semblance of factual reality. 

The New York Times editorial board tells it like it is in "Crazy Talk at the Republican Debate." 

Eleven presidential candidates had three prime-time hours on the national stage on Wednesday to tell the American people why they should lead the country.

Nobody forced them to be there. They were there freely, armed with the best arguments they and their policy advisers had come up with, to make their cases as seasoned politicians, business leaders and medical professionals — the Republican Party’s “A-Team,” as one of them, Mike Huckabee, said at the outset.

And that, America, is frightening. Peel back the boasting and insults, the lies and exaggerations common to any presidential campaign. What remains is a collection of assertions so untrue, so bizarre, that they form a vision as surreal as the Ronald Reagan jet looming behind the candidates’ lecterns.

These guys and gal seeking to be the Republican presidential nominee aren't stupid. They wouldn't have been standing on the stage if they were.

So it can't be lack of intelligence that leads them to tell lies. It must either be a lack of moral character or a reckless disregard for truth-telling -- assuming there is a distinction between these personal qualities. 

Case in point: Carly Florina claiming that...

One of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' "

The respected fact-checking organization PolitiFact gave this claim a Mostly False. That's generous. Actually, there isn't a speck of truth in what Fiorina said. Journalists who have watched every second of the  Planned Parenthood videos have reported that what Fiorina says she saw, doesn't exist. 

A Los Angeles Times post, "It's time for Carly Fiorina to apologize to Planned Parenthood," says:

Fiorina's history shows that one of her character flaws is an inability to admit when she's wrong and accept blame; in her telling, the responsibility for her abject failure as head of Hewlett-Packard belongs to everyone except herself. (For a dissection of her missteps at HP, written at the time, see this brilliant 2005 piece by Fortune's nonpareil Carol J. Loomis.) 

The irony is that as the only woman in the Republican field, Fiorina has a golden opportunity to stand up for the reproductive and healthcare rights that her rivals are trampling over at every turn. Instead, she's setting a new standard for exploiting innuendo and lies to take those rights away. She now faces a test of character: Will she set the record straight?

Absolutely. This is indeed a test of character.

Why should anyone vote for a presidential candidate, or any other person running for elected office, who refuses to admit that they were wrong about something they said?

Truth-telling is vitally important for public officials. Sure, politics frequently involves "spin-doctoring." However, there is a big difference between putting a certain spin on facts, and ignoring facts altogether.

That's what Florina did in her Mostly False (or Totally False) attack on Planned Parenthood -- ignore facts altogether.

Even if Fiorina wrongly believed that what she said at the debate was true, now that her error has been pointed out to her, an apology is indeed in order. If Fiorina persists in holding onto her lie, this will tell us a lot about her character and fitness to be president. 

Or, lack thereof.

Basic facts about Oregon's early sales of recreational marijuana

Today I got an email message from a friend who'd been contacted by someone who thought I had my facts wrong about early sales of recreational marijuana in Salem, and Oregon as a whole.


That "someone" (I don't know who it was) wrote to my friend:

I think he got the dates wrong for the early sales of pot.  Legal sales from rec dispensaries can begin on Jan 4 2016 if i am not mistaken... meaning that early sales (from medical dispensaries) would go from Oct 1 to Jan 4.  Brian would have you believe from his blog, that the City Council's action would ban recreational pot from Oct 1 2015 to December 31 2016, if I read his blog right. He claimed that by neglecting to put the year on the agenda item that they were trying to ban rec pot sales to the end of 2016.

This is wrong, largely. I responded with the correct facts.

Glad to reply to the person who has questions.  

Early recreational sales from medical marijuana dispensaries run from October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. Senate Bill 460 says this at the end of the short bill. It sunsets on December 31, 2016. See:

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB460

 

Recreational sales through the “late” licensing program aren’t expected to begin until the end of 2016. So it isn’t true that “late” sales begin on January 4, 2016. It will be much later. The OLCC chairman, Bob Partridge, explained this in a Q and A interview with the Oregonian recently. 

http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2015/08/post_3.html

Under the early sales law, anyone 21 and older may purchase marijuana from a dispensary starting Oct. 1. Meanwhile, the liquor control commission isn't expected to launch regulated recreational sales until late next year. How do early sales impact the liquor control commission's work?

Patridge: We are going to get a lot of questions related to, 'What does this really mean?' and 'What is going on?' But the OLCC is not the enforcement arm for that particular piece. 

Does it complicate next year's rollout of recreational sales under the OLCC?

Patridge: I think it could get awkward toward the end of 2016 because we will be putting up stores at the end of 2016. There could be some overlap and some market confusion.

So, as Partridge says, the early sales through medical marijuana dispensaries can continue through the end of 2016. At some point near the end of 2016, likely there will be recreational stores also, so there could be some overlap between recreational sales at "medical" and "recreational" stores. Of course, likely many medical marijuana dispensaries will apply for a recreational license.

 

The main thing, again, is that recreational stores won’t open until the end of 2016.

 

Early sales at medical marijuana dispensaries are intended to bridge the gap between October 1, 2015 and the end of 2016 — helping to cut down on black market sales between now and then, and bringing in tax revenue. (There is a tax holiday for recreational buyers at dispensaries until January 1, 2016; then taxes will be levied.)

 

Regarding the City of Salem getting the date wrong in their staff report about marijuana, the importance of this is that since “late" recreational sales won’t begin until the end of 2016, a ban on “early” sales in Salem would have meant that citizens 21 and older wouldn’t have had any way to buy recreational marijuana in Salem until late 2016 — not January 4, 2016, as erroneously mentioned by some.

 

I’ve been following this issue more closely than most people have. It’s sort of confusing, but not that confusing. There’s no reason City of Salem staff couldn’t have gotten their facts right in the staff report, so I appropriately criticized them about that.

 

Feel free to share this message with anyone else who has similar questions. 

