HinesSight

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. 

New York Times public editor weighs in on Clinton emails story debacle

Now I'm even more convinced of what I said in the title of my previous post, "All newspapers, including the Statesman Journal, should have a public editor."

After emailing Margaret Sullivan, the New York Times' public editor, about how disturbed I was about her newspaper's crappy reporting on a supposed "criminal" investigation into how Hillary Clinton handled classified State Department emails -- which turned out not to be the case -- today I got a reply from Sullivan's assistant.

-------------------
Dear Mr. Hines, 

Thank you for taking the time to write. The public editor just published a post that addresses this article. If it's of interest, you can find the full post here.

Thanks again for writing, and for reading The Times.

 

Best regards,

Joumana Khatib

Office of the Public Editor

The New York Times
-------------------

That's customer service. And good journalism.

Like I said in my first post, I've pointed out serious factual errors that appeared in our local newspaper to editors of the Salem Statesman Journal and never got a response. So it was great to see that the New York Times (I'm a digital subscriber) does care about accuracy in its stories. 

Sullivan's post about the screwed-up reporting on the Clinton emails story struck me as forthright, honest, and pleasingly critical of how the Times handled this.

Here's a few excerpts from "A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?" 

The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.

...But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

...There are at least two major journalistic problems here, in my view. Competitive pressure and the desire for a scoop led to too much speed and not enough caution. Mr. Purdy told me that the reporters, whom he described as excellent and experienced, were “sent back again and again” to seek confirmation of the key elements; but while no one would discuss the specifics of who the sources were, my sense is that final confirmation came from the same person more than once.

...Reporting a less sensational version of the story, with a headline that did not include the word “criminal,” and continuing to develop it the next day would have been a wise play. Better yet: Waiting until the next day to publish anything at all.

Losing the story to another news outlet would have been a far, far better outcome than publishing an unfair story and damaging The Times’s reputation for accuracy.

What’s more, when mistakes inevitably happen, The Times needs to be much more transparent with readers about what is going on. Just revising the story, and figuring out the corrections later, doesn’t cut it.

...I’ll summarize my prescription in four words: Less speed. More transparency.

After all, readers come to The Times not for a scoop, though those can be great, but for fair, authoritative and accurate information. And when things do go wrong, readers deserve a thorough, immediate explanation from the top. None of that happened here.

Well, that also didn't happen when, several times, I told editors at the Statesman Journal about problems with pieces published in their paper. 

Hopefully Executive Editor Michael Davis, Editorial Page Editor Dick Hughes, and other top staff at the Statesman Journal will learn some lessons from what went wrong at the New York Times (a far superior publication, obviously) and how the Times responded to those problems.

Once a newspaper loses the trust of subscribers, it's a downhill slide into mediocrity.

The Statesman Journal is heading in that direction, but it still is possible to turn the paper around with some competent journalistic leadership -- such as Margaret Sullivan showed at the New York Times.

All newspapers, including the Statesman Journal, should have a public editor

So it's big news today that the nation's leading newspaper, the New York Times, screwed up big time on a story about a supposed criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails when she was Secretary of State. 

Newsweek reports on the story behind the flawed story in "How the New York Times Bungled the Hillary Clinton Emails Story."

In our hyper-partisan world, many people will not care about the truth here. That the Times story is false in almost every particular—down to the level of who wrote what memo—will only lead to accusations that people trying to set the record straight are pro-Hillary. I am not pro-Hillary. I am, however, pro-journalism. And this display of incompetence or malice cannot stand without correction.

And to other reporters: Democracy is not a game. It is not a means of getting our names on the front page or setting the world abuzz about our latest scoop. It is about providing information so that an electorate can make decisions based on reality. It is about being fair and being accurate. This despicable Times story was neither.

The New York Times has taken down the original bungled story, but Media Matters shows the headline in its own critique of the Times, "The Unanswered Questions From The NY Times' Debunked Clinton Emails Report."

Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Use. Except it turns out that a criminal inquiry wasn't sought, and the issue has nothing to do with Clinton. 

The new, less prominent online New York Times story has a very different headline: Hillary Clinton Email Said to Contain Classified Information.

However, the information wasn't classified when she was Secretary of State. It became classified after a review of her emails in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The new story says:

The department is now reviewing some 55,000 pages of emails. A first batch of 3,000 pages was made public on June 30.

In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.

So reporters and editors at the New York Times made some serious journalistic mistakes. At most newspapers, there would be no way for subscribers and others to complain about this to anyone other than... reporters and editors.

Who likely would be inclined to ignore the complaints, since they're the ones being complained about. I have experience in this with our local newspaper, the Salem Statesman Journal, which is part of the Gannett media empire.

After doing my best to get executives at the paper to recognize that several opinion pieces written by editorial page editor Dick Hughes contained significant factual errors that had been pointed out to Hughes (one time before publication), yet Hughes refused to issue corrections, in 2014 I filed an ethics complaint with Gannett. 

Remember when the newspaper had a "corrections" feature? And Statesman Journal staff wanted to make stories as accurate and truthful as possible? As a long-time subscriber (37 years), I sure do.

Those days are gone. Below you can read solid evidence for this conclusion. 

In May of this year I filed an ethics complaint with Garrett Flynn, an attorney who handles complaints about ethics violations for Gannett.

I did this after getting no response from Statesman Journal executives about my well-documented September 2013 complaint that editorial page editor Dick Hughes had knowingly and willfully published false information about the proposed "land grab" of part of Riverfront Park for an access road to a Pringle Square apartment complex.

...Yet Hughes, executive editor Michael Davis, and other members of the editorial board were utterly uncaring about having this error pointed out to them. I got some dismissive comments back from Dick Hughes, but he didn't offer any evidence that I was wrong and he was right. 

Well, I got essentially zero response from my journalistic ethics complaint also. Flynn told me that I wouldn't hear back about how my complaint had been handled by Gannett staff. Thus it went into some corporate black hole.

By contrast, today I complained about the New York Times' handling of the Clinton emails story to somebody in a position to actually do something about this -- the Public Editor at the Times, Margaret Sullivan. 

I liked what I read on her web site page:

Margaret Sullivan is the fifth public editor appointed by The New York Times. The public editor works outside of the reporting and editing structure of the newspaper and receives and answers questions or comments from readers and the public, principally about news and other coverage in The Times.  Her opinions and conclusions are her own.

Sweet! How refreshing to have criticism of a newspaper's story or opinion piece reviewed by someone other than the people who wrote and edited the story/piece.

Soon after I sent my email, I got a response. Canned, but I appreciated what was said in the reply from Sullivan's office:

Thank you for contacting the public editor.  My assistant and I read every message that we receive.  Please note that this office deals specifically with issues of journalistic integrity at The New York Times. Due to the number of e-mails that we receive on a daily basis, we are not able to respond personally to everyone who writes.

If a further reply is warranted you will be hearing from us in a timely manner.

Some messages to the public editor may be published in my column or on my blog.  Please let me know if you do not want your message published.

Please note that below the break you will find information on the corrections process, submitting an op-ed, contacting The Times, customer service complaints and more.

Very truly yours,

Margaret Sullivan
Public Editor

Well, this already is a far more satisfying response than I've gotten from our local newspaper, the above-mentioned Statesman Journal, when I've complained about inaccuracies in stories or opinion pieces. Sullivan responded with something, which is way better than the nothing I've gotten back from Statesman Journal staff.

Every newspaper should have some sort of Public Editor.

This wouldn't have to be a full-time position. Give some independently minded staff person, such as an investigative reporter, the job of responding to subscriber criticisms and complaints about journalistic integrity.

After I travel on an airline, I get an email asking me to comment on how satisfying the flight was. The same thing happens when I stay at a hotel, buy something from Amazon, or take our car to be serviced at a dealership.

Most businesses want to learn how happy their customers are with the service or product they're selling. Newspapers, based on my experience with the Statesman Journal, don't. 

This may go a long way toward explaining why circulation at daily newspapers, including our local paper, is dropping rapidly. Subscribers are going elsewhere for news, finding that print newspapers aren't giving them what they want. 

Which, in part, is feeling like someone at the newspaper cares about accuracy, facts, and journalistic integrity.

This is the job of a Public Editor like Margaret Sullivan.

I'll be interested to see if she writes a piece about the bungled Clinton email story. I suspect she will. But even if she doesn't, at least I feel like this online subscriber has been heard by someone at the New York Times. 

Marijuana is legal in Oregon at midnight. Praise us baby boomers!

In honor of marijuana getting to put on the July 1 glass slipper of legalization at midnight, I feel like sharing my Ex-Hippie Flower Child Top Tip on Using Psychedelic Drugs, of which cannabis/marijuana is one.

In typical baby-boomer fashion, I also will share a previous blog post where I persuasively argued why my generation, the Me Generation, deserves to soon have a big fat doobie raised to us by legally stoned Oregonians.

But first, the tip...

Back in the 60's, when anything seemed possible if people would only alter their screwed-up straight consciousness through psychedelics, Timothy Leary spoke of set and setting:

Of course, the drug dose does not produce the transcendent experience. It merely acts as a chemical key — it opens the mind, frees the nervous system of its ordinary patterns and structures. The nature of the experience depends almost entirely on set and setting.

Set denotes the preparation of the individual, including his personality structure and his mood at the time. Setting is physical — the weather, the room's atmosphere; social — feelings of persons present towards one another; and cultural — prevailing views as to what is real.

Often I hear politicians say stuff like, "I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana, but I'm not saying people should use it." 

Well, I am. You should try marijuana if you haven't before. Like Leary said: open your mind, free your nervous system of ordinary patterns.

Your mind/brain is altered by all kinds of chemicals, notably including those produced by the human body itself. In addition, so many other things are chemical keys: caffeine, alcohol, chocolate, love, sex, exercise, tobacco, hugs, patting a dog or cat.

Marijuana is just another way to jump-start an alteration in one's consciousness.

Sure, maybe you could meditate for thirty years on a hard cushion for several hours a day and get the same uplifting results. Or you can put some crushed marijuana buds in a vaporizer, turn it on, wait a minute, take a few puffs, and voila! -- you've altered your consciousness via an herb.

In a positive way. Believe that, because it is true.

This is the "set" part of set and setting, understanding that your expectations about using marijuana or any other psychedelic are going to affect your experience. 

Here's how I see the situation.

There is no Real You (or Real Me). When we use marijuana, we aren't moving away from some supposed Really Real Reality. We're just altering our consciousness, as we would by drinking a few beers, meditating, taking LSD, or engaging in hot sex. 

So don't worry about losing control of yourself when you ingest marijuana, if you've never tried cannabis before.

First, you don't have a solid stable self. Meaning, there is no constancy to you. You are ever-changing, as everything alive is. Second, consider that the part of you which wants to keep control is the same part which excessively worries and frets, rather than flowing freely with life.

Maybe the high-on-marijuana you is the better you, the you that you'd prefer being all the time. I'm not saying it is. That's for you to decide. Experiment with freeing your mind. Cannabis is way better than alcohol for accomplishing that. 

If you don't have access to marijuana now, it looks like it will be sold to recreational users in Oregon medical marijuana stores after October 1.

And now, a reprise of my August 2014 blog post, "Oregonians, please legalize marijuana to honor...ME!"

Hey, so maybe the title of this blog post sounds self-centered to you. What do you expect, dude? The author, moi, is a 65 year-old baby boomer. I'm proudly part of the Me Generation. 

So naturally I see everything as revolving around the Flower Child center of the universe that we baby boomers brought into being back in the 60's. 

Me especially, since I was in college at San Jose State University from 1966 to 1971.

You know, the Bay Area not-Stanford and not-UC Berkeley. The ugly duckling to the south. Which for me and my friends was just a short 57' VW bug smoke-filled drive away from San Francisco: Haight-Ashbury, Winterland, Fillmore, all things psychedelically bright and beautiful.

We weren't smoking cigarettes.

Oh no, we were the freaks, the hippies, the potheads, the stoners, who brought marijuana out of the societal shadows and made it, if not respectable, damn ubiquitous for our generation.

In a sense -- and I can understand if you'd like to make that "In a pitifully marginal sense" -- we were akin to the courageous demonstrators of the Civil Rights movement, the determined feminists of the Women's Rights movement, the brave initiators of the Gay Rights movement, the in-your-face protestors of the Anti-Vietnam War movement.

We set out to change society one toke at a time.

Whether zoning out to Cream, Jefferson Airplane, and Hendrix, or demonstrating that frisbee skills are not lessened one bit by being high (nor driving skills, in my experience), we were unknowingly laying the groundwork for what now seems to be a groundswell of support for changing this nation's marijuana laws.

Including right here in Oregon, this November. New Approach Oregon is going a great job with its initiative to legalize recreational use of marijuana by those 21 and over.

Enough signatures have been gathered to get on the ballot. Fund-raising seems to be going well. Endorsements are streaming in -- such as from the Oregon State Council for Retired Citizens, Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Also, the Northwest Oregon Labor Council.

Still, we can't take it for granted that the legalization initiative will pass.

So do what you can to help New Approach Oregon. Make a donation.  Add your name to their list of supporters. Most importantly, vote for the initiative in November if you live in Oregon.

Remember: this is about ME. And my generation. We're getting old. No, geez, we are old.

We deserve the honor that we'll bestow upon ourselves when weed is legalized, state by state. We'll be able to tell our grandchildren...

"Honey, when you grow up your grandpappy made it possible for you to enjoy pot without fear of the law -- a far cry from how it was in the olden times. Why, did I ever tell you..."

"Mom, MOM! Come quick! Make Grandpa Brian stop talking about his drug days. I'm afraid he's going to make me listen to his LSD stories AGAIN!"

And why not, grandchild? I was Jesus personified back in the 60's (outwardly at least). Am I not entitled to retell the gospel of my exploits with cannabis and other mind-altering substances?

In the case of marijuana, at least, a substance that cries out for sensible legalization, as ably detailed in a recent series of New York Times editorials. This shows that the times are indeed a'changing when it comes to legalizing pot. 

Which is estimated to bring in $38 million each year in taxes to benefit Oregon's schools, police, drug treatment, drug prevention and mental health programs.

A great reason, among many, to legalize marijuana. Let's just keep in mind this central reason: to honor the greatest (pot-smoking) generation, us baby boomers.  

 

Anti and pro Joe Arpaio rallies showed two sides of Salem

OK, let's leave aside the politics of immigration reform (including the lack thereof, so far).

What I found most fascinating about the twin Sheriff Joe Arpaio rallies at the Capitol yesterday -- a pro-rally on the Capitol steps, and a counter anti-rally right across the street -- was the differing "vibes" of each.

 

A video I made from my iPhone footage focuses on the counter rally, where I spent most of my time.

Now, I realize that some of the people at each rally were from out of town. But many, perhaps most, were from the Salem area. I recognized a lot of folks at the counter rally. 

So during the 70 minutes or so I spent on Court Street watching the goings-on, I was struck by how the two sides of the street seemed to epitomize two sides of Salem -- along with Oregon, the United States, and even the world.

(I took most of the photos below soon after I arrived at the rallies; though the crowds were smaller than later on, the atmosphere at each rally didn't change.)

The pro-Arpaio rally was mostly populated with middle- to older-aged white folks. They seemed to view things quite seriously. When I walked around on the Capitol steps taking photos, I didn't feel very comfortable.

Of course, I'd come from the other side of the street.

American flags were much in evidence on both sides of Court. But there was something off-putting about how the pro-Arpaio people used the flag. Not as a symbol of coming together. Of keeping unwanted people out.

Sheriff Arpaio, of Phoenix, has been found guilty of racial profiling and his jails have been ruled unconstitutional. So he isn't exactly a warm and fuzzy guy, nor would I expect his admirers to be.

The Oregon Republican Party booth displayed Arpaio's famous pink underwear, which he mandated be issued to all prisoners.

Maybe it was my longish gray hair, or my bright neon-green shirt, or the orange folding bike I was wheeling along, but for some reason I wasn't beckoned over and urged to join the GOP. Again, the vibe was serious. I had the feeling that these guys and gals felt they were defending the country against people like me.

And especially against many of the darker-skinned people across the street. Who -- gasp! -- perhaps aren't in the United States legally.

Well, that possibility didn't bother me at all. I found the diverse bunch of people at the counter rally on the north side of Court to be much friendlier, positive, energetic, and welcoming than the pro-Arpaio group. 

These sorts of messages were much in display at the counter rally. On the Capitol steps, not at all. Again, I'm not really talking about the politics of immigration reform here. There are good arguments for bolstering border security, just as there are good arguments for legalizing the immigrants already here.

I just found the "neighborliness" of the counter-rally to be in sharp contrast to the divisiveness of the pro-Arpaio, anti-immigrant people on the Capitol steps.

Right on, sign-holder.

I felt a lot more love in the air at the counter-rally. It was great to see Hispanic families arriving, parents, grandparents, children, carrying signs to show their support for a diverse, welcoming Oregon.

It was also clear that love carried the day, attendance-wise. The Statesman Journal story tells the number-tale. 

About 100 people gathered on the steps of the state Capitol on Saturday for a rally to hear Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, speak about immigration, drugs, gun laws, taxes and getting tough on crime.

...Also in front of the Capitol, but across the street, about three times as many people gathered in protest of Arpaio, who is known for his conservative stances on immigration and hard-line policing.

Figures. Salem is a liberal-minded town which, at the moment, is governed by a conservative Mayor and City Council majority.

I didn't really feel like the counter-rally yesterday was primarily about politics, though. Sure, most of the people on one side of the street were Republicans, and most of the people on the other side of the street were Democrats.

The common denominator, of course, is that word: people.

One side, the counter-rally, embraced love, cultural diversity, creativity, human rights, and joyful celebrating. The other side? I felt rigidity, judgmentalism, and narrow-mindedness coming from the Capitol steps.

Salem, like everywhere in America, has various sides. Not just two, naturally. We are a multiplicity, E pluribus unum, "Many uniting into one." 

The challenge is to foster oneness, and decry divisiveness. That was the drama I saw playing out at the Capitol yesterday. I'm confident that love will win out over hate, neighborliness over get-out-of-here'ness.

The much greater energy, positivity, and enthusiasm shown by the folks at the counter-rally testify to that.

Hot time! Saturday counter-rally against anti-immigrant Arizona Sheriff Arpaio

If you're going to be baking in the heat here in Salem next Saturday afternoon, why not do it for a good cause?

The Oregon Republican Party has brought anti-immigrant Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio to town for a fund-raising rally on the Capitol steps. There will be a counter-rally across the street at the Capitol water fountain at 2:30 pm.  

Check out the counter-rally Facebook page. 

Courtney Garcia says in her post:

There are two ways for you to take action!

1. Join the counter-rally!
On Saturday, June 27th at 2:30PM, we will gather at the Oregon State Capitol Fountain (near 900 Court St. NE, Salem)!

Bring signs! Here are some ideas:
Arpaio Doesn't Speak for Oregon!
We support civil rights in Oregon!
We support our immigrant neighbors!

2. Write the Oregon State Sheriffs' Association (OSSA) asking them to publicly denounce Sheriff Arpaio and his racist tactics!
Email OSSA President Sheriff Jason Myers and Executive Director Ret. Sheriff John Bishop and ask them to publicly denounce Sheriff Arpaio's tactics, methods, and behavior! Sheriff Arpaio does not represent Oregon's values!

Get your group together and write a joint letter. Send it to your own county's sheriff and state representatives! Click here to download a sample letter!

OSSA Executive Director, Ret. Sheriff John Bishop: [email protected]
OSSA President, Sheriff Jason Myers: [email protected]

How will you take action? Send us an email at [email protected] and let us know!
See you in Salem!
Warmly,
Jessica

I'm thinking of going to the rally after spending some time at the World Beat Festival in Riverfront Park. The Festival opens at 10 am. I go every year no matter the weather.

Don't be heat-weenies, fellow Oregonians. Yeah, it'll be hot on Saturday.

But nowhere near as hot as it often is for people who risk crossing the desert border between the United States and Mexico in search of a better life -- the same reason my relatives came to this country.

What I find most amazing about the Oregon Republican Party's decision to bring Sheriff Arpaio to Salem is that they actually think this will help rebuild the GOP's tarnished image in this state. They said:

We bring Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Oregon to help rebuild Oregon Republican Party in order to take back Oregon in 2016.

A Republican hasn't won a statewide office in a long time. The GOP lost seats in both the state House and Senate in 2014. But somehow the R's think that bringing the country's most notorious anti-immigrant sheriff to town, who is viewed as a racist by many, will lead young people, Hispanics, and other voters into the Republican fold.

Good luck with that, Oregon GOP. Liberals like me want to thank you for another in a stunning series of politically-brain-dead strategic moves. Keep it up... please!

How attitudes toward marijuana in Hawaii are evolving

Yesterday I walked to the Napili Market on Maui to buy the local and Honolulu newspapers, my morning ritual during our vacation at a Napili Bay condo.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser had a interesting column about marijuana by Richard Borreca. Mildly jet-lagged today after flying home on Friday, I decided my easiest blogging bet was typing in Borreca's piece -- see below-- which was hidden behind a Star-Advertiser paywall when I Googled it.

I enjoyed reading about how Hawaiian  attitudes regarding marijuana are steadily moving in the legalization direction, so wanted to share his column with others.

Here in Oregon, voters legalized recreational marijuana in November 2014. On July 1 of this year Oregonians can legally possess cannabis. It can't be sold in Oregon yet, but Washington state has pot stores and is a short drive across the Columbia River. 

(Yeah, technically it's a federal offense to transport marijuana across state lines, but Portland police will be looking the other way).

Both Hawaii and Oregon have legalized medical marijuana. Oregon did so in 1998, Hawaii in 2000. So it wouldn't be surprising to see Hawaii follow in Oregon's footsteps in a few years and legalize recreational marijuana.

Sure seems like a smart move. 

As Borreca notes, Hawaii already has some strong "brand recognition" in this area. Maui Wowie, for example. The islands are a wonderful place to kick back and relax. Adding legal pot would be a extra plus for the Hawaiian tourism industry, for sure.

Here's Borreca's column: 

Attitudes toward marijuana in Hawaii continue to evolve
Richard Borreca, Honolulu Star-Advertiser columnist
June 19, 2015

Hawaii has gone from the dull-throated roar of National Guard helicopters sweeping over homes searching for illegal marijuana plants to an ambivalent shrug at the thought of a neighbor puffing a small amount of the same prohibited weed.

Hawaii's thinking about marijuana splits from hating to loving the stuff.

When former Hawaii Attorney General Warren Price was declaring war on marijuana with Operation Green Harvest in 1989, he proclaimed that marijuana in Hawaii "has grown from a backyard problem to the largest industry in Hawaii."

Combining military resources, National Guard helicopters and county police forces, the operation ripped up an estimated 6.3 million plants, according to reports in 1996.

Critics, including a 1990 Legislative Auditor's report, said the drug enforcement effort was based on "unsystematic, intermittent planning geared to federal funding."

By 2008, Big Island voters overwhelmingly voted for a ballot initiative directing police to make marijuana enforcement the "lowest priority." In 2014 the state Supreme Court ruled the initiative illegal, noting that county ordinances can't overrule a state law saying marijuana is illegal.

Hawaii continued to be of two minds about marijuana as the Big Island County Council in 2008 voted to reject three federal grants totaling $528,000 for marijuana eradication. 

And by 2012, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration had closed its Big Island office and airport hanger, saying it was just saving money, but Hawaii County Police Department Maj. Randy Apele was quoted in the Hawaii Tribune-Herald saying that the county doesn't carry out aerial enforcement anymore.

While police and military police were rappelling from choppers to hack away at the pakalolo [cannabis], folks in Hilo were seeing the illegal weed's cash sales prop up an economy devastated by closing sugar plantations.

"I'm against legalizing marijuana and I never smoked it, but yet, I would have to say it helped the local economy," says Big Island Democratic Rep. Clift Tsuji.

"It was a cash crop," the former Hilo banker recalls.

Because it was also a cash business, there are no real figures for how much marijuana contributed to the economy, but longtime Hawaii islanders all have stories of growers buying big new shiny trucks with cash.

Conventional legislative wisdom has it that if Gov. David Ige approves a bill passed this year to set up medical marijuana dispensaries, it will make extensive marijuana farming legal.

Marijuana is illegal according to both state and federal laws, with possession of less than an ounce considered a misdemeanor punishable by 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. The feds classify it as a Schedule I drug under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act.

The other side of the coin is that Hawaii's weed has already been branded and promoted. The Maui Wowee, Kona Gold, and Puna Butter cachet from the 1980s is now a drug with medical research potential.

After years of negotiating, the University of Hawaii was able to get a U.S. Justice Department permit to import hemp seeds from Australia. Hemp is a far less potent variety of the cannabis family that includes marijuana. UH hopes to start its research at a Waimanalo test site.

Actual testing with marijuana is not allowed because it is a federally prohibited plant, but if the situation changes, Hawaii should be in a position to realize major medical and economic benefits even before any action is taken on legalization.

Oregon legislature, don't screw up marijuana legalization

Big supporter of Measure 91 that I was, which legalized recreational marijuana here in Oregon in November 2014, and avid supporter that I was of Democratic control of the Governor's office and state legislature, which also transpired in the last election, I optimistically assumed that Dems would implement marijuana legalization properly.

Let's make that, over-optimistically. 

Because even though some legislators and government officials support both the intent and language of Measure 91, others are busily trying to undermine the 56% of Oregonians who voted in favor of legal cannabis.

The most egregious example of this is Senate Bill 964, which was passed by the state Senate on May 27. Among other things, it allows cities and counties to ban medical marijuana dispensaries without an automatic vote of the people -- something Measure 91 requires.

The Measure 91 folks, New Approach Oregon, explain why SB 964 is such a bad idea. 

Senate Bill 964, sponsored by Democratic Senator Ginny Burdick and Republican Senator Jeff Kruse, will allow a handful of city council members and county commissioners to ban state-licensed medical marijuana dispensaries, without a mandatory public vote of the people.

This provision for medical marijuana businesses will hurt Measure 91’s voter-approved opt-out procedure, requiring a vote of the people, either in future legislation or future lawsuits. It is imperative that any opt-out procedure for marijuana businesses match the provision passed by over 56% of Oregon voters. Both The Oregonian and the Register-Guard have published editorials supporting a vote of the people.

Senate Bill 964 goes against the will of the voters and hurts the priorities of the state and even the federal government. Easily opting-out of state-regulated marijuana businesses will only exacerbate the illegal, underground market. Oregon voters want to stop treating marijuana as a crime and to bring as many people into a state-regulated system as possible; Senate Bill 964 goes against voters’ interests.

[Click here to find a list of House members to email and tell them "Vote No on SB 964"; there are a few semi-colons separating the names, though; I had to change those to commas when I copied and pasted the email addresses.]

It is indeed bewildering that state legislators would try to make medical marijuana more difficult to obtain than recreational marijuana. (I'm tempted to say "What were those legislators smoking?", but will refrain from doing so -- though, oops!, I just did.)

Consider: on the same day the Senate passed SB 964, the Oregonian reported that a plan to allow the sale of both medical and recreational marijuana in the current 200 medical marijuana dispensaries was greeted favorably by legislators and OLCC officials.

(The Oregon Liquor Control Commission is charged under Measure 91 with implementing regulations for the production, distribution, and sales of recreational marijuana.)

A concern, though, is that supposedly much of the cannabis produced by registered medical marijuana growers is finding its way into the black market. Maybe this is true; maybe it isn't. For the sake of argument, let's say that it is.

What would be some great ways to get that marijuana out of the black market and into legal distribution channels? 

Well, it doesn't take a genius to come up with two obvious ways:

(1) Allow medical marijuana dispensaries in the many cities and counties that have prevented them from opening, taking advantage of a state law that allowed temporary bans until May 2015.

(2) Allow the sale of recreational marijuana in medical marijuana dispensaries as soon as possible.

Doing these things would give those growing medical marijuana additional outlets to sell their cannabis. The best way to get rid of the black market is to expand the "white market."

Yet SB 964 would do the exact opposite, forcing lots of medical marijuana cardholders to continue to get cannabis from unregulated sources, since 26 of Oregon's 36 counties and 146 cities have banned dispensaries and could continue to do so without a vote of the people under SB 964.

Also, the Oregonian story says that the OLCC Chair, Bob Patridge, is worried about allowing sales of recreational marijuana before the end of 2016 -- which would be two freaking years after Oregonians voted for Measure 91.