 

    — Brian

Since the City of Salem staff report erroneously said on the first page that the early sales program ends on December 31, 2015 rather than the date it actually ends, December 31, 2016, I can see why some people would think that "late" recreational sales in Salem could begin in January 2016.

But this isn't true.

It's unfortunate that the error was in the staff report. I pointed it out to the City Attorney and other city officials last Friday morning, as soon as I noticed it. As I said in my testimony at Monday's city council meeting, I sort of expected a "thank you" from City staff. But so far, that hasn't happened.

This is a big shortcoming of the top officials who run the City of Salem these days. Everybody makes mistakes. I sure do. Frequently.

What's important is that when a mistake/error is pointed out to us, we take a close look at what the other person is saying and consider whether we could be wrong. I've found that City of Salem officials are extremely reluctant to admit when they are wrong.

Are Salem City Council votes predetermined prior to meetings?

It's an open question, the title of this blog post. But this is something people have been talking about for a long time here in Salem, Oregon, because it sure seems like important policy decisions often are voted on with very little discussion or debate between councilors at City Council meetings.

Today I emailed the message below to Kacey Duncan, the Acting City Manager, and other city officials. After last Monday's city council meeting, I figured it was time to ask some pertinent questions that revolve around whether the City of Salem is complying with Oregon's public meeting law.

The way I argue it in my message, there are only two basic possibilities.

Either (1) Votes on issues such as whether to allow or ban early sales of recreational marijuana aren't predetermined in advance of City Council meetings, in which case citizens have good reason to weigh in via emails, letters, phone calls, and public testimony about upcoming votes, or (2) Votes are predetermined and City officials are violating the public meeting law.

As I say in the message, if (1) is true then Councilors Brad Nanke and Jim Lewis owe me an apology when they said at last Monday's meeting that I spread "misinformation" and "paranoia" by altering people to the possibility of the council imposing a ban on early sales.

Actually, as I said in the public comment period, this is democracy in action -- citizens expressing their opinions to elected officials about an issue that means a lot to them. I woke up today feeling that I couldn't let Nanke and Lewis get away with their anti-public participation remarks.

Here's what I sent to City officials. I'll let you know what sort of response I get.

Mr. Duncan, as Acting City Manager I’ve got some questions for you about issues I raised during my testimony at the August 31 City Council meeting, and raised again in the email I sent to you and other City officials after the meeting. 

That email was mostly directed to Councilor Nanke, but I’ve gotten a brief non-responsive reply from him saying, "In the future I would suggest you contact city staff for clarification on any staff report.” So that’s basically what I’m doing here, even though my questions involve more than Mr. Atchison’s staff report about marijuana laws/policies.

 

I’ll try to be as clear as possible, framing my concerns and questions in a step by step process. I’ll boldface the questions to make them stand out more. 

 

(1) I’m still confused about Councilor Nanke’s contention at the meeting that the staff report, and also the Statesman Journal story on this subject, indicated that early sales of recreational marijuana through medical marijuana dispensaries was going to be approved by the Council on August 31, so there was no need for me (and others) to fire people up with requests to contact Council members and/or testify in person in favor of allowing early sales.

 

I’ve re-read the staff report and Statesman Journal story several times. Both say, in various ways, that a ban on early sales, and also “late” sales, will be considered by the Council at the August 31 meeting, as will other marijuana-related questions raised by Mr. Atchison. Yet Councilor Nanke accused me of spreading misinformation by communicating this fact to concerned citizens.

 

So, what are the portions of the staff report and Statesman Journal story which support an assertion that the question of banning early sales of recreational marijuana had been settled by the Council — in favor of early sales? 

 

This isn’t the meaning I get from the staff report. Rather, it says that staff will move ahead with ordinance changes to allow early sales unless the Council decides to institute a ban on such. The report doesn’t contain a staff recommendation on the marijuana-related policy questions. Instead, it says: “Staff recommendations are dependent on Council policy choices on the issues identified above.”

 

(2) Thus this raises the question of whether the Council had already made those policy choices at the time of the August 31 staff report, which was released to the public, along with the meeting agenda, on Friday, August 28. I’m not aware that the Council had previously discussed these choices, notably including whether early sales of recreational marijuana should be allowed, or banned.

 

So, prior to August 28, did the City Council hold an official work session or meeting where a vote was taken on allowing early sales? If this happened, please send me the minutes of the meeting. 

 

I’m pretty sure, but not 100% sure, that this didn’t happen. After all, if the Council already had given direction to City staff on the question of whether to allow early sales, why would the City Attorney ask for such guidance on this policy choice in the staff report? (This is a rhetorical question; no need to answer it.)

 

(3) Assuming that the question of allowing early sales was still officially unsettled prior to the August 31 Council meeting, I remain perplexed by Councilor Nanke’s strong assertion that all the people, including me, who asked the Council to permit early sales were operating under some sort of false assumptions or misinformation. 

 

Nanke emphatically implied at the meeting, if not outright asserted, that it should have been obvious that the Council was going to approve early sales, so there was no need for the public to weigh in on this via emails, phone calls, and testimony during the meeting’s opening public comment period.

 

So, how was this obvious? How would citizens know that the Council was going to approve the early sale of marijuana when this was raised as an open question in the staff report? More broadly, how would a member of the City Council, such as Brad Nanke, know in advance of the August 31 meeting that this was going to happen?

 

(4) This brings me to the question of “secret deliberations” and “pre-council meetings” that some citizen activists in Salem believe are happening. Understand, I’m not saying they are. I just want to bring this out in the open, as this question has been raised, and denied, by Councilor Bednarz and others during council meetings. 

 

I will accept that denial unless evidence arises that secret deliberations indeed are occurring.

 

However, I hope you understand how Councilor Nanke’s comments at the August 31 council meeting fuel the fire of suspicion that votes are hard-wired, so to speak, prior to a council meeting. Otherwise, some would say, how could Nanke argue that there was no need for citizens to urge councilors to allow early sales of marijuana since, according to him, there was no possibility that a ban would be passed by the City Council?

 

So, as Acting City Manager, do you or any other city officials (elected or appointed) know the outcome of council votes with certainty prior to the vote occurring in public at a council meeting? This may sound like a rhetorical question with an answer of “no,” but I’d like to have an answer to it given the longstanding suspicions that votes are predetermined prior to council meetings. 

 

(5) I believe I’m done with my questions. Time for comments and clarifications. You and other City officials are smart enough to see what I’m getting at. 

 

Either the policy question of allowing early sales of recreational marijuana was settled by the City Council prior to the August 31 meeting, or it wasn’t. Meaning, either a ban on early sales had been ruled out in advance of the meeting, or a ban was still possible if a majority of councilors was to vote for it.

 

I and others have been castigated by Councilor Nanke (along with his wife, on a recent KYKN program) for alerting citizens to the fact that a ban on early sales was being considered by the council, and would be voted on at the August 31 council meeting. 

 

Supposedly, Nanke and others said, we citizen activists should have known that a ban was impossible; it wasn’t going to happen; the Council wasn’t going to approve one. My question is: how were we supposed to know this?

 

My understanding of Oregon’s public meeting law is that it requires not only that votes on policy questions such as whether to allow early sales of recreational marijuana are to occur in public, the deliberations leading up to those votes also are to be made in public. 

 

Otherwise, what is the purpose of citizens contacting public officials, such as city councilors, urging that a certain policy position be adopted? What is the purpose of having public hearings, or public comment periods, if a city council already has decided in advance of a meeting what the outcome of a vote would be? This makes a mockery of public participation.

 

Yet this is what Councilor Nanke seems to have asserted at the August 31 council meeting. He said that it was wrong of me to urge citizens to weigh in on the question of a ban on early sales because, apparently, the vote on this question had been settled prior to the meeting.

 

My questions above are intended to get at the truth of Nanke’s remarks. 

 

Maybe the Salem City Council does meet secretly prior to meetings and predetermine what the vote will be on certain policy questions. In this case, you are in violation of the state’s public meeting law. 

 

If that isn’t the case, then Councilor Nanke owes me and other citizen activists an apology, because the question of whether the council would institute a ban on early marijuana sales was unsettled prior to the meeting. Thus it was entirely appropriate for me and others to alert people to the possibility that a ban on early sales could be approved by the council.

 

Understand: I realize that we all make guesses/predictions about how elected officials will vote. This happens with Congress all the time. Today the big news is that Obama has a veto-proof Iran deal, even though a vote in Congress won’t happen for weeks.

 

The issue is about transparency and citizen participation in public policy-making, the goal of Oregon’s public meetings law. 

 

What if the outcry last weekend had been on the other side of the early sales issue? What if the council had heard from hundreds of people opposed to early sales, and dozens of them came to testify about this during the public comment period at the August 31 meeting? What if some people brought amazingly persuasive arguments in favor of an early sales ban before the council?

 

Councilor Nanke’s remarks, which went unchallenged by anyone else on the council, strongly implied (and again, seem to have outright asserted) that there was zero possibility of the council voting to approve a ban.

 

And again I ask: how did Nanke know this? How would a member of the public know this? If this is true, and the outcome of a vote on early sales was predetermined one way or another, how is the council complying with Oregon’s public meeting law?

 

Feel free to contact me by email or phone if you have any questions, Mr. Duncan. I’m eager to get the City of Salem’s replies to my questions. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Brian Hines

 

---------------------------------

 

Update: Here's the response I got back from Kacey Duncan. Not very satisfying as regards answering my specific questions, but at least he got back to me. My reading of his response is that it confirms my positions as described in this blog post.

 

Good Afternoon Mr. Hines,

 

The purpose of the staff report was to inform the Council of recent legislative changes pertaining to recreational marijuana and taxation and seek policy direction on whether to initiate potential code amendments or other available actions.  The final page of the staff report spoke to actions staff would take--unless directed otherwise--based on our interpretation of marijuana and taxation policy guidance provided at previous meetings of the Council.  I do know that every effort is made comply with Oregon's public meeting laws and no final decisions are made prior to the public meeting.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

 

Kacey Duncan

Interim City Manager

City of Salem, Oregon

Salem City Council might ban marijuana sales -- secretly

News flash: without any warning to Salem's citizens, the City Council might move to ban recreational marijuana sales at its Monday (August 31) meeting. 

Here's a PDF version of this flyer; feel free to share far and wide
Download Hey Salem PDF

I find this outrageous, like so much the Mayor and right-wing council majority is doing these days.

My outrage is as much about the disturbing lack of public notice and transparency going on here, as the absurd notion that recreational marijuana sales should be banned in a city whose citizens approved Measure 91 by 53% to 47% in a 2015 midterm election with low voter turnout.

Bottom line, if you read no further.  Email the Mayor and City Council ASAP, telling them to cease and desist from trying to overturn the will of the people and state law. 

[email protected]

Today I learned that a "special order of business" is on the Salem City Council agenda for August 31. It is innocuously titled "(b)  2015 Marijuana Legislation (Legal)."

An agenda item link leads to a staff report. The report lays out four questions that the Mayor and city councilors are supposed to answer at Monday's meeting.

Should City Council;

(1)  Prohibit "early sales" of recreational marijuana from Salem area medical marijuana facilities that may begin October 1, 2015?

(2)  Prohibit or regulate the sale of recreational marijuana after the "early sales" period ends December 31, 2015? [Wrong! The early sales period ends December 31, 2016]

(3)  Prohibit or regulate growing or processing of marijuana?

(4)  Repeal SRC Chapter 32 - Marijuana Sales Tax - and refer a new ordinance to City electors that is consistent with state law? 

Again, let's try to wrap our heads around the outrageousness of this.

Recreational marijuana now is legal in Oregon to use, possess, and grow. Sales in stores, though, aren't expected to begin until late 2016.