So Patridge and other misguided state officials/legislators want to support the marijuana black market after it is legal for the citizens of this state to possess cannabis on July 1, 2015. Where are they supposed to get marijuana between that date and late 2016?

From the Pot Fairy? By growing their own? From their local pot dealer? The latter options are much more likely than the first, unfortunately.

However, just as relatively few people choose to grow their own tomatoes, preferring to buy them in a store, so it is with marijuana. Which, I've heard, is rather tricky to grow. At least, in a high quality manner.

Thus the smartest thing to do would be this: encourage as many medical marijuana dispensaries as possible by forbidding cities and counties from banning them without a vote of the people, and allow the sale of recreational marijuana in those dispensaries soon -- October 1 was mentioned as a possible start date in the Oregonian story.

Sure, eventually a "seed to sale" tracking system for marijuana growers should be implemented.

Until marijuana is legal everywhere in the country, this seems to be needed to keep federal officials from freaking out about the sale of cannabis, which is still crazily classified as a Class 1 illegal drug. But isn't it better to have Oregonians buying their marijuana from state-licensed outlets rather than on the black market?

A commenter on the Oregonian story, Wt Buffalo, left an insightful lengthy comment that I'll include in full in a continuation to this post. Here's some excerpts that mirror what I've been saying.

So, if you really think that Oregon Medical Cannabis grows have an over abundance of cannabis for the Black Market, then why didn't you tap the OMMP growers for the already produced cannabis, ASAP?  Or, sign them up to grow more immediately?  That would Stop the cannabis inflow to the Black Market, as fast as anything.  Dry up the supply for the Black Market and provide cannabis that could be watched, tested, inspected and regulated with contracts.

If Oregon uses the believed excess amount of OMMP produce cannabis for Recreational cannabis, wouldn't that be a much more efficient way to thwart the Black Market.  Let the OMMP illegal growers legally produce cannabis for Recreational Cannabis Market.  The vast majority of OMMP providers do not provide service illegally.  You all think that there is already enough cannabis produced to provide the Black Market.   Elusively, they are already producing enough cannabis, then use and test the cannabis for Medical and Recreational use.   

Why wait so long to open Recreational Cannabis?  The Legislator's and OLCC are costing the Oregon schools the revenues that could reduce class sizes.  Providing 40% of the collected Cannabis taxes for many much needed programs, should have been ready by July 1, 2015, about two month's from now.

Give cannabis producers a place to market cannabis legally.  Besides, the Black Market Cannabis producers are just laughing at you.  The longer you delay the Recreational Cannabis Stores, the more $$ they make.  They are also laughing about how the Legislator's and OLCC is making such a self-inflicted mess of M91.  The Black Market growers are going to continue to produce cannabis for the rest of the country laughing.

Salem Mayor disavows City of Salem press release

I didn't attend Mayor Anna Peterson's predictably-Pollyannaish "State of the City" address yesterday. I was worried that I'd suffer a massive overdose of sugary unreality. 

Reading the beginning of a Statesman Journal story about the event made me feel good about my decision.

The toughest question Salem Mayor Anna Peterson faced at her State of the City Address on Wednesday was what her favorite community activity to do in the city was.

...The atmosphere in the Santiam River Room at the Salem Convention Center was decidedly relaxed. The assembly of city officials, business leaders, educators and members of the police department made for a friendly crowd.

Typical for Salem.

Pretend that things are Just Fine at City Hall. Nothing to worry about. Hey, as the Mayor likes to say, we're the Collaboration Capitol! Everybody is on the same page about How Wonderful things are going, except for a few misguided boo-birds.

I'm proud to be part of that pseudo avian species. Seeing things clearly has always struck me as being more important than seeing things through rose-colored glasses. 

It'd take me too long to critique all the distortions in Peterson's State of the City talk.

For now I'll content myself with noting her decidedly-weird disavowal of a City of Salem press release about a planned new police facility, a subject I've blogged about many times. (A compendium of my posts and stories from other "media outlets" can be found here.)

On Monday, May 18, the City of Salem Facebook page posted the press release.

It described the final report of a Blue Ribbon (is there any other kind?) Task Force the Mayor appointed to consider plans for a police facility and renovations to the Civic Center after an initial $80 million proposal met with strong community resistance.

Some projected cost figures were mentioned in the release:

Total cost for a modern 100,000-square-foot public safety facility -- including elements such as purchasing land, design costs, equipment and furnishings -- would be in the neighborhood of $50 million. 

The mayor’s task force has discussed a potential $50 million bond, payable over 25 years to finance the public safety facility. But the size and terms of a bond measure will be determined only after an architect makes recommendations and Salem City Council completes its review.

If voters approved a $50 million bond measure, homeowners would pay about 32-cents per $1,000 assessed value. For example, the owner of a home with an assessed value of $200,000 would pay an annual assessment of $63.35.

So there were three mentions of a $50 million police facility in three paragraphs. That number was associated with "in the neighborhood of" and "potential," indicating that the number was approximate and could change.

On the same day as the press release, May 18, the Statesman Journal published a story, "Task Force urges new Salem police station," that was based on what the City of Salem press release had said.
Download Task force urges new Salem police station

Here's what the story said about the cost of a new police facility, which included a few typos:

The total cost [for] a facility of that size, including elements such as purchasing land, design costs, equipment and furnishings would be in the ballpark of $50 million.

The task [force] discussed a $50 million bond that's payable over 25 years to finance the public safety facility.

If voters approved a $50 million bond measure, Salem taxpayers would pay approximately 32 cents per $1,000 assessed value. This means a house valued at $200,000 would pay an annual assessment of $63.35.

Sounds pretty darn accurate to me. The reporter, Brandon Southward, said "in the ballpark of $50 million." This fits with the more-or-less tone of the press release in regards to that cost figure.

But in her State of the City address, the Mayor had a minor hissy-fit. (I say minor, having personally observed and heard about from others her major hissy-fits.)

In a portion of the speech dealing with the police facility, Mayor Peterson said:

The location and price are not known yet, so I caution you to not see the price quoted in the media as "the final price." It was only an early estimate.

Hmmmm. 

The price "quoted in the media" came from the City of Salem's own press release, which wasn't exactly ancient history. How can the Mayor call the $50 million cost estimate publicized by City staff on Monday, May 18 an "early estimate" just two days later on May 20?

That $50 million number in the press release obviously didn't pop up out of the blue.

A City staffer must have talked with someone knowledgeable on the Blue Ribbon Task Force before writing the press release, and/or conferred with other City employees working on this project. 

So it's strange that the Mayor would incorrectly say that the media, a.k.a. the Statesman Journal, had quoted the $50 million as "the final price." Nothing in the press release or newspaper story implied this -- that the $50 million was set in stone.

Something is happening here. Like Bob Dylan's Mister Jones, I don't know what it is. I've just got some reasonable guesses.

If the Mayor didn't like $50 million being cited as the possible cost for a new police facility, this means that she either anticipates the actual cost being considerably higher or lower. Thus she wants to disavow the press release number now in anticipation of when the higher or lower number comes to be.

Now, Salem Community Vision has been pressing for a $30 million police facility, along with $20 million in seismic retrofitting and other renovations to City Hall and the Library.

Mayor Peterson isn't fond, to put it mildly, of how successful Salem Community Vision has been in pointing out the flaws in her original $80 million proposal -- since there is good reason to believe that both a new police facility and Civic Center retrofitting/renovations can be done for $50 million.

It's unlikely, then, that the Mayor is anticipating that the final cost of a new police facility will be markedly less than $50 million. This would put her on the same side as Salem Community Vison, which is difficult to believe.

More likely is that Mayor Peterson wants to leave the door open to the final cost of a new police facility being more than $50 million. 

Listening to her remarks at the final Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting, it was clear that the Mayor is still enamored of building a police facility close to the Civic Center, and maybe even on the original Mirror Pond site that is part of the Civic Center.

Sure, this would go against several recommendations of the Task Force, including not building on the Civic Center campus and not using expensive underground or elevated parking for a new police facility.

But since building a police facility adjacent to or on the Civic Center campus would likely raise the cost above $50 million, I'm suspecting that this is the most likely reason Mayor Peterson objected to the City of Salem's own press release that mentioned this figure.

The police facility saga has had lots of twists and turns over the past years. I'm sure more are to come. Stay tuned...

Salem City Club talk: Media-inspired fear distorts reality

I hugely enjoyed today's Salem City Club speaker, David Altheide. His topic was "The Fear Factor Today: Media-inspired Politics of Fear in American Life."

A sociologist, Altheide has done a lot of academic research on how fear is used to manipulate the citizenry in this country. Politicians and corporations do their share, furthering their special interests.

The media help out by dramatizing risks that aren't really serious, while minimizing risks that are. 

Altheide discussed numerous examples of this. For example, if you're old enough (as I am), you'll remember the pictures of missing children on milk cartons. Amber Alerts are the modern equivalent. 

When parents are asked about their greatest fear regarding their children, what they worry about the most, kidnapping tops the list, followed by school snipers, terrorists, dangerous strangers, and drugs. However the largest risks actually are car accidents, homicide, and child abuse -- the latter two usually being caused by a family member.

So the most dangerous place for children isn't school, it is their own home.

The number of child abductions by strangers nationally is very small, around 100 a year, but since the media give these so much attention, parents wrongly are led to fear a small risk. If they want to really do something to protect their children, driving cautiously in a safe car should be the top priority.

Guns also came in for discussion by Altheide. It is no coincidence that the United States has by far the highest homicide rate of any industrialized nation. We also have by far the greatest number of guns. 

Obviously guns don't make us safer.

Just the opposite: ready availability of guns leads to many more gun deaths per capita than in other countries. Yet when people hear about someone being killed by a gun, they get afraid. And that fear leads them to buy a gun. 

Which leads to more gun deaths, and more fear, and more gun-buying. Great for gun manufacturers and the NRA. Not great for everybody else.

The media is complicit in this, Altheide said, especially TV news. Crime stories comprise 1/3 to 1/2 of local news telecasts. I can confirm this, my wife and I being habitual watchers of the 11 o'clock news on Portland's KGW station.

Almost every night, the first ten minutes or so is devoted to shootings, rapes, burglaries, accidents, fires, and other dramatic events. You'd think that nothing is happening in Portland except scary nasty stuff. I fast forward through this crap, being thankful we record the news on our DVR before watching it.

As with child abductions, the media sensationalize low risks while often downplaying less dramatic high risks. About halfway through Altheide's talk it dawned on me that fear isn't really the problem; it is being afraid of the wrong things.

Not surprisingly, my rather obvious Big Idea had also germinated in the minds of other Salem City Club attendees. After the talk several dozen of us stayed to ask questions of Altheide and make some observations of our own.

The first questioner brought up the same subject I'd been thinking about.

How is it that something we should be fearful about -- global warming -- gets comparatively little attention from the media compared to other things we shouldn't worry about much, like vaccine effectiveness, Ebola, domestic terrorist attacks, and (most recently) the safety of train travel?

Altheide said that part of the reason is the ever-increasing emphasis on videos. Facebook is full of them. So is, of course, television news. If people can't see it, they click on to something else. Like cute kittens. Or derailed train cars.

In my question/comment, I said that fearfulness has evolutionary advantages. Those early Homo sapiens who worried about genuine risks -- a rustling in the brush could be a lion! -- lived, while overly relaxed don't-worry types didn't.

Thus it isn't fear that is the problem, since justified fear can motivate us to take action to protect ourselves. The problem is being afraid of the wrong things. Which means we need to both be aware of our emotional reactions to potential dangers, while also rationally assessing the actual risk to ourselves and others.

Slow-moving mostly-unseen dangers like global warming and a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake (an increasing worry of mine) aren't readily apparent in the same way as a terrorist attack is. Yet preventing further global warming and preparing for the Big One earthquake will save many more lives than obsessing over minor risks that strongly push our emotional Yikes! button. 

I liked how Altheide took on sacred cows like the police and military. Support for these institutions is largely based on irrational fears. Crime rates are dropping. The United States faces few threats from the armed forces of other nations.

But those who want to cut funds for police departments and the Defense Department so more pressing national problems can be addressed face a daunting task: breaking through the Fear Barrier erected by those who profit from current spending patterns.

Sure, it is important for the United States to have adequate policing and military forces. However, we already imprison our citizens at a vastly higher rate than any other country. And we spend much more of our GNP on defense than any other country.

What largely keeps the gravy train going are those who profit from Americans being fearful of crime and military threats. For example, the for-profit corporations who run many prisons and defense contractors. Fear can be highly profitable.

Also, politically advantageous. 

We now know that invading Iraq wasn't necessary to keep Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons, because this wasn't a genuine risk. But the Bush administration skillfully used fear to justify the invasion after 9/11.

And the Patriot Act was passed in a climate of fear, leading to greatly diminished civil liberties and intrusions on our privacy. Yet Altheide noted that all of the very expensive NSA wiretapping has possibly resulted in no more than three terrorist plots being disrupted (and maybe none).

A post-talk questioner said that he had lived in another country for many years, twenty-five I think it was. After returning to the United States, he was struck by the pervasiveness of fear in our public discourse -- something that isn't evident in other countries. Why is this?

Altheide said that our media industries (such as Fox News), along with other corporate interests (such as the prison and security industry) have a vested interest in manufacturing fear. It sells newspapers and attracts television viewers. 

Near the end of his remarks, Altheide noted how the Catholic Church, and now other religions, have also prospered by promoting fear. Eternal damnation in hell is a powerful fear, as is the fear of not being saved.

Those fears, of course, almost certainly are fantasies. There is no hell, and no salvation.

Likewise, many other fears have no basis in reality. We need to learn how to worry about what is truly worrisome, while being properly skeptical of media outlets, politicians, corporations, and others who want us to be afraid so they can profit from baseless fears.  

(Here's an Arizona State University piece about Altheide's take on the media's "discourse on fear.")

Lost in Salem: Councilor Bednarz' mile-long downtown bridge backup

One of Salem's city councilors, Warren Bednarz, needs some help. Let's give it to him! I love to be helpful. Don't you? 

He's lost the Mile-Long Rush Hour Downtown Bridge Backup that he assured the Mayor, other city councilors, and attendees at a recent city council work session was regularly happening because Salem doesn't have an unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for half-billion dollar Third Bridge. 