So to combat the black market and start bringing in much-needed tax revenue, the legislature allowed medical marijuana dispensaries to start early sales on October 1, 2015 of some marijuana products to recreational buyers.

The early sales period ends December 31, 2016 -- not 2015 as the City Council staff report erroneously says. Here's an excerpt from a League of Oregon Cities document included in the same staff report:

When will early sales start?

Medical marijuana dispensaries may begin selling limited quantities of recreational marijuana on October I, 2015. Sales of recreational marijuana from medical dispensaries currently are set to end on December 31, 2016. At that time, recreational retail facilities likely will be operating and selling recreational marijuana. 

Thus it is bothersome that all the people who wrote, reviewed, and approved this report missed a blatant error that a senior citizen blogger in his pajamas (OK, shorts and t-shirt) noticed as soon as I started reading the report this morning.

What else are city staff getting wrong, if they missed this obvious error? The staff report comes from the City Attorney. Shouldn't Dan Atchison know the law?

Leaving that aside, it's the whole idea of banning early sales of marijuana, and even recreational sales entirely, that should cause Salem citizens to say "What the freaking hell is going on here?"

This is a big deal.

It deserves a heck of a lot more public comment and attention than a "secret" agenda item and staff report buried in a lengthy city council agenda released three days before the meeting at which the Salem City Council could initiate steps to prevent residents not only from being able to buy marijuana on October 1, but forever.

I put "secret" in quotation marks because the obscure agenda item and staff report technically narrowly comply with the letter of Oregon's open meetings law -- but certainly not with the spirit of it. 

The City of Salem Facebook page post about the August 31 meeting has no mention about a possible ban on both early and post-2016 recreational marijuana sales. Given the widespread public interest in marijuana, and Salem voters being in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana, a possible ban on sales deserves way more attention than a vague item in a city council agenda on a City web site that hardly anybody visits.

It seems pretty clear that folks at the League of Oregon Cities are working to spread anti-marijuana ordinances around the state. Two lengthy attachments from the League are part of the staff report.

The League's legal opinion, which was news to me, is that a city like Salem (where voters approved Measure 91) could ban recreational marijuana sales immediately all the way until the November 2016 general election by putting a measure on the ballot for consideration by voters.

In other words, even though Measure 91 requires a vote of the people to ban the sale of recreational marijuana (except in places where 55% or more of voters were against Measure 91) an ordinance calling for such a vote means that licensing of stores to sell recreational marijuana is put on hold until after the election.

So even though Salem voters almost certainly would turn down a ban on marijuana sales in November 2016, the conservative majority on the City Council could stop recreational marijuana stores in this town from being licensed until after the election.

All I can say is that if the Mayor or some city council members vote to ban either early or regular sales of recreational marijuana, those politicians deserve to be thrown out of office at the earliest opportunity.

People would be justifiably outraged if this happened -- both at the secretive way it was done with virtually no public notice or input, and at the "one finger salute" given to Salem voters who approved the sale of recreational marijuana by a healthy majority.

Email Salem's Mayor and City Council: [email protected]

Tell them, hands-off on banning marijuana sales in Salem, or putting additional restrictions on medical marijuana dispensaries and grow sites. 

There are some worthwhile recommendations in the staff report. But the option of banning recreational marijuana sales is absurd, the absurdity being magnified by the secretive way it is being considered. 

[Update: A commenter on this post said that when he emailed the City Council, he got back a FAQ document about the marijuana agenda item. I suspect this was rapidly whipped up after people started to email complaints about the possible ban on early (and late) marijuana sales. 
Download FAQ Marijuana Agenda Item

The FAQs don't make great sense. For example, this one is completely Orwellian, a No meaning Yes.

Q. Will Council be voting to ban the early sale of recreational marijuana?

A. No. However, Council will be asked whether they want to ban the early sale of recreational marijuana by medical marijuana dispensaries which could otherwise begin October 1, 2015. If so, action would be taken at the next Council meeting. 

Huh? That "No" is absolutely wrong. The only way early sales of recreational marijuana are going to happen under state law is through existing medical marijuana dispensaries. Repeat, the only way.

If the Salem City Council bans medical marijuana dispensaries from selling recreational marijuana, beginning on October 1, then this town won't have any early sales. It sure looks like nobody at the City of Salem understands what is going on legally. 

It also looks like somebody (Mayor? A few City Council members?) have a desire to ban early sales, or this staff report wouldn't have been requested.

Here's another error in the FAQs.

At the beginning of this post I quoted what the City Attorney is asking guidance on from the City Council. One question he asked is whether the Council wants to ban the sale of recreational marijuana after the early sale period ends on December 31, 2016.

Yet a FAQ says:

Q. Will Council be voting to ban the sale of recreational or medical marijuana?

A. No. However, as provided by recent legislation, Council could direct staff to prepare an ordinance to further regulate commercial marijuana activities. 

Well, the staff report discusses ways the Salem City Council could ban the sale of recreational marijuana here entirely -- which is a question the City Attorney wants answered at the August 31 council meeting. So actually the Council will be voting whether or not to ban the sale of recreational marijuana after the early sale period ends.]

History shows it's possible for Trump or Sanders to become president

Don't get too excited by the title of this blog post, fans of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. I'm not capable of arguing how it is that these guys could buck the odds and become President of the United States.

(As we'll see, nobody is.)

Rather, I want to share some passages from a chapter, "The Secret of Success," in historian Yuval Noah Harari's fascinating book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind, that remind us how unwise it is to think that anything is impossible in this wild and wacky chaotic world of ours.

I read the chapter this morning. Soon after, my daily Internet browsing led me to a story that would have blown my mind more, if Harari hadn't already prepared it to be blown. 

Over on the Washington Post web site, I marveled at "That new CNN poll is about Trump's lead solidifying, not growing. Yet."

If you compare Trump's favorability among groups in the two CNN polls, you can see two big changes. His net favorability (those who view him favorably minus those who don't) surged with Republicans, and dipped among independents. (The graphs below use registered voter responses.) For all of the discussion about Trump potentially losing ground among women -- there wasn't much ground to lose.

What's stunning, though, is how this compares to Jeb Bush. Donald Trump's net favorability among all voters is higher than Jeb Bush's. Margins of error, etc., but for Pete's sake. Tell someone in March that Donald Trump would be leading the Republican field by double digits and they'd roll their eyes. Tell them that Trump would be viewed as or more favorably than Bush and they'd have had you committed.

Pundits have kept on predicting that after this or that gaffe by Trump, his presidential ambitions are over. Finished. Gone. Flushed down the political toilet. 

And the pundits keep on being wrong. As they usually are. About everything. Just as almost everyone is who tries to predict the future.

Harari explains why in his usual clear style. Speaking of when Constantine chose Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, he says:

In fact, the people who knew the period best -- those alive at the time -- were the most clueless of all. For the average Roman in Constantine's time, the future was a fog. It is an iron rule of history that what looks inevitable in hindsight was far from obvious at the time.

Today is no different.

Are we out of the global economic crisis, or is the worst still to come? Will China continue growing until it becomes the leading superpower? Will the United States lose its hegemony? Is the upsurge of monotheistic fundamentalism the wave of the future or a local whirlpool of little long-term significance? Are we headed toward ecological disaster or technological paradise?

There are good arguments to be made for all of these outcomes, but no way of knowing for sure. In a few decades, people will look back and think that the answers to all of these questions were obvious.

It is particularly important to stress that possibilities which seem very unlikely to contemporaries often get realised. When Constantine assumed the throne in 306, Christianity was little more than an esoteric Eastern sect. If you were to suggest then that it was about to become the Roman state religion, you'd have been laughed out of the room just as you would be today if you were to suggest that by the year 2050 Hare Krishna would be the state religion of the USA.

...Not that everything is possible. Geographical, biological, and economic forces create constraints. yet these constraints leave ample room for surprising developments, which do not seem bound by any deterministic laws. 

This conclusion disappoints many people, who prefer history to be deterministic. Determinism is appealing because it implies that our world and our beliefs are a natural and inevitable product of history. It is natural and inevitable that we live in nation states, organise our economy along capitalist principles, and fervently believe in human rights.

To acknowledge that history is not deterministic is to acknowledge that it is just a coincidence that most people today believe in nationalism, capitalism, and human rights.

History cannot be explained deterministically and it cannot be predicted because it is chaotic. So many forces are at work and their interactions are so complex that extremely small variations in the strength of the forces and the way they interact produce huge differences in outcomes. 

Not only that, but history is what is called a 'level two' chaotic system. Chaotic systems come in two shapes. Level one chaos is chaos that does not react to predictions about it. The weather, for example, is a level one chaotic system. Though it is influenced by myriad factors, we can build computer models that take more and more of them into consideration, and produce better and better weather forecasts.

Level two chaos is chaos that reacts to predictions about it, and therefore can never be predicted accurately. Markets, for example, are a level two chaotic system. What will happen if we develop a computer program that forecasts with 100 per cent accuracy the price of oil tomorrow? The price of oil will immediately react to the forecast, which would consequently fail to materialise.

...Politics, too, is a second-order chaotic system. Many people criticize Sovietologists for failing to predict the 1989 revolutions and castigate Middle East experts for not anticipating the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011. This is unfair. Revolutions are, by definition, unpredictable. A predictable revolution never happens.

...So why study history? Unlike physics or economics, history is not a means for making accurate predictions. We study history not to know the future but to widen our horizons, to understand that our present situation is neither natural nor inevitable, and that we consequently have many more possibilities before us than we imagine.

Yikes! Like a Donald Trump GOP presidential nomination, and maybe even winning of the presidency. Or, of Bernie Sanders doing the same on the Democratic side. 

Hard to believe. But then, all of history is hard to believe until after it happens. Then it appears inevitable. Just like our own personal lives. 

The lesson is, it's fine to make plans for a certain sort of future. Just don't be surprised when things turn our very differently. Such is the way of the world.

Religious views have no place in fetal tissue debate

I don't believe in God. But I sure do believe in keeping God out of all social policy discussions, including the recent debates over fetal tissue research.

And not only God -- all supernatural notions based on unsupported faith, no matter how sincerely held they may be. 

Over on my Church of the Churchless blog I've been arguing that religion has no place in politics and policy-making since 2004. That year I wrote "Religious values have no place in politics." 

Consider abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage—three issues that are commonly considered to comprise the core of “values-based” voting in the last election. 

Opinions about each of these issues can, and should, be founded on objective facts derived from social science and medical science research. There are costs and benefits to various individuals and society as a whole from the presence or absence of abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage. These costs and benefits can be determined. They can be communicated. They can be discussed. They can be the basis for informed political decisions. 

But you can’t determine, communicate, discuss, or decide anything on a religious or what-God-wants basis. The moral tenets of every religion are unproven and unprovable, using Volokh’s words. However, the moral tenets that flow out of political decisions founded on accurate real-world information can be proven, because the real world is provable. 

For example, fetuses either feel pain or they don’t. If they do, then it should be possible to determine how much pain is experienced during an abortion. People could use this information to help decide when an abortion is justified and when it isn’t. Intelligent debates about the pros and cons of abortion could replace the frenzied moralistic “I’m right and you’re wrong!” screeching that now passes for political discourse in this country. 

You can’t debate with someone who doesn’t have a defensible reason for why they believe what they do. You can’t debate with someone who responds to a reasoned argument with “Because the Bible says so” or “Jesus condemns sinners.” 

Fantasy is a dangerous foundation for making societal decisions. A nation that forsakes reality isn’t going to prosper, because actions in the real world have real consequences. Blind faith is fine so long as it remains safely sequestered in a person’s psyche. But when it replaces the light of reason and science as a societal guide, there are going to be a lot of missteps, and even some falling over cliffs.