The No 3rd Bridge folks were the first to point out the lost Mile-Long Rush Hour Downtown Bridge Backup on their Facebook page.

COUNCILOR BEDNARZ USES THE BIG LIE

At the City Council Work Session on Monday night those of us in the audience were stunned to hear Councilor Bednarz tell his colleagues that traffic was regularly backing up "for a mile" downtown at rush hour because we don't have a 3rd Bridge. 

We've heard this before. It's the party line of the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce and their front organization the Third Bridge Alliance. It's a great example of the "Big Lie" that was invented as a propaganda technique by the Nazis in WWII. Hitler himself first used the phrase in his book Mein Kampf. Joseph Goebbels said "when one lies, one should lie big and stick to it." That's what we are hearing from Bednarz and the Chamber.

As we have reported here many times before, the counters on the Marion and Center Street bridges, that don't lie, have recorded Average Daily Traffic counts that have basically been flat for a decade or more.

More evidence can be gathered from the real time traffic cameras that the City has now deployed at the end of both the Marion and Center Street Bridges and on Commercial as it enters downtown from both the north and the south. There is also a camera at Wallace and Edgewater. Below are three photos taken yesterday: at about 5 pm on Marion Street and this morning at about 8 am on Center Street and Commercial St. S. heading into downtown.

Do you see any mile long backups?

I looked at this photo, and the others shown on the Facebook post. I couldn't see any mile-long backups either. So I emailed Bednarz yesterday morning, citing the "Councilor Bednarz Uses the Big Lie" post and saying:

Councilor Bednarz, the No 3rd Bridge folks have called you out on a “Big Lie” that you reportedly stated at the recent city council work session. 

What is your response? I’d like to write about this issue, but want to get your viewpoint first. It seems like there are two basic possibilities.

 

One, you were wrong about what you said. There aren’t really regular mile-long backups of traffic. In this case, one would assume that an apology/retraction is in order.

 

Two, you were right about what you said. In this case, I assume you will be able to present evidence that backs up your claim of regular mile-long backups downtown.

 

I look forward to your reply. Thanks in advance.

     — Brian

As of press time (geez, I love that phrase; it makes me sound kind of like a real journalist; of course, what I mean by it is that I'm about to drink a glass of red wine in my nightly hot bath, and I want to press "publish" first), I haven't heard back from Councilor Bednarz.

I sent him another email today, figuring that he might have been busy looking for the Mile-Long Rush Hour Downtown Bridge Backup and didn't notice my first message. 

Like I told Bednarz, at first it seemed to me that either he was wrong about the mile-long backups and just said this in a desperate attempt to bolster the very shaky case for the City of Salem spending lots of taxpayer money to press ahead with Third Bridge planning, or he was right and has evidence proving that Mile-Long Rush Hour Downtown Bridge Backups occur regularly.

But after some further pondering, I think we need to consider other possibilities. Here's some ideas that I've come up with. If anyone has additional ones, feel free to leave them in a comment on this post. Remember...

We need to help Councilor Bednarz find his Mile-Long Rush Hour Downtown Bridge Backups!

(1) Bednarz could be having some sort of weird flashbacks produced by an unknown cause that's making him see mile-long backups that aren't really there (psychedelics? prior living in Los Angeles?)

(2) Bednarz could be having visions of some other slice of the space-time continuum, such as New York City at rush hour, created by a wormhole that has found its way into his psyche (just watched Interstellar on DVD, which stimulated this notion).

(3) Bednarz could be under the influence of a brain implant surreptitiously installed in his cranium by the Salem Chamber of Commerce which makes him see things that support the Chamber's desire to waste a half billion dollars or more on building an unneeded Third Bridge.

(This also may, or may not, have happened to Sheronne Blasi, who, thankfully, was a city council candidate who wasn't elected.)

Whatever the reason for the lost Mile-Long Rush Hour Downtown Bridge Backup, we can't give up on looking for it. Warren Bednarz is a Salem City Councilor, one of the top elected officials in this town.

And we all know that elected officials always tell the truth, right? Right?

CNN Weed 3 medical marijuana special: "signs of revolution everywhere"

Sometimes (well, often) I worry about where the United States is heading.

Right-wing crazies, science deniers, government-haters, and religious zealots are doing their best to prevent this country from solving our many pressing problems. But in the midst of this negativity there are some encouraging signs of progress. 

Same sex marriage, along with gay rights, is on the verge of being universally accepted. Global warming is starting to be recognized as a major threat by more and more people. Even opponents of the Affordable Care Act are having a tough time denying its benefits.

And marijuana is rapidly losing its undeserved reputation as the Demon Weed. Here in Oregon, cannabis is now legal for both medical and recreational use (OK, after July 1 for the latter).

Watching physician Sanjay Gupta's CNN special, "Weed 3," last night, was highly encouraging. It was way more positive about medical marijuana than Gupta's previous reporting. 

I see signs of a revolution everywhere.

I see it in the op-ed pages of the newspapers, and on the state ballots in nearly half the country. I see it in politicians who once preferred to play it safe with this explosive issue but are now willing to stake their political futures on it. I see the revolution in the eyes of sterling scientists, previously reluctant to dip a toe into this heavily stigmatized world, who are diving in head first. I see it in the new surgeon general who cites data showing just how helpful it can be.

I see a revolution in the attitudes of everyday Americans. For the first time a majority, 53%, favor its legalization, with 77% supporting it for medical purposes.

Support for legalization has risen 11 points in the past few years alone. In 1969, the first time Pew asked the question about legalization, only 12% of the nation was in favor.

I see a revolution that is burning white hot among young people, but also shows up among the parents and grandparents in my kids' school. A police officer I met in Michigan is part of the revolution, as are the editors of the medical journal, Neurosurgery.

I see it in the faces of good parents, uprooting their lives to get medicine for their children -- and in the children themselves, such as Charlotte, who went from having 300 seizures a week to just one or two a month. We know it won't consistently have such dramatic results (or any impact at all) in others, but what medicine does?

It sure seems like medical marijuana is almost at the same cultural acceptance level as same-sex marriage. The debate on that issue is almost over. Now religious dogmatists are fighting over niceties, such as their supposed right to deny business services to same-sex couples.

Evidence for medical marijuana's effectiveness in treating various health problems should accumulate much more rapidly now, given what Gupta said in his newest special.

Roadblocks to federally sponsored medical marijuana research are disappearing. Interest in cannabis among medical professionals and patients is strong. Gupta showed people with post-traumatic stress, Alzheimer's, chronic pain, cancer, and other problems who are getting great results from medical marijuana.

The next step in societal acceptance is legalizing recreational marijuana.

Watching the Weed 3 special, I kept thinking, "If pot makes patients less anxious, enhances their happiness, centers them in the present moment, relieves discomfort, helps protect the brain, and fights cancer, then why the heck shouldn't it be legal for all adults?"

Especially since marijuana has few (maybe no) dangerous side effects, especially if consumed via a vaporizer -- which eliminates potentially harmful smoke. Pot is way safer than prescription drugs, as Gupta emphasized.

This pertains to a debate that began soon after my state legalized recreational marijuana last year: should Oregon end its medical marijuana program?

I tend toward "No," but can see decent arguments on both sides of the question.

While there isn't a sharp divide between "recreational" and "medical" users -- the psychological and physical benefits of cannabis accrue to both -- in general they have different needs and desires. The people who staff Oregon's current medical marijuana dispensaries are knowledgeable about the marijuana strains and potencies that are most suitable for patients with various health problems. 

Requiring medical marijuana patients to buy their cannabis in stores that serve everybody, both recreational and medical users, seemingly would be a step backward for them. Medical marijuana patients might even need to pay the $35 per ounce tax that will be charged recreational buyers.

I suspect that the Oregon legislature will hold off on ending the medical marijuana program. One of the provisions of Measure 91, the 2014 legalization initiative, was that this program would be unaffected.

So it makes sense to leave it alone for now, maybe with just a little tinkering around the edges. However, at some point I can see Oregon's medical marijuana program being terminated after the production and sale of recreational marijuana is firmly established in this state.

Free enterprise should come up with ways to serve all varieties of marijuana consumers, just as coffee drinkers have a wide variety of buying choices ranging from artisanal coffee houses to mass market mini-marts.

Some pot stores would feature "We feel your pain; specialists in medical marijuana" advertising, while others would tout "Get your buzz on!"

There will be bumps in the road, both in Oregon and nationally, as legal marijuana for all adult consumers becomes common. But it seems pretty clear that these won't stop progress toward pot being as socially acceptable as beer and wine in the near future. 

Salem's Police Facility Task Force makes progress by going backward

Sometimes going backward is the best way to start moving forward. That's what happened last night at a meeting of the impressively-named City of Salem Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Police Facility.

(I'm still waiting to see a Red Ribbon or Yellow Ribbon Task Force; will its members feel inferior?)

Here's a photo of conclusions that the task force voted to approve, which will be cleaned up and formalized by the chair, T.J. Sullivan.

(1) Look at financing options to tie up piece of land as soon as possible (prior to bond)
(2) Immediately obtain an architecture firm (confirm size and function; develop preliminary design); 20 year need, 40 year life; capacity to expand; 9-1-1 to be part of police facility
(3) Location to be determined based on [what's] recommended by architect; [?] recommendation; feasibility of site
(4) As central as possible
(5) One bond measure, just police

So after almost five years of unproductive planning -- see my previous post, "City of Salem planned new police facility in backwards way" -- the task force wisely decided to basically start over.

I was the first person to make a public comment at the end of the meeting. The initial thing I said was along this line:

At your last meeting I thought that what you talked about would have been a great discussion... five years ago. I feel the same way about what you did tonight. But, hey, better late than never.

What I was getting at, but didn't have time to speak about in detail (only had two minutes), was that on their own, in September 2010, a previous Mayor and top City officials decided that a new police facility should be built at the Civic Center.

This would require paving over much of Mirror Pond and building very expensive underground parking. A University of Oregon student project that did some preliminary work on this notion was turned over to a consulting firm, which refined the ideas.

Then, in June 2013 the City of Salem embarked on an effort to sell this Civic Center proposal to the public. Who turned out to be deeply skeptical of both the cost to built a new police facility and its already-decided location. 

This caused the Mayor to form the Police Facility Task Force in 2014. At first Mayor Anna Peterson tried to limit its charge to planning for a new police facility at the Civic Center. Meeting resistance, this was loosened up. 

But the political game still was obvious, as I noted in a January 2015 blog post.

The Mayor clearly wants a new police facility at the Civic Center. She appointed members of the Task Force. Some “away from the Civic Center” members were appointed to avoid giving an obvious stack-the-deck look to the group, but not so many as to run the risk of having “at the Civic Center” members being outvoted on key motions.

 

So in the battle of the motions, it looks to me like the Mayor and City Manager’s game plan was to have the Task Force approve siting criteria that could be used to justify the initial decision to build a police facility at the Civic Center, complete with very expensive underground parking, three stories, and an inability to expand the facility if future needs require this.

Well, fortunately things have changed. Task Force members Geoffrey James and Kasia Quillinan, among others, persuasively argued that alternative locations and designs needed to be considered. 

So instead of ending up with "majority" and "minority" reports, which would have made the already-tough selling job for a property tax-financed police facility bond measure even more difficult, it looks to me like the powers-that-be at City Hall, along with chair T.J. Sullivan, decided to bring James and Quillinan on board by making the Task Force's final recommendations less set in stone.

The game is still afoot, though (love that phrase). 

Sure, the size, design, location, and cost of a new police facility remain to be determined. As already noted, this is good news, since the previous Civic Center proposal was in a bad location, cost way too much, and was based on a design developed out of the public view with no opportunity for broad community input.

But now City officials will be tempted to revisit the mistakes of the past. The Mayor has been pressing to have City staff choose the police facility location rather than the Blue Ribbon Task Force. Bad idea.

Several sites immediately adjacent to the Civic Center reportedly are being considered -- the "Window to the West" property just west of City Hall, across Liberty Street; and the block south of the Library, which currently is occupied by several businesses. 

It would be much better if the Task Force continued planning for a new police facility. Watching the meeting last night, I was impressed with how the members are able to openly, honestly, and respectfully talk about their differing viewpoints.

Though I'm still somewhat worried that the final Task Force report will tilt too much in the direction of what the Mayor originally wanted, this is less of a concern given the decisions reached at last night's meeting.

There's a new worry, though.

The Task Force seems to be giving up on the other half of the original $80 million City of Salem proposal: seismically retrofitting City Hall and the Library to withstand the "Big One" earthquake that is a matter of when, not if.

(Renovating City Hall also was part of the proposal, but in my view this is a nicety, while earthquake proofing the Civic Center is a must.)

I was surprised to hear someone on the Task Force say that it would be a tough sell to get voters to approve a bond to improve the Civic Center buildings.

In my public comment I said that I disagreed:

All you'd need to say is, we don't want children using the library and city employees dying in an earthquake. After all, a big reason for a new police facility is that the current one would be buried under several stories of City Hall rubble after a large earthquake. Well, if it is good to save the lives of police staff, why isn't it equally important to save the lives of library patrons and city employees?

Here's the thing: Task Force members are appropriately worried that a $70-$80 million bond measure would be voted down if it included funds for both a new police facility and seismic retrofitting of the Civic Center.

However, estimates to build a police facility range from about $30 million to $50 million. The lower cost would be for a smaller facility, with surface rather than underground parking, perhaps a ways from downtown, and with less "bells and whistles." 

Seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library would cost about $15 million. So by choosing to build a lower cost police facility, a bond levy for both "public safety" projects -- new police facility, and earthquake proofing the Civic Center -- would be about $45 million.

Which is well below the $80 million of the original City of Salem proposal. 

City leaders could say:

We've listened to Salem's citizens. By building a lower cost police facility with surface parking away from the Civic Center, we've lowered its cost by at least $15 million. This happens to be the cost of earthquake proofing City Hall and the Library, which will save many lives when the Big One hits. Now we're asking Salemians to pay $45 million for both projects rather than $80 million. Citizens, you're getting a good deal.

I understand the allure of building a first class police facility -- big, beautiful, monumental, right next to the Civic Center. But I don't think Salem can afford that allure, if it means many lives lost when the Library and City Hall collapse after the Big One earthquake hits.

The Police Facility Task Force needs to face this moral dilemma head-on. The decision to give up on earthquake proofing the Civic Center in favor of a single-issue police facility bond should be revisited. 

Our police force is dedicated to "serve and protect." Along with firefighters, they would be the first to respond to a devastating earthquake that destroyed City Hall and the Library. They would risk their lives to save people buried in the rubble, which could include many children.

I also believe that if police officers knew that, by building a lower cost police facility away from the Civic Center that maybe wasn't ideal, but was damn sure good enough for their needs, this would save enough money to earthquake proof City Hall and the Library, they would say "Let's do it."

So... let's do it.

Budget $30 million for a new police facility and $15 million for seismically retrofitting the Civic Center. Ask voters to approve a single bond for both projects. Call it a "public safety" levy. I think it would have a good chance of passing. 

Germanwings crash spurs talk of self-flying planes. I'm on board.

Driving home today, I heard some interesting talk about self-flying planes on both the Michael Smerconish show and CNN.

The impetus was the recent crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, which was commandeered and flown into the ground by an apparently suicidal copilot. 

Smerconish asked listeners if they'd be OK with flying on a pilotless plane. Meaning, the "pilot" would be a computer endowed with artificial intelligence. I thought to myself, Sure, why not? 

This will surely come to pass eventually. It's just a matter of time.

Self-driving cars already are being tested. Regular cars are beginning to be equipped with rudimentary self-driving technology, such as systems that activate the brakes if a potential collision with a car in front is detected.

I agreed with Smerconish when he said that people in the future will look back at these 2015 discussions of self-flying planes and marvel, "How could they have doubted that this would be a good thing?"

What's evident is that the Germanwings tragedy has pointed out the fragility of human rationality. Not that this was ever in question, of course. But until recently there hasn't been a viable alternative to our reliance on Homo sapiens' brains for activities demanding complex decision-making. 

With the rise of artificial intelligence, the situation is changing.

Listening to the radio today, I was struck by how rapidly humans are being forced to consider the pros and cons of relying on artificial intelligence to do things that computers can handle better than us.

Looking back, we probably should have seen the current debate over cockpit security coming. The idea that hijackings can be stopped by strengthening the cockpit door is based on an assumption that the "dangerous people" are in the passenger area.

Now, after several pilots have taken over planes and killed everybody onboard, it is clear that the more basic problem is the human brain -- which works in mysterious ways, some life-affirming and some life-denying.

Preventing people from getting into a locked cockpit door has cleared the way for psychologically damaged pilots to take over the cockpit controls and crash the plane. Whatever is done with cockpit security, the weaknesses of the human psyche will produce problematic side effects.

So again, my attitude is Why not move toward self-flying planes? 

As I heard an advocate for this say, a plane's computer artificial intelligence is going to perform better in stressful situations, since it won't feel stress. It also can be programmed to be able to respond more quickly and appropriately to unusual events.

Someone skeptical, though, expressed a concern that a computer wouldn't be able to make a good decision about whether to take off in a dicey weather condition. He wanted a human pilot outside the plane to be able to override the artificial intelligence in certain situations.

In the beginning stages of self-flying planes, that probably makes sense. But it won't take long for worries to recede about the capability of aviation artificial intelligence, once it is clear that computers are better pilots than human beings.

We're standing on the edge of The Age of Robotics. Recently I heard a military expert say that within a couple of decades, wars will be fought by machines, not people. 

So if artificial intelligence soon will be demonstrably better at killing than we are, doesn't it make sense that artificial intelligence also will be better at saving lives?

(Assuming the Three Laws of Robotics are followed, other than in special situations such as war.)

Ted Wheeler makes good case for Oregon Retirement Savings Plan

I headed off to today's Salem City Club noon meeting thinking, this won't be very interesting. The subject was "Retirement Security (Or Not) for Oregonians: Can We Avoid a Crisis?"

Well, I was wrong -- mostly because I'd forgotten how fluently entertaining the speaker, State Treasurer Ted Wheeler, is. Likely he could make a talk on "How Paint Dries" interesting.

I've heard Wheeler speak several times before.

Whenever I see him, I feel grateful that Oregon has talented guys and gals such as Wheeler in state government. This thought also runs through my head: He'd make a great Governor someday. Probably won't happen, but it'd be terrific if it did.

Wheeler actually made SB 615, which creates an Oregon Retirement Savings Plan, a subject of captivating attention. The bill flowed from the report of a task force he chaired, whose Executive Summary starts off with:

The State of Oregon is facing a retirement security crisis. There is a substantial financial industry in the state and saving for retirement is a rational decision. Yet, many Oregonians are not preparing themselves for retirement. Experts recommend individuals save eight times their last annual income for a secure retirement. However, as of 2011, more than half of Oregon workers have saved less than $25,000 for retirement and more than a quarter have saved less than $1,000. 

Since the Salem City Club usually likes to have a debate/discussion on political issues, Wheeler said that he'd be doing some debating with himself, since he was familiar with the arguments against SB 615.

He did do a bit of Wheeler vs. Wheeler, but the reasons opponents of SB 615 have come up with are so lame, it wasn't much of a debate.

Basically, as one might expect, why is government involved with private sector retirement accounts? The answer being, because workers need a state-sponsored plan. 

Small businesses, Wheeler said, don't have much leverage in setting up a retirement savings plan for their employees. It takes time to do this, and financial firms aren't very interested in businesses with a small number of employees.

Plus, people have gotten used to their retirement savings being managed through their job. Ditto with their health insurance.

So even though an employee of a business that doesn't offer a retirement plan currently could, on their own, put 3% of their paycheck into, say, a Vanguard Total Stock Market index fund, most aren't going to do it unless this happens through an automatic payroll deduction.

Wheeler said that some business lobbying groups have come out against SB 615, but he hasn't heard from a single actual small business owner who had concerns about the bill. 

The Big Government Burden imposed by SB 615, he told the Salem City Club audience, amounts to two things. One, hand out a brochure. Two, add another payroll deduction to employee accounts, which can be done easily by either an outside payroll service or the business owner via Quicken, or whatever.

There would be no cost to employers, and only a small management fee charged to employees.The investment vehicle likely would be index funds, Wheeler said, which have very low expense ratios.

Investment firms would be asked to present proposals to the Oregon Retirement Savings Board (staffed by just two FTEs, which isn't a big expansion of state government). Since these would be existing investment products, the Board wouldn't need to do anything computer or software-wise, an admittedly sore subject in Oregon these days.

After listening to Wheeler, SB 615 looked to me to be a no-brainer "Yes" vote for Oregon legislators. Hopefully that will come to pass. 

I got to ask a question near the end of the program. It went something like this:

This is sort of a philosophical question and comment. You mentioned how some people object to being forced to spend a few minutes setting up a retirement plan for employees. But I suspect that most of these people are either members of churches where they do volunteer work, or otherwise spend quite bit of time doing other sorts of "good works."

So why is collective compassion through a vote of our representatives to help people through a required government program viewed by some as being less virtuous than individual compassion expressed through voluntary action? In Canada and most European countries, morality isn't viewed this way.

Wheeler said "good question." (However, he said that quite often during the Q & A.)

He reiterated some points he made before about individual business owners being fine with SB 615, while business lobbying groups raised more general Big Government objections. Wheeler noted that he'd talked with someone from Australia who couldn't understand what the big deal was with this bill. 

"In Australia," he was told, "this sort of plan is required and everybody offers it. End of story." Wheeler said that the United States is more individualistic and free market oriented. 

Not a good thing, in my view, when it comes to being compassionate to those in need.

There's no inherent contradiction between doing good works individually and voluntarily, and doing good works collectively and via government action. As Americans, we can and should do both.

Steiner drops Oregon vaccine mandate bill. Disappointing day for science.

On the whole, I've been happy with how the Democratic leadership in the Oregon legislature have been going about the people's business. 

But not today. 

Killing the much-needed bill that would eliminate non-medical reasons (philosophical and religious) for not vaccinating children was a stick in the eye both to the health of Oregonians, and to those, like me, who care about using science as a guide to social policy-making.

I just sent an email to Elizabeth Steiner-Hayward, after learning from a Statesman Journal story that she has dropped Senate Bill 442. 
Download Senator drops Oregon vaccine mandate bill

That's a big loss for Oregon, and a big win for science-deniers. We can now expect global warming deniers, evolution deniers, and others to emulate the tactics successfully used by the vaccine effectiveness deniers.

Here's what I said: 

Wow. I just learned that you’ve given up on the vaccine bill. Very disappointing for those of us, like my wife and myself, who believe sound science should guide legislative policy-making, not science-deniers.

You have just given global warming and evolution deniers a big boost, along with the many crazies who refuse to acknowledge scientific knowledge in other areas.

 

I guess you felt that the bill wouldn’t pass, so it wasn’t worth standing up for. Well, you’ve just made it more difficult for science to be taken seriously by the Oregon legislature in the future. 

 

It looks like all it takes to get Democrats in Oregon to surrender on a much-needed scientifically sound bill is for 150 science-deniers to assemble on the capitol steps, and generate a bunch of emails. Along with spouting lies about discredited scientific research.

 

Believe me, there are more of us in Oregon, I’m confident — people who want governmental policies to be based on facts rather than fantasies. Killing this bill has insulted and disrespected us.

 

Sorry to be so blunt. But that’s how I feel, as a proud liberal, Democrat, and supporter of science.

 

     — Brian

 

This is Steiner-Hayward's email address, if you want to share your own thoughts about what she did:

[email protected]

Let's make daylight saving time permanent, in Oregon and everywhere

Some Oregon state legislators want to do away with daylight saving time in this state. Bad idea!

We need to make daylight saving time permanent, giving Oregonians an extra hour of light in the evening year-round. 

Great arguments for doing so can be found in a Vox post that is aptly named, "It's time to make daylight saving time year-round."

Looking at the lobbying groups in favor of DST, however, hints at the real benefit. DST means that people who work a standard day shift (and kids who go to school during the day) get more daylight after work. Manufacturers like this because we tend to engage in leisure activities, take short trips, and buy things after work — but not before — so a longer DST slightly increases sales.

For the same reason, a year-round DST would also be nice for anyone who works inside and simply likes to occasionally see the sun during the short days of winter. It'd mean getting up when it's a bit darker out in exchange for an extra hour of light after work. In Washington, DC, for instance, sunsets in the dead of winter would be at roughly 6 pm, instead of 5, and sunrises would be at 8:30 am instead of 7:30.

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!"

Likely two anti-daylight saving time bills being sponsored by state Senators Kim Thatcher and Brian Boquist aren't going anywhere. Still, daylight saving time lovers need to send them and the Senate Rules committee a strong message:

Keep your damn hands off of my spring and summer evening daylight! Further, instead of doing away with daylight saving time, it should be made permanent, so Oregonians can have more light at the end of the day. 

Testimony in opposition to the bills to end daylight saving time can be sent to the committee administrator, Erin Seiler -- [email protected]

It'd be even better if Congress would make daylight saving time permanent everywhere, in which case DST would end up being simply... time. So says the end of the Vox article. 

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.

Another day, another nonsensical Statesman Journal editorial

One of the reasons I keep on subscribing to the Salem Statesman Journal newspaper, a Gannett USA Today clone that is failing our town, is that reading its editorials often gets my heart pumping faster with irritation.

I'm not sure if this substitutes for genuine aerobic exercise, but, hey, it might be health-promoting.

Even the irritation could be positive, since it leads me to mentally deconstruct the reasons I typically find the editorial page editor's (Dick Hughes) opinion pieces lacking in logic. Not as challenging as doing the New York Times crossword puzzle, but intellectually enjoyable.

Case in point: yesterday's "To protect the environment, build Keystone XL pipeline."
Download To protect the environment, build Keystone XL Pipeline (if the piece has been archived)

Wow.

As much as I detest this editorial, I'll give Hughes credit for coming up with an original argument. Rarely, if ever, do people concerned about the environment argue that building the pipeline is good for our one and only Earth.

Of course, it isn't.

But Hughes (who I assume wrote the piece) somehow considers that stopping our planet from experiencing disastrous global warming which threatens the viability of civilization as we know it is less important than possibly preventing some oil train spills.

When comparing the safety and pollution records of pipelines versus trains, pipelines win. Oil trains are not only inherently more dangerous, but locomotives are huge polluters.

Thus even though leading climate scientists say that it is imperative to leave most of the world's fossil fuels in the ground to prevent harmful warming beyond 2 degrees centigrade -- especially the Canadian tar sands that would be the source of the pipeline's oil -- our local newspaper believes otherwise. 

Vast amounts of oil in the Middle East, coal in the US, Australia and China and many other fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground to prevent dangerous climate change, according to the first analysis to identify which existing reserves cannot be burned.

...The study’s conclusion on the exploitation of Canada’s oil sands is blunt, finding production must fall to “negligible” levels after 2020 if the 2C scenario is to be fulfilled.

That's the biggest nonsensical UGH! in Hughes' editorial. Like so many other Statesman Journal editorials, it is impossible to follow the logic and evidence that leads to opinionated conclusions.

Why? Because the newspaper starts with a conclusion and conjures up ridiculous reasons to support the pre-determined end point.

A secondary ugh! is the absurd reasoning about "induced demand," a generally recognized planning principle. Building more roads and bridges typically leads to more congestion, not less, because people drive more.

Conversely, Oregon's pioneering land use system has shown that when urban growth boundaries constrain sprawl, more people bike, walk, and use mass transit rather than cars. More compact cities make this possible.

So Hughes is just making stuff up when he writes:

It's like fighting the Columbia and Salem river crossing projects to reduce society's dependence on vehicles. The traffic congestion doesn't go away. Rather, commercial and personal vehicles produce more pollution while idling in traffic.

He really needs to get out more. Even in virtual reality.

Do some Googling of Portland's transportation trends, Dick. Learn how commuting by bicycle and mass transit has increased after the city prioritized alternative modes of transportation.

Though I didn't enjoy this editorial, I did like many of the reader comments left on the piece. Including mine, of course. I'll share some below.
---------------------
NO 3rd Bridge

"It’s like fighting the Columbia and Salem river crossing projects to reduce society’s dependence on vehicles. The traffic congestion doesn’t go away. Rather, commercial and personal vehicles produce more pollution while idling in traffic."

This is a mischaracterization of why most of us are fighting the 3rd Bridge.