Since, I've become even more convinced that religious people need to leave their beliefs out of any and all discussions about social policy issues such as embryonic stem cell research. 

I don't care whether you are conservative, moderate, or liberal, there's no place for anything other than reasoned arguments and solid evidence when debates are taking place on any subject.

Our country's founders were clear on that point, as I talked about yesterday in a post on my churchless blog, "America's founders reasoned their way to a secular republic."

If we act in accord with Nature's Laws, this is the deist equivalent of obeying transcendent commandments handed down by a god. Revelation is useless for gaining understanding or knowledge, because it isn't founded on reason, evidence, observable reality.

So our Declaration of Independence speaks of the "pursuit of happiness."

Government exists to express the will of the people as to the best way to regulate human affairs so as to make this pursuit most fruitful. Again, it is a matter of learning, of experimentation, of trying things and seeing how they work, then changing direction on the basis of new knowledge.

It's ridiculous when people try to argue against abortion or stem cell research by spouting supernatural myths such as "the soul enters the embryo at conception," or "life is sacred from the moment of conception."

If you want to believe in religious fantasies, fine. Just keep those beliefs out of social policy debates that affect everybody in this country, not just Christian fundamentalists.

Imagine that a devout Christian is sitting around a table with a bunch of atheists (as an atheist, I've experienced the reverse situation many times). The subject being discussed is the morality of embryonic stem cell research.

The Christian says, "This is immoral because the tissue may come from aborted fetuses, and abortion is a sin, since the soul enters the baby at conception." That argument will have, and should have, zero relevance to the other people at the table. Zero.

Instead, the Christian should use his or her brain to come up with reasoned, evidence-based arguments in favor of banning embryonic stem cell research. Which is tough to do, given that the life-saving benefits of advances in medical research are so strong.

Like I said in my 2004 post, it is impossible to argue with a religious believer who relies on faith-based supernaturalism. Once religious fundamentalism enters a discussion, rational consideration of a problem hits a roadblock. 

Which is a main reason why politics in the United States is marked by so much gridlock. The fault lies mainly with right-wing religious zealots, but the left has its own share of them. 

The only way to resolve social policy questions in a democratic and open manner is to play the discussion game fairly. Meaning, every person has an equal right to lay their reasoned arguments and supporting evidence on the policy examination table, where others can critique the validity of those arguments and evidence.

When blind faith enters the game, it screws everything up. It's much like a basketball game being played on a real court, with a real ball. It'd be absurd if a player entered the game and said "I just scored a slam dunk" without touching the ball.

"Huh?" would be the appropriate response from the other players. "You didn't do that. What are you talking about?" 

"You didn't see me, because I made myself invisible, and used an invisible ball. So give two points to my team and let's keep on playing." 

This sounds crazy, right? How could anyone believe in invisibility?

But this is closely akin to how religious believers want us to accept that they "scored" on a social policy argument when they invoke notions of God, soul, and so forth that are completely invisible. 

If someone can't make naturalistic, rational, fact-based arguments against abortion or embryonic stem cell research, they need to get out of the social policy debate game. Otherwise, they're playing unfairly. 

Unfortunately, this won't happen anytime soon. Religion won't get out of politics and social policy discussions until many more Americans wake up from the dream of believing in a God who shows no sign of existing.

May that day come sooner rather than later, or this country will continue to find it difficult to overcome the faith-based irrationality that is preventing us from solving our many pressing problems. 

Rural Oregon bans marijuana shops, then wonders why its economy sucks

Oregon has a well-deserved national reputation for being progressive/liberal. But everybody who lives here knows that this only reflects the vibe in western Oregon, the eastern part of the state (except Bend) being way behind the times.

Thus even though arch-conservative Glenn Beck recently named Portland the worst city in America -- which means it actually is one of the best -- he could go to most places in rural Oregon and feel right at home.

Case in point: Oregonians legalized recreational marijuana last November by a comfortable margin, passing Measure 91 56% to 44%. But in its wisdom (ironically speaking) the 2015 state legislature decided to allow local governments to ban recreational marijuana sales if Measure 91 got 55% or more "no" votes in that jurisdiction.

Deschutes is the latest Oregon county to consider “opting out” of marijuana businesses.

This spring, state lawmakers passed a bill that gives cities and counties the option to ban pot grows, processors, wholesalers and retailers under certain conditions.

Local governments can only pass a permanent ban if 55 percent or more residents voted against legalizing recreational marijuana. In Deschutes County, Measure 91 passed by 52 percent, so restrictions on pot businesses would go on the November 2016 ballot.

If counties do not opt out, commercial marijuana grows will be regulated like any other farm crop.

So far, four Oregon counties and eight cities have enacted bans. Several are in eastern Oregon, where Measure 91 — the measure to legalize recreational pot — failed by a large percentage.

Even if a county or city decides to opt out, people will still be able to grow and use their own marijuana. They just might not be able to buy it, or farm pot for commercial sale within county limits.

One of the rural areas that has banned marijuana sales is Umatilla County. Today the local newspaper, East Oregonian, castigated the foolishness of this move.

A kick in the pants to Umatilla County Commissioners for continuing their ban on medical and recreational marijuana in the county.

It was clear from the beginning that their marijuana committee was created in bad faith, originally comprised of members who had all been outspoken in their opposition to the drug. (It was only after public pressure that a pro-marijuana committee member was named, though no one representing a marijuana business or even a medical marijuana patient was party to the discussion and the board remained far from balanced.) 

So the stacked committee told commissioners what they wanted to hear. And commissioners were glad to institute their recommendation.

The only thing that recommendation will do, however, is force Umatilla County to miss out on tax revenue — possibly north of $100,000 this fiscal year, according to estimates from the state.