We are fighting it because it DOESN'T solve the congestion problem in downtown Salem to build a 3/4 mile long bridge through an earthquake liquefaction zone a mile north of downtown. Downtown commuters won't go miles out of their way to avoid the traffic.

We are fighting because, including debt service, the bridge project would end up costing nearly $1 billion over 20 years and requiring tolling the Marion and Center Street bridges, a local gas tax, a vehicle registration surcharge and a property tax increase in Salem.

We are fighting because the idiotic fixation on a 3rd bridge by a handful of elected officials is distracting us from maintaining the two bridges we already have and working with ODOT to retrofit them so they won't collapse in the next Cascadia megaquake which could come at any time.

When is the SJ going to wise up and realize that the 3rd Bridge is a terrible idea that is destined to fail? The only question is how much longer we will waste millions in discretionary regional transportation funds to plan something that will never materialize.
---------------------

Bobbie Cade

In addition to Mayflower Arkansas, think Kalamazoo and Yellowstone Rivers; think BP Gulf spill; think Climate Change storms such as Katrina and Sandy; think exploding gas tanks on trains such as in West Virginia and Lac Megantic, Canada.  

Think China with their air pollution - so bad they are working to switch to alternative methods to gas/oil as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, they're happy to burn the fossil fuels we provide, which pollutes our water as it leaves the ground, and our air as it returns after they burn it.

Think about your tax dollar being spent to study the 3rd bridge, a bridge that is not being built to withstand the expected mega-thrust earthquake. It'll collapse along with the two existing bridges which are not scheduled for seismic upgrading for another 40 years.  

Think about the studies which show that while population is increasing, fewer vehicles are on the road. Ask yourself why billionaires who own these gigantic companies need to make one penny more knowing their companies are killing us, and our planet.  

Unfortunately, not enough people know the facts, or they'd be driving less already. They'd be riding bicycles and they'd be begging for better bus service, They'd be promoting "leave it in the ground".

---------------------
Brian Hines 

So tell me this, Statesman Journal editorial board (a.k.a. Dick Hughes): Do you accept the scientific consensus about global climate change? 

Which is, the Earth is warming at a dangerously rapid rate; humans are primarily responsible for this due to greenhouse gas emissions; something needs to be done about global warming to preserve the habitability of the planet for human civilization as we know it.

If you do accept this, editorializing in favor of the KXL pipeline is absurd. Leaving most fossil fuels in the ground is essential if a disastrous degree of global warming is to be averted. 

Such is the highly persuasive conclusion of a study reported in the journal, Nature, recently. See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/25/this-is-the-real-significance-of-obamas-keystone-xl-veto/

Thus either the Statesman Journal has an indefensible position on global warming -- we accept this is happening, but humanity shouldn't do anything about it -- or climate change deniers inhabit the SJ editorial board. 

Please tell us which is true. 

Does the Statesman Journal deny the reality of global warming, or do you deny the necessity of dealing with it? One or the other seemingly is true, since you have come out in favor of burning as much of the Earth's remaining in-ground fossil fuels as possible, which will lead to disastrous effects. 

Why legal marijuana may spur changes in Oregon land use laws

Today I attended a 1000 Friends of Oregon meeting at the capitol about land use issues in the current 2015 session of the state legislature.

For me, the most interesting discussion involved Measure 91, the initiative voters approved last November that legalizes recreational marijuana. 

As reported in a blog post about an OLCC listening tour meeting in Salem this month, people are talking about Measure 91 leading to legal pot becoming this state's "Napa Valley" when it comes to tourism.

(Of course, if California legalizes marijuana soon, as is expected, the real Napa Valley and points north could become their own cannabis-focused Napa Valley.)

State Representative Ken Helm, a land use attorney, spoke about Measure 91 during part of the 1000 Friends meeting. Among various land use issues surrounding the legalization of marijuana (zoning, for example), he brought up something that hadn't occurred to me before.

Marijuana now is a legitimate agricultural crop. A high value crop. In fact, a very high-value crop. 

I realize that growing marijuana takes special equipment and skills.

But if I'm reading my scribbled notes from the meeting correctly, Helm said that in some parts of Oregon a single marijuana plant can grow to 18 feet tall and produce 8-10 pounds of pot. Since the retail price of marijuana buds is about $200 per ounce in medical marijuana dispensaries, a lot of cash can be generated by just a few plants.

Currently Oregon's land use laws restrict building a single-family home on EFU (exclusive farm use) land. I'm not sure if this 2008 Stoehl Rives legal overview, "Dwellings in the vineyard," is still up to date, but it seems to be, pretty much. The piece talks about vineyards, but is applicable to farm uses generally.

Ever thought about building your dream home out in the middle of a vineyard in wine county? Curious about buying vineyard property, but worried that you may not be able to build the desired family home? Or what if you run across a nice piece of property, and it has a dilapidated old farmhouse that's just not suited to your taste?  

These are common questions people may face when buying vineyard property in Oregon. When purchasing property for vineyard development or a planted vineyard, there are many factors to take into account before signing on the dotted line, but a key, although often overlooked issue, is whether applicable state and county land use regulations allow the construction and year-round use of a permanent residence. 

...To site a dwelling under the gross income test, a property owner is obligated to demonstrate that a vineyard on high-value farmland has produced at least $80,000 in annual gross income over the past two years, or alternatively $80,000 in annual gross income over three of the past five years. If the vineyard is on non-high-value farmland, then the hurdle is somewhat lower, and the property owner only needs to demonstrate that the vineyard has produced at least $40,000 over the past two years, or three of the past five years. 

Rep. Helm told us that there aren't plans to change this gross income threshold for farming generally -- just for marijuana grows. The reason relates to the small amount of land it takes to generate $80,000 from growing marijuana.

Someone couid have just a small parcel of EFU land, a few acres or less, and the current income threshold would allow building a home on farmland if the property was devoted to growing marijuana. 

Since Oregon's land use laws are intended to restrict "McMansions" sprouting up on irreplaceable farmland, Helm said the income threshold for marijuana growing may be raised to $160,000. Someone at the meeting noted that even this may not be high enough, given the high cash value of a small number of marijuana plants.

However, Helm also pointed out that southern Oregon, in particular, already has a thriving medical marijuana industry.

Growers there are devoted to providing quality cannabis for patients who need it, which often is low in THC and high in CBD (making it better for pain relief, without marked psychoactive effects). Thus he said that the state legislature needs to balance the desirability of making some changes to Oregon's land use laws, with not discouraging the growth of a new beneficial high-value agricultural crop -- marijuana.

There's got to be some middle ground here.

I can see why people should be prevented from making an end-run around land use laws by buying a few acres of farmland, setting up a marijuana grow site with a small number of plants that generates $80,000 of gross income every few years, and then getting the right to put a house on the land.

However, legitimate marijuana growers shouldn't be penalized just because their crop generates a lot more income per acre than farmland planted in other ways does.

It'll be interesting to see how the Oregon legislature handles this issue, given that most legislators favor both marijuana legalization and protecting farmland from residential development.

Will Oregon's low carbon fuel bill be horse-traded away?

This morning I went to the monthly meeting of the Woodburn Democrats group, getting both a free breakfast and the ability to take part in some interesting progressive talk. 

I'd been asked to say a few words about the Kitzhaber/Hayes scandal that led to our Governor's resignation, then lead a discussion. (Not that I, or hardly anybody else, is capable of leading Dems, well known for their like herding cats proclivity.)

Representative Betty Komp started off the meeting with some remarks about how the 2015 Oregon legislative session is going.

During the question and comment time, I told her that I was pleased with how the Democratic majority in both the House and Senate is pushing through important bills early on in the session, such as the low carbon fuel standard bill and the "Motor Voter" registration bill.

A bit naively, in retrospect, I said something like:

It'll be great to have the low carbon fuel bill passed before the legislature tackles the big transportation bill. I've heard that Republicans want to hold the low carbon bill hostage in order to get their votes on the transportation bill. But if the low carbon fuel bill is already passed, this will take away the potential of it being horse-traded away during the usual end-of-session negotiating.

If I'd read today's newspaper before going to the meeting, I might not have said what I did. Because when I got home, I saw this in a story about our new governor, Kate Brown.

Bills that come to her desk for signing will be treated the same way, Brown said. The only one she would commit Friday to signing is the "Motor Voter" bill that she championed early during the legislative session.

She said she supports the concept behind the low-carbon fuel standard bill that has generated controversy this year, but she did not say whether she would sign it into law.

l'm not sure what "treated the same way" refers to. It might be a reference earlier in the story to Brown deciding whether to keep Kitzhaber's staff members on a case-by-case basis.

Now, maybe it doesn't mean much -- Brown saying she hasn't decided whether to sign into law the low carbon fuel standard that's much beloved by Oregon environmentalists. But it might, as this would fit into the Horse Trading Hypothesis that I'd hoped was off the table.

Fitting into all this is an interesting post on Blue Oregon by Ronald Buel, "More highways! Fight climate change! (Wait a sec...)"

He points out the disconnect between Dems in the state legislature (1) backing an effort to fight global warming through the low carbon fuel standard, and (2) pushing a transportation bill that likely would include money for new roads, freeways, bridges, and other autocentric stuff.

It’s an article of Democratic Party faith in Oregon that climate change and global warming threatens our planet with devastation within this century.

This prevailing Democratic view follows the science that the human burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change and global warming, and that somewhere around one-third of this problem is coming from motor vehicles that burn fossil fuel in internal combustion engines on our highways. 

It’s also an article of Democratic Party faith in Oregon that our highway infrastructure needs to be built out at breakneck speed in order to deal with growing congestion on the state’s highways, so that our economy can thrive.

The annual Oregon Business Summit, held earlier this year, attended by thousands of businessmen, and capturing our leading politicians of both parties to speak there, recently proclaimed this congestion as the state’s number one issue.

The Democratic Party in Oregon seems led by the nose by unions who also love that argument, including particularly the building trades and the AFL-CIO, who are dying for these local union highway construction jobs that used to be so numerous but have virtually disappeared as people drive less and drive vehicles that use less gas per mile.

No one in the Democratic Party is trying to publicly reconcile these two inconveniently opposing points of view. 

In fact, politicians of all stripes in Oregon would prefer that there be no public reconciliation. If there were reconciliation, the politicians would all be negligent by not acting to prevent the devastation to the planet that will eventually be caused by man-made climate change.

That means rejecting the false arguments of the business and labor lobbies that we must somehow build our way out of job-stifling congestion with many large highway expansion projects.

Nicely said, Mr. Buel. 

At the Woodburn Democrats meeting I said that if the low carbon fuel standard bill is a fait accompli by the  time the transportation bill is voted on, Republicans will be faced with a choice:

Either sign on to the transportation bill (which almost certainly will require raising the state gas tax) or give up on getting some infrastructure projects for the rural parts of the state that they care about most.

I'm enough of a political realist to recognize that some new highway projects will need to be part of the transportation bill.

But these should be a lesser priority than maintaining the roads and bridges we already have, many of which are falling apart and/or are not earthquake-proof. Further, mass transit, bicycle lanes, and other forms of non-vehicular transportation should get a good share of the money in a 2015 transportation bill. 

So says 1000 Friends of Oregon, a group that knows what's best for this state.

1000 Friends is advocating for a transportation funding package that prioritizes safety, maintenance over new roads and highways, and adequately funds transit, pedestrian and bicycle improvements. These investments promote active transportation and decrease emissions, which in turn minimize the detrimental health impacts of single occupancy vehicle use and promote efficient land use patterns. Not budgeting for highway expansions would relieve future additional taxpayer maintenance burdens.

It'd be crazy for the state legislature to cancel out the environmental and economic benefit of a low carbon fuel standard bill by passing a transportation bill that fails to recognize the urgent necessity of moving away from outmoded "build more roads" thinking.

Reaction to Michael Davis' bizarre Statesman Journal opinion piece

I'll give Michael Davis, executive editor of the Salem Statesman Journal, credit for this: he stimulated a lot of online comment discussion by writing his decidedly weird "Oregon's fatal case of the Pulitzer pox."

As I said in the title of yesterday's post concerning Davis' rant about the Portland Oregonian editorializing in favor of Governor Kitzhaber resigning (which the Guv has done), Statesman Journal executive editor has some Oregonian envy.

At the moment there are 77 reader comments on this opinion piece.

Quite a few praised Davis for taking the Oregonian's editorial board to task in calling for Kitzhaber to resign before investigations into possible wrongdoing by he and his fiancee, Cylvia Hayes, had concluded.

However, a lot of comments echoed my feeling -- that the Statesman Journal failed to do any original investigative reporting of its own on this scandal, so it shouldn't be criticizing the Pulitzer Prize-winning Oregonian for kicking the SJ's butt both in the news and editorial sections.

Below is a selection of comments that resonated with me. Naturally, one is my own. I particularly liked the first one (a combination of two separate comments submitted by Mulrooney).

It is indeed strange that Michael Davis felt the need to editorialize that another newspaper's editorializing was inappropriate. Isn't the purpose of opinion pages to express opinions? Are we supposed to only read one paper's editorial page, because it has a godly sense of What Truly Should Be?

The Oregonian editors opined that Kitzhaber should resign. Nobody was forced to agree with them. But almost instantly, the Democratic leaders in the Oregon legislature agreed with the generally right-leaning Oregonian editorial board.

Sure seems to show that the Oregonian was more correct in its assessment of Kitzhaber than the Statesman Journal was.

Here's the reader comments that I liked:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Mulrooney 
Your position is that The Oregonian made an editorial charge too soon and they did that because they had won a Pulitzer before? So what should they have done instead? I mean, it looks like they were right. They have gone out on a limb to declare their position before a legal proceeding. While I'll stop short of calling that brave, I will use the outcome to determine how credible I believe they are in the future. 

You have also gone out on a limb to declare that The Oregonian was blinded by accolades and had they not been, the editorial board would have gotten the story right.

As a reader of both publications, what exactly should I do with your information? That's not a rhetorical question. Should I trust you more than The Oregonian?

 

Also, if your beef is not with the reporting but with the opinions (I assume you are talking about editorial articles) I would be surprised to hear that more people find the editorial articles more trustworthy than the reporting. If you are trying to warn us against putting too much faith in articles that are allowed to use flowery and potentiality convincing words, then I don't know what you want me to do with your editorial.