TopShelf, a nationwide marijuana delivery service, is already operating openly in Pendleton, giving away pot for a $25 “donation.” And you can bet they aren’t checking IDs like a state-sanctioned store would. And they sure as heck aren’t paying any taxes. The black market is alive and well in Umatilla County thanks to head-in-the-sand county leadership.

Commissioner George Murdock even wrote out an argument for continuing the ban, derisively labeling marijuana as “weird” and not in line with Eastern Oregon values.

It’s disappointing that none of the people who use medical marijuana to lighten their heavy medical ailments stood before commissioners and told their story. Although with the attitude of the three men, it’s understandable why those people were unwilling to come forward.

The lack of compassion the commissioners have for those who benefit from marijuana is something we just can’t comprehend. What is gained from banning medical dispensaries?

Still, we don’t think the ban will last long. Everything else the prohibitionists have said about marijuana has failed to come to fruition so far, and we imagine this one will soon be overturned too. Until then, it will cost the county dearly, as we fall behind on a growing industry while others forge ahead. But then again, that’s nothing new around here.

No, it isn't. 

Rural Oregon, which is mostly Republican, likes to complain about how it is falling behind the rest of the state economically. It wants Democrats, who control the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature, to do more for rural economic development.

Well, I'd feel more sorry for rural areas of Oregon if they didn't keep on shooting themselves in the foot, then scream "Why am I bleeding? Why can't I move as fast as Portland?"

When rural counties and cities ban the sale of medical and recreational marijuana, an herb which is vastly superior to alcohol in every way -- safety, psychoactive effect, health benefits -- it makes them look  backward, behind the times, uncool, moralistic, uncaring about their citizens' quality of life.

Why would individuals or businesses with enough financial moxie to be able to relocate wherever they want choose to move to a rural Oregon county or city that is so stuck in the past, it has banned marijuana sales?

And why would cash-strapped governments pass up the 3% (I think it is) local tax on marijuana sales just to be able to feel all Jesus'y because they have kept stores that sell the Devil Weed out of their area? 

Stupid. It's just stupid. 

Rural Oregon is going to continue to economically lag behind Portland, Eugene, Corvallis and more with-it parts of this state so long as it proclaims "We're proudly redneck and want to keep on living as if it were 1955 instead of 2015." 

OK.

Just keep in mind that most people want to live in the present, not the past. They favor same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, equal rights, immigration reform, and other progressive policies. Rural Oregon is free to party like the 21st century never happened. 

It also is free to remain in economic doldrums because nobody in their right mind wants to live or work in Backward Land.

Thank you, Roseburg, for being an exception: 

The Roseburg City Council meeting Monday night included more anxiety and hand-wringing than usual. For the second consecutive meeting, councilors discussed whether to adopt a citywide ordinance that would prevent medical marijuana dispensaries from selling recreational marijuana at the beginning of October.

...However, supporters argued that marijuana was approved statewide and that the economy in Douglas County could use marijuana as a cash crop. John Sajo, executive director of the local advocacy group Umpqua Cannabis Association, said that to try to further restrict marijuana and deny consumers would only drive money elsewhere.

... In the end, Eggers, Fazio, Hawks, John McDonald and Steve Kaser voted against the restriction and won the majority...Sales of recreational marijuana will begin at medical marijuana dispensaries in Roseburg on Oct. 1.

"We Need Brain" -- GOP prez debate songified in 4 minutes

Damn.

If I'd known this highly creative songified summary of the first GOP presidential debate was coming, I could have saved two-plus hours of valuable remaining-life time and just watched a four minute video.

 

A New York Times piece provides background on the video. I read:

The Gregory Brothers are a music video production group made up of Andrew, Michael, Evan and Sarah Gregory.

How they put the video together so fast is mind-boggling. 

On a related note, I loved this post-debate Trumpanalysis by Ezra Klein. Trump is growing on me, in a decidedly weird way. His saying that he'd support himself and not run as a third party candidate if he gets the GOP nomination fits with Klein's take on Trump's marvelous self-referentialness.

You cannot embarrass Donald Trump. You cannot back him down with questions that make other candidates buckle. And the crowd loves him for it. They love him because he does not back down. The fact that Trump doesn't back down is the core of Trump-ism. It is the answer to how he will negotiate with the Democrats, with China, with Mexico. He will get what he wants because he doesn't back down.

Is it lunacy? Sure. But it's an appealing kind of lunacy. It's the ultimate Green Lantern Theory of the American Presidency. Candidates always promise that by virtue of their force of character, they will be able to do what their predecessors couldn't, while making fewer compromises than their predecessors made. It's what the people want to hear.

But Trump goes further. There is no border or boundary to his self-confidence. He doesn't just tell you he won't back down. He stands up and shows he won't back down. He is a mathematical proof for himself.

Clinton-Warren 2016! (and my other brilliant political ideas)

I'm a political junkie. I like talking politics because, unlike science, it is one of those fields where I can honestly say to myself, "Brian, your ideas are so freaking right-on, it's unbelievable!" 

Of course, everybody else in the political arena feels the same way. That's the nature of political discourse: everybody can be correct, because it's pretty much all about feeling, not facts. 

So this is some of what I'm feeling at the moment, from my obviously correct personal progressive point of view.

(1) Don't do it, Joe Biden. Yikes. The idea of you running for president fills me with a mixture of fear and boredom. Listen to your friends. You'd never beat Hillary, and the effort would tarnish your legacy.

(2) Look upon Bernie Sanders' campaign as an entertaining interlude before Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, fellow Dems. Don't take him seriously. He never could become president, and he probably wouldn't be a very good president if somehow a miracle happened. Give him applause for trying; save your campaign donations for Clinton.

(3) Clinton-Warren 2016! I like the sound of this. Not an original idea, I readily admit. It could work. There have been lots of male-male President-VP tickets. Why not a female-female? This would assuage the sadness of super-liberal Sanders supporters. And Warren would bring some fire to the campaign. I loved her recent "War on Women" Senate speech. 

(4) Donald Trump is looking less and less like a joke to me. He actually can make some sense when he wants to. I can understand why he's leading the GOP field at the moment. He's a bit (OK, maybe just a little bit) like a conservative Bernie Sanders. He says what he thinks and doesn't give a crap how you think about what he thinks.

(5) Please, Donald, run as a third party candidate if you don't get the Republican nomination. A poll showed that a third of likely Republican voters would back Trump if he was a third party candidate. Seems like an excellent plan to me. As I'm sure it does to the Clinton campaign.

(6) Regardless of what Trump does, Republicans seem determined to give Dems another four years in the White House. They're trashing women's health care, insulting immigrants, pushing a war with Iran, vowing to take health insurance away from 16 million Americans, and denying the reality of global warming during the hottest year on record. Keep it up, GOP. Your idiocy appeals to liberals like me.

(7) Forcing a government shutdown this fall, an increasingly likely proposition, will be icing on the 2016 Democratic Presidential Win cake. Part of me thinks, "Congressional Republicans wouldn't be that stupid, would they?" But the larger part of me responds with "Sure they would." Which puts a smile on my progressive face.

(8) Jeb Bush is my main worry. He's the only GOP guy who seems to have a decent chance of beating Clinton. Yeah, he's bland and unexciting. But those are pluses compared to the crazies who are also vying for the Republican presidential nomination. Bush is the only one who looks presidential to me. Hopefully a crazy will win out in the GOP primaries.

(9) I'm sure Bush is trying to leave himself enough wiggle room to do what Republican presidential candidates always do: run to the middle after they get the nomination. He'd be smart to make that lots of room. If Bush came out for immigration reform, preserving Obamacare, restoring voter's rights, doing something about climate change, and legalizing marijuana -- while remaining conservative on fiscal and foreign policy issues -- he'd be an impressive candidate against whoever the Democrats nominate.

(10) Who hopefully will be: Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. Womyn Power!

Planned Parenthood fetal tissue controversy is pure B.S.

Planned Parenthood is a great organization. Thankfully, a ridiculous attempt to defund it failed in the Senate today. 

Senate Republicans’ latest ploy to choke off all federal funding to Planned Parenthood failed, as expected, on Monday afternoon in a 53-46 procedural vote. The measure fell short of the 60 votes needed to move it forward.

It shouldn’t have been anywhere near that close.

But the perennial conservative effort to cripple the nation’s largest family-planning organization got a boost last month from a string of grainy, edited undercover videos released by an anti-abortion group, and purporting to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the illegal sale of fetal tissue.

Of course, despite the group’s efforts to misrepresent the executives’ comments, the complete videos in fact show that there is neither illegality nor profit in what Planned Parenthood does. As one representative explained on tape repeatedly (and as at least two state investigations have confirmed), the organization follows federal law in allowing women to donate fetal tissue for research, and in charging small amounts to cover the costs of storage and shipment.

For decades, fetal tissue has been a critical tool for university and government scientists studying diseases including diabetes, muscular dystrophy and H.I.V. The National Institutes of Health give out $76 million in grant money annually for such research.

It's infuriating when conservatives lie, lie, lie.

Planned Parenthood hasn't broken any laws. It is providing valuable health services to women. What's immoral are the right-to-life and GOP liars who knowingly spout falsehoods about the organization.

This video does a good job of explaining what the much-ado-about-nothing Planned Parenthood controversy is all about. (It's worth sitting through the 30 second ad at the beginning.)

 

 

"Shell No" Greenpeace protest in Portland -- a brave call to action for all of us

This afternoon I was transfixed with local Portland television coverage of Greenpeace protesters' efforts to slow down disastrous oil drilling by Shell in Arctic waters. 

Disastrous, because global warming is the greatest threat to civilization as we know it, along with the United States' national security.

Watching the incredible bravery and determination of thirteen protesters who hung from ropes on the St. Johns Bridge to try to prevent a vessel loaded with equipment needed for Shell's drilling to move from a Portland drydock, and the courage of "Kayaktivists" who did their best to block the progress of the ship, I felt like I was watching a re-run of desegregation efforts in the South back in the 1960's.

Meaning, it's pretty damn clear that history is looking to look favorably upon those who stood up for saving the Earth's environment, just as history does to those who fought the evils of segregation. 

In each case, the Power Structure -- police, government -- started out on the wrong side, favoring special interests rather than the broad public interest.

It was frustrating to watch the Portland Fire and Police Departments, Coast Guard, and other agencies band together today to stop a protest that was morally virtuous, while clearing the way for a ship that will help destroy our planet's livability.

To all of the protesters, I say Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

You inspired me. You motivated me. You gave me hope for the future -- seeing how many people were willing to risk arrest and injury in order to make a righteous stand against Shell's corporate greed and government's lack of concern for future generations.

I just gave $50 to Greenpeace. Not much, but I wanted to do something to express my support for an organization that fights so hard for our one and only Planet Earth. 

Global warming is here. This summer's record-breaking heat in Oregon testifies to that, not that any more evidence is needed beyond what the world's climate scientists have already provided. Humanity ignores that evidence at its peril.

I'm disappointed that President Obama gave permission for Shell's Arctic oil drilling. Hopefully the Portland protests will help to change his mind. Or at least to stand firm when the next misguided effort to add to our planet's greenhouse gas pollution requests government approval. 

If nothing else, those protests helped change my mind.

It isn't enough for me, or anybody, to recycle, drive an electric car, turn down the thermostat, and do all the other Green things that we're told will help the environment. It also is necessary to, in the words of today's protesters, say "Shell No!" to the rich and powerful who care about short-term profits rather than the long-term future of humanity.

If governments and corporations won't listen to scientists' warnings about the clear and present danger of global warming, then stronger steps have to be taken. Civil disobedience, for example.

Again, thanks to today's protesters for making this clear to Oregon, the country, and the world.