 

If you are implying that we are being tricked in any fashion, I would genuinely like that to be cited and referenced. But if this is anything that smacks of "God dangit! Why are readers believing The Oregonian? I bet it's those Pulitzer Prizes." I can tell you that it never entered my mind to use that notion. I didn't even know they had any until you wrote about that. 

I feel like I'm going to be ok. Thanks for trying to save me from joining a cult.

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

Lisa Richardson 

The governor had a choice: he didn't have to resign. He make that choice himself. If he was innocent of wrongdoing, he should have stated such, and not resigned. He's made no effort to even try some type of explanation. I for one, still wonder if he's having some medical issue, possibly age or stress related. He could have taken a leave of absence. In my opinion, I think he knows how the game is going to play out. I also think that Ms. Hayes was allowed to much power without oversight. Those are MY opinions. I do wonder why the SJ felt they had to lash out at the Oregonian, instead of reporting any "new" news from here in Salem. Apparently no staff here picked up on any issues. Perhaps that's because the staff has been cut so bare that we aren't really getting news here in town. Often I will find out about police activity from Portland stations way before anything is available here in town. That is a little bit nuts.

----------------------
Brian Hines 
It looks like executive editor Michael Davis has some Oregonian envy. As I said in a blog post today, the Statesman Journal got its journalistic butt kicked on the Kitzhaber/Hayes scandal by the Oregonian and Willamette Week.

http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2015/02/statesman-journal-executive-editor-has-some-oregonian-envy.html

Even though the SJ is right next to Oregon's capitol, it didn't do any original investigative reporting on this important story. And now Davis is taking the Oregonian to task for its superior news and editorial work. Huh?

As a Democrat I'm disappointed in Kitzhaber's resignation. 

However, if what he and Hayes did had been done by a Republican governor and his fiancee, I'd be calling for exactly the in-depth investigative reporting and editorializing that the Oregonian did, and the Statesman Journal passed on.

The big problem here isn't the Oregonian. It is the Statesman Journal's abdication of its journalistic responsibility to hold public officials accountable. I personally experienced this when Davis killed a story that had been written by a SJ investigative reporter about misdeeds by City of Salem officials involving downtown tree removals. 

That was shameful. So is this opinion piece, since it criticizes the Oregonian for being better at journalism than the Statesman Journal is.

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

Charlie Pluckhahn 

The combination of sour grapes and partisan defensiveness is really, really strange. Someone needs to distribute this editorial in abnormal psychology classes for analysis.

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

Debra Briggs 

So Michael Davis has egg on his face for not employing investigative journalists and suggests that a rival paper should be so incompetent.  

News flash Mr. Davis the people want news and facts about their elected officials. Nothing written by WW or the Oregonian was untrue.  

If you ever wonder why you are losing money and not winning Pulitzer prizes it is because you are afraid of your corporate livelihood. 

Woodward and Bernstein were just hacks to you right?
----------------------

Trent Klug 

Using Mr. Davis' logic, then he should have included former President Nixon and former Senator Packwood as victims of an over zealous press. After all, they resigned from office without being convicted. But they both suffered from the same disease: republican.

For the record I am glad they both resigned in shame.
----------------------

Michael Donnelly 

Unbelievable BS. Pulitzer Envy is more what it is! Do your job and start Investigating.

----------------------
Trent Klug 

How nice. A Saturday morning quarter back editorial supporting the disgraced soon to be former governor. What moral courage the Statesman Journal has. Where was your editorial board last week urging the Governor's retention? Why did you wait until after he resigned to show your support?
----------------------
Dorian Atkins 

Michael Davis must be competing with Dick Hughes for the spot of apologist-in-chief for the soon-to-be ex-governor. basically, he's putting all the blame for Kitzhaber's resignation on the newspapers that broke this mess wide open and dared to ask, not demand, that the governor resign because of it while coming within an inch of absolving Kitzhaber of any wrongdoing.

And it wasn't just the Oregonian calling for his resignation. I believe there were six other papers doing the same thing, and I don't see Michael Davis skewering them for their troubles. Kitzhaber broke his trust with the Oregonian people and undermined his ability to get the job done by A) knowingly turning a blind eye to his shack-up queen's shady dealings and B) helping to cover them up, as the investigation will no doubt reveal.

 

And I'm not saying this without cause to do so. Already both the state and the feds have found sufficient evidence to open investigations into the both of them, something that neither the state AG nor the FBI does lightly.

All in all, this whole article reads like a journalistic temper tantrum by an executive editor who is suffering from a bout of jealousy at getting beaten to the punch on the governor. better luck next time, Michael.
----------------------

Barry Shapiro 

Michael Davis's editorial makes as much sense as the rest of the Statesman Journal. While blaming the media is its own cottage industry, it is inaccurate here. I am certainly no fan of The Oregonian, but it, and Willamette Week did their jobs. They didn't fabricate the scandals, but uncovered them. The improprieties--from Cylvia Hayes to demanding emails be destroyed --needed to be exposed. Blaming the media for Governor Kitzhaber's downfall is like blaming Woodward and Bernstein for Richard Nixon's eventual resignation. I voted for the governor and I feel really bad about what has happened. But, please-- don't make the media the fall-guy. Maybe Mr. Davis should stick to holding court at that dairy restaurant and leave the journalism business to those that know what their jobs are all about. As it is--and I've said this before--the Statesman Journal is a pathetic newspaper. Between "The Home Page," "The Daily Download" and so on, there is precious little news actually in the paper. If I wasn't such a Luddite, I'd cancel my subscription...

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

Charlie Pluckhahn 

Holy smokes, what a weird editorial, and I'm not talking about the lighthearted "Portland Weird" kind of weird. By the way, you publish your newspaper in Salem, correct? What reporting, if any, did your publication do about the open peddling of influence in Kitzhaber's administration? Any at all? Inquirin' minds want to know, or at least this one does.

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

Trent Klug 

And remember what newspaper plant prints the SJ. The SJ like all the other papers didn't want to look. It took an alternative weekly to bring this all to light.
----------------------

Charlie Pluckhahn 

I grew up during the Watergate era. I remember skipping some classes at a summer program in 1973 to watch the hearings. It couldn't have been more obvious that Nixon was a crook, just as it couldn't be more obvious that Kitzhaber is a crook.

The defenses of "Kitz" from Democrats today are eerily reminiscent of the Republican excuses for Nixon back then. I'm embarrassed for the writer of this very, VERY odd editorial, and for Oregon's knee-jerk Democrats.

Statesman Journal executive editor has some Oregonian envy

Got to tell it like it is: The Portland Oregonian kicked the Salem Statesman Journal's butt with both its investigative reporting and editorializing on the Kitzhaber/Hayes scandal -- which has culminated in Governor Kitzhaber's resignation.

Today the executive editor of the Statesman Journal, Michael Davis, indulged in some petty journalistic sniping at the "bad girls" who run the state's biggest and meanest newspaper to the north.

His Oregon's Fatal Case of the Pulitzer Pox piece struck me as sour grapes rationalizing, given how the Statesman Journal was asleep at the wheel as this saga unfolded, seemingly doing no original investigative reporting of its own.
Download Oregon's fatal case of the Pulitzer pox

You think the Disneyland measles outbreak was dangerous?

How about the virulent strain of Pulitzer pox that overtook the five-member editorial board at our state's largest news organization?

What's Pulitzer pox, you ask? It's a swelling of the cranium following the awarding of journalism's top prize. When you are overcome by it, Pulitzer pox creates an insatiable craving for more awards.

To the trained eye, Pulitzer pox symptoms are easy to spot. The early stages produce ecstasy, euphoria and a thirst for champagne.

But in the weeks that follow, all the accolades make the swelling worse, compromising judgment and, in unfortunate cases, delusions of grandeur, high fever and delirium.

The Oregonian won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing in 2014. Apparently, they developed no immunity and it went right to their heads.

How else to explain the power-mad editorial suggestion on Feb. 4 that the duly elected governor of Oregon accede to their demand and resign?

Look, I'm a proud progressive who didn't want Kitzhaber to resign. At first.

But as more and more disturbing facts came out, and Kitzhaber wasn't able or willing to talk honestly and openly about them, my attitude changed.

So much so, I started to feel that even though the reporting and editorializing of the Oregonian and Willamette Week (Portland's alternative paper) irritated me in the beginning, these publications deserved a lot of credit for aggressively digging into the Kitzhaber/Hayes story.

I pondered how I'd feel if Oregon's Governor and First Lady were Republicans instead of Democrats. If it looked like they'd engaged in some sleazy stuff that could have been illegal, wouldn't I want this state's newspapers to dig into the story as deeply as possible?

Which would include opinion pieces as well as news stories. The two aren't really separate, though Davis and other newspaper editors like to pretend that they are.

Consider: the Statesman Journal published an editorial saying that Kitzhaber should stay in office until the results of an ethics investigation were revealed in March. And, as already noted, the Statesman Journal news team apparently didn't do any original investigative reporting, even though the newspaper is in Oregon's capital, just a few blocks from the capitol building.

I readily admit that my dislike of Michael Davis' "Pulitzer envy" piece also is fueled by his killing an investigative reporter's story about a tell-all report I wrote about the needless destruction of five beautiful, large, healthy downtown trees by City of Salem officials, who made a backroom deal with the U.S. Bank president.

I've written about how Davis wimped out on challenging the local powers-that-be in several blog posts.
Truth Bomb #1: The Statesman Journal is failing Salem
Truth Bomb #2: Why I don't trust City Hall and the Statesman Journal
Investigative reporting: still alive in Salem and elsewhere?

The relevance is that with the Kitzhaber/Hayes story, the Statesman Journal also failed to stand up for the broad public interest over narrow special interests. Yes, as a Democrat, in this case I and other liberals arguably are part of the "special interest" group. 

But the truth about possible wrongdoings should be actively pursued by journalists, no matter who did the seeming wrongs. 

It sure looks like the Oregonian was on the right track when it aggressively dug into the Kitzhaber/Hayes story, while the Statesman Journal sat on its reportorial and editorial haunches, letting others do the investigative journalism.

Now the FBI has launched a criminal investigation into this matter, indicating that underneath all the early-on scandalous smoke there actually was some potentially illegal fire.

Given the Statesman Journal's passivity with doing investigative reporting on this and other important stories -- among which my U.S. Bank tree report was one-- almost certainly Michael Davis doesn't have to worry about his newspaper being afflicted with Pulitzer pox. 

The Statesman Journal is in no danger of being awarded one so long as it chooses to be a frothy USA Today clone that cares a lot more about generating online "clicks" than pursuing solid investigative journalism. 

Using marijuana doesn't increase the risk of a car accident

Ha! I should be a marijuana researcher for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Over four years ago I blogged, "Marijuana users can drive just fine -- vote yes on Prop 19."

I learned many things during my college years (1966-71) at San Jose State University. One was that heavy marijuana users, a.k.a. "stoners," could drive just fine while under the influence.

I can personally testify to this. Oh, man, I sure can.

...How do I know? I'm alive.

And I never even got into any sort of auto or motorcycle accident while driving around the San Francisco Bay Area in various states of psychedelicized consciousness for the better part of two years during the most intense period of my getting high in college phase.

Me and my friends would zip up to "the City" in my 57' VW bug with smoke pouring out of the windows. Ditto when we'd drive over curving roads in the Santa Cruz mountains in the middle of the night.

I'd much rather be out on the road with people who have imbibed marijuana than with alcohol drinkers. If legalizing marijuana in California leads to more stoners and fewer drinkers, this will make the streets safer, not more dangerous.

Now a NHTSA study has proven what my personal experience showed. Marijuana users are no more likely to have a car crash, while those who drink alcohol and drive are seven times more likely.

The Washington Post reported on the study in "Stoned drivers are a lot safer than drunk ones, new federal data show."

A new study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finds that drivers who use marijuana are at a significantly lower risk for a crash than drivers who use alcohol. And after adjusting for age, gender, race and alcohol use, drivers who tested positive for marijuana  were no more likely to crash than [those] who had not used any drugs or alcohol prior to driving.

Hopefully Governor Kitzhaber and others who are calling for Oregon to establish a test for "stoned driving" will take this study to heart. When Oregon voters legalized recreational marijuana last year via Measure 91, impaired driving laws were unchanged. 

Yet Kitzhaber wants some sort of marijuana test akin to that used for measuring how much alcohol is in a person's body.

Kitzhaber also wants OLCC and lawmakers to show how a regulated market will reduce the black market for recreational marijuana, and what can be done to devise a test — comparable to a breath test for alcohol — for determining whether a driver is under the influence of marijuana.

The problem is that marijuana is very different from alcohol. The NHTSA study shows that using marijuana doesn't impair driving like alcohol does. Further, even if a test finds that marijuana is in a person's body, this doesn't mean that he or she is "under the influence" of pot.

As the Washington Post story says:

There are a whole host of factors why detectable drug presence doesn't indicate impairment the way it does with alcohol.

"Most psychoactive drugs are chemically complex molecules, whose absorption, action, and elimination from the body are difficult to predict," the report authors write, "and considerable differences exist between individuals with regard to the rates with which these processes occur. Alcohol, in comparison, is more predictable."

In heavy marijuana users, measurable amounts of THC can be detectable in the body days or even weeks after the last use, and long after any psychoactive effects remain.

Several states have passed laws attempting to define "marijuana-impaired driving" similarly to drunk driving. Colorado, for instance, sets a blood THC threshold of 0.5 nanograms per milliliter. But that number tells us next to nothing about whether a person is impaired or fit to drive. The implication is that these states are locking up people who are perfectly sober.

So like I've said before, the Governor and Oregon legislature should stifle any impulse to modify Measure 91 before it even has been implemented. Especially when it comes to establishing a test for whether someone who is driving has marijuana in his or her system.

The NHTSA study shows that this really doesn't matter, safety-wise. In fact, Oregon's roads would be a lot safer if everybody who now drinks and drives instead got stoned and drives. 

Sure, ideally both alcohol-users and marijuana-imbibers would refrain from driving. But this isn't going to happen.

Given this reality, drinking and driving should be discouraged, while using marijuana and driving should be tolerated -- since marijuana use doesn't increase the chance of getting in an accident, while alcohol use does.

Liberal me ponders Oregon's Kitzhaber-Hayes "scandal"

Had to put those scare quotes around scandal in the title of this post, because I really don't know how much to make of all the brouhaha swirling around Oregon's Governor and "First Lady" (more quotes -- they're engaged but not married, which adds to the intrigue).

My knee-jerk reaction, being a liberal/progressive who is a strong supporter of Kitzhaber, was that the Portland Oregonian's editorial calling for him to resign was a bunch of baloney. As is the outrage being expressed by Republicans in this state, including the guy Kitzhaber beat last November, Dennis Richardson.

But it bothers me when conservatives excuse stuff done by a right-wing politician that they'd freak out over if a leftie did the same thing.

Consider George W. Bush's "I'm the decider" attitude.

He claimed that he didn't much care about public opinion. He just acted according to his heart, decisively and without backing down from criticism. Yet when Obama issues executive orders in a similar fashion, cries of Imperial Presidency! ring out from the GOP.

So I'm trying to avoid falling into the same psychological trap: ignoring facts about Kitzhaber and his partner, Cylvia Hayes, that would be red meat for liberal me if our Governor and First Lady were Republicans, rather than Democrats.

At the moment I'm in a nether zone, unsure whether there is anything substantial behind the allegations of wrongdoing. For sure, this is a mini-scandal in comparison to what's gone on in other states and Washington, D.C.

Being an avid fan of House of Cards, a Netflix series about Washington politics, it's clear that Kitzhaber and Hayes are the immoral equivalent of T-Ball baseball players compared to the Big League shenanigans of Frank Underwood and his equally sleazy wife.

I just read through the latest breathless revelations posted by Willamette Week's Nigel Jaquiss, a top-notch investigative reporter. It's just tough for me to find much, if anything, that warrants Kitzhaber's resignation. 

Yes, Hayes acts in ways that suggests she has a healthy ego, desire for power, and ambitions to change the world while also benefitting herself. Which describes just about every person in high political office. Along with, often, their spouse.

it seems to me that Governor Kitzhaber mostly is being charged with guilt-by-association, due to his obvious closeness to Cylvia Hayes.

However, his now-fiancee didn't tell him about a spurious marriage to a man wanting a green card to stay in this country, nor her involvement with a planned marijuana grow that went awry. So I'd find it easy to believe that much of what Hayes did as First Lady passed under his gubernatorial radar.

Not all, but much of it.

Go Local PDX has reported that one of the supposed scandals, Hayes' lobbying for clean energy after getting a $118,000 fellowship, actually was on the up-and-up. So there goes one reason for outrage.

As shocking as it is to me, being a frequent and passionate critic of the Salem Statesman Journal, I like the editorial that will be in tomorrow's paper: "Voters could try to oust Kitzhaber -- but not so fast."

Legislators hire fiancees, spouses or other family members as their legislative aides. Current legislators or past officials are hired by colleges, community colleges, nonprofits and businesses because of their connections. After politicians are elected, they often hire their campaign workers for government positions.

Those realities do not excuse any missteps by Hayes or Kitzhaber, whether intentional or inadvertent. But it would be wrong for Oregon to excoriate the first couple for behaviors that were deemed acceptable for others.

Good points.

Let's see how the Oregon Ethics Commission rules on this issue next March. Let's not make premature judgements based on incomplete information. Let's remember that a few editorial board members at the Oregonian calling for Kitzhaber to resign are just that -- a few individuals. 

"Marijuana could be Oregon's Napa Valley": OLCC Commissioner at Salem meeting

After attending last night's Listening Tour meeting in West Salem of the OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission), which is charged with implementing legal recreational marijuana in this state, I came away with a very strong feeling that, yes indeed, the times really are a'changing when it comes to pot.

Several hundred people attended the meeting. I got there fifteen minutes early, and the area set aside for seating was already filled up. Sliding partitions had to be opened up to accommodate the larger-than-expected crowd.

There was an interesting mix of folks who had come to express their views about how the provisions of Measure 91, the marijuana legalization initiative that passed with 56% of the vote last November, should be implemented by the OLCC.

As I walked to the building from the parking lot, I encountered a guy who was talking to anybody within earshot about how many children died, if I recall correctly, from alcohol poisoning last year. Thirty-six, I believe it was. 

Then he said, "And how many died from a marijuana overdose?" I knew the answer! "Zero," I told him. "Right!" he approvingly said to me.

This set the tone for the two-hour meeting.

I sort of expected that there would be some anti-marijuana types there who wanted to urge tight control over the Demon Weed. Well, if this was the case, they kept their mouths shut. Everybody who spoke from the audience was in favor of legal weed. The only debate was how to go about it.

The chair of the OLCC, Rob Patridge, kicked off the meeting with a slide show about the provisions of Measure 91. He readily admitted that he had opposed its passage, but now was committed to making marijuana legalization work.

He sounded sincere.

Still, the Oregon Legislature is in session, and several bills have been introduced that would undermine Measure 91. Governor Kitzhaber, irritatingly, is pushing for changes even before this state has gotten to see how well the carefully written and researched citizen initiative will work.

Patridge repeatedly said that the meeting wasn't about re-litigating Measure 91. Unless the legislature changes the statutory provisions of Measure 91, the OLCC has to work within its boundaries. 

Two other OLCC commissioners attended the meeting, Marvin D. Révoal and Michael Harper (I didn't recall this at the time, but his bio says that Harper played for the Portland Trailblazers in the early 1980s). Révoal was outgoing and outspoken, uttering some crowd-pleasing lines about legal weed early on:

"This is our Silicon Valley! This could be our Napa Valley!"

I believe it. There were plenty of well-dressed men and women in the audience who looked more like marijuana entrepreneurs than typical legal pot advocates (assuming there is such a thing, "typical").

Indeed, a concern expressed by several people was that big-moneyed out-of-state corporate types would come to Oregon and try to dominate the production and sale of marijuana. Clearly most in the room agreed with them, wanting the marijuana industry in this state to be much more akin to craft beer than Budweiser.

Smartly, the OLCC has hired a professional facilitator to oversee the audience participation portion of these Listening Tour meetings. Salem's was the third, the first two being in eastern Oregon.

She did a great job. This was the best organized meeting of this sort I've ever been to.

At a welcome table, attendees were given small round stickers that they could afix next to a variety of topics listed on easel boards inside the meeting room. The topics that got the most stickers were brought up first during the audience participation session that took up most of the two hours.

Each person was given green, yellow, and red cards.

These were held up to indicate agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement about a statement regarding how to implement Measure 91. The moderator would look around the room, say something like "Most people agree with this," then ask various people to explain their "vote."

Great way to run the meeting. The OLCC commissioners would chime in from time to time with questions and comments of their own, but mostly the moderator served as the neutral person trying to gauge the tenor of the audience on key issues.

The most unanimous vote was on the need for testing of marijuana products, particularly for purity. I don't think anybody disagreed that this needed to be done. (It already is, I'm pretty sure, for medical marijuana.)

Clapping occasionally burst out when holding up a colored card wasn't enough for the audience to register approval or disapproval of some statement. As already noted, "Don't allow out-of-staters with huge grows" got considerable applause.

As did, "Don't let local governments set grow limits."

During the concluding open mic comment period, this advice by someone to the OLCC was received warmly: "Don't think of ways to restrict; think of ways to benefit Oregon."

Something I said got considerable applause also. I held a red card up to a statement about requiring retail marijuana outlets to be located at least 1000 feet from schools. This question got a mixture of Yes, Not Sure, and No responses.

Being a "No," the moderator pointed at me and said, "Tell us why you feel this way." I said, best I recall:

I just haven't seen any compelling reasons why retail stores shouldn't be near schools. My daughter, who is 43, now admits to me that when she was in elementary school, she stopped by a 7-11 on her way home to buy candy. Beer and wine were sold in that store! Somehow she survived. This seems to me to be part of a Demon Weed mentality that doesn't make any sense -- the idea that marijuana is some sort of Death Ray that can zap children if they get within 1000 feet of it.

That Death Ray thought just popped into my head as I was talking. It got laughs and applause.

The next audience member called on by the moderator looked at me and said, "I agree with that guy." But then went on to explain that his worry is about the smell of marijuana emanating from a store and entering  children's noses as they walk by.

OK. However, I've walked by several medical marijuana dispensaries and never smelled anything. Plus, it isn't true that you can get high by just smelling marijuana. Unfortunately.

A story in today's Statesman Journal has more details about the Listening Tour meeting.
Download Salem pot meeting: Less regulation is more, hundreds say

One of the OLCC chairman's slides struck me intensely when it popped onto the screen at the end of his opening presentation. This is where you go to learn how Oregon state government is implementing the legalization of recreational marijuana in this state.

My feelings, in part, related to a previous blog post of mine, "Oregonians, please legalize marijuana to honor... ME!" Here's how the post started off:

Hey, so maybe the title of this blog post sounds self-centered to you. What do you expect, dude? The author, moi, is a 65 year-old baby boomer. I'm proudly part of the Me Generation. 

So naturally I see everything as revolving around the Flower Child center of the universe that we baby boomers brought into being back in the 60's. 

Me especially, since I was in college at San Jose State University from 1966 to 1971.

You know, the Bay Area not-Stanford and not-UC Berkeley. The ugly duckling to the south. Which for me and my friends was just a short 57' VW bug smoke-filled drive away from San Francisco: Haight-Ashbury, Winterland, Fillmore, all things psychedelically bright and beautiful.

We weren't smoking cigarettes.

Oh no, we were the freaks, the hippies, the potheads, the stoners, who brought marijuana out of the societal shadows and made it, if not respectable, damn ubiquitous for our generation.

In a sense -- and I can understand if you'd like to make that "In a pitifully marginal sense" -- we were akin to the courageous demonstrators of the Civil Rights movement, the determined feminists of the Women's Rights movement, the brave initiators of the Gay Rights movement, the in-your-face protestors of the Anti-Vietnam War movement.

We set out to change society one toke at a time.

Whether zoning out to Cream, Jefferson Airplane, and Hendrix, or demonstrating that frisbee skills are not lessened one bit by being high (nor driving skills, in my experience), we were unknowingly laying the groundwork for what now seems to be a groundswell of support for changing this nation's marijuana laws.

And now it's happening. Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon.  Bit by bit, these United States are looking upon marijuana in a way that seemed impossible back in the 1960's. 

Rationally. Non-fearfully. Scientifically. The meeting last night brought this home in a way that I hadn't felt before I sat with hundreds of other people to talk about legal marijuana.

Oregon Guv and Leg, just say no to changing marijuana law

What the hell are Governor Kitzhaber and some Oregon legislators up too -- trying to undermine Measure 91, which legalized recreational marijuana in November 2014, even before it has gone into effect?

It's deeply insulting to the 56% of Oregonians who voted "Yes" on Measure 91. 

Look, I understand that a minority of people in this state don't want legal pot. But a freaking clear majority do! 

There was an intense debate about the merits of Measure 91 for months prior to the election. Publicity certainly wasn't lacking about what it would do. 

Tax marijuana at $35 an ounce. Allow for its regulated sale. Prohibit cities and counties from imposing their own taxes. Preserve the medical marijuana program unchanged. Permit localities to ban the sale of pot, but also after a vote of the people. Let Oregonians possess eight ounces of marijuana and four plants at home.

I followed Measure 91 closely, being very much in favor of it. Nationally, observers of the United States' archaic approach to marijuana policy called Measure 91 the new "gold standard" in this area. 

So come on... let's give Measure 91 a try before declaring it a failure.

The drafters of this ballot initiative studied the experience of Colorado and Washington, which legalized marijuana two years earlier, in 2012. They did a great job, coming up with a way to legalize marijuana that blended the best in those states, while avoiding the worse (such as excessively high taxation in Washington state).

It bugged me, big-time, to read a front-page story in The Oregonian today, "Kitzhaber considers tighter pot limits." 

Gov. John Kitzhaber expressed concern Tuesday about how much marijuana Oregonians would be allowed to possess at home under the new legalization measure -- and he indicated that he might ask legislators to seek lower limits.

...Kitzhaber opposed the legalization measure, saying he thought Oregon should wait to see how Washington and Colorado fare with legalizing the drug. 

In addition to looking at the home possession limit, Kitzhaber also questioned whether the Oregon Health Authority should continue regulating medical marijuana separately from the new market in recreational pot.

Here's the thing, Guv.

You opposed Measure 91, but you were almost entirely silent during the lengthy debate about marijuana legalization in Oregon. If you were so concerned about certain provisions in Measure 91, you should have argued against them prior to the November vote. 

You didn't. Measure 91 passed. Easily. It is the law in Oregon now.

Those of us who voted for Measure 91 knew that the OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission) would need to come up with rules and regulations to implement the new law. But we didn't expect that Oregon's Governor and some state legislators would try to rewrite the law before it was implemented.

Leave it alone. Implement Measure 91 as the voters passed it.

If some changes need to be made a few years after it has been implemented in 2016 (when marijuana sales are to start), the 2018 Oregon legislature can consider this. 

Here's some reader comments on The Oregonian story (which total 425 so far) that I heartily agreed with:

More people voted for 4 plants and 8 ounces than who voted for the Gov. This should put things in perspective.

There's no limit on the amount of booze I can have in my house. We should treat pot more like alcohol.

Is the government going to start dictating how much beer or alcohol we can have in our homes as well?  What about tobacco.  Now that marijuana is legal, it is time to stop demonizing this product.  Yes, some will abuse it, like everything else in life.  But it is legal, it has benefits for some, and it is an intoxicant, like alcohol and cigarettes.  Stop the nonsense Salem!!  

Kitz, please quit trying to enforce anything. Just let us grow our own weed and leave us alone. Yes, we know that 4 plants will produce more than 8 ounces. Haha, we voted and we won. 

As for the merging of the programs, while it does make sense to have one body regulate all marijuana, it also still makes sense to have two programs. Marijuana has been deemed to have medicinal properties for some ailments. Since you don't tax our Vicodin you shouldn't take our medical marijuana.

Kitz, you're a doctor.  If you had to, knowing full well that alcohol kills people and destroys lives, which would you choose, monitoring every action of every marijuana user or every action of chronic alcoholics. And anyone who is a radical anti-pot extremist who gives alcohol a pass is a hypocrite beyond description!

I would like to see marijuana treated more like wine or beer. I support regulation, but I don't want to see regulations imposed on marijuana users that we don't see with other products that adults use that are demonstrably more dangerous.

Prohibitionists never understand how their decisions fuel the black market that they fear so much. The voters voted. Tweaks to M91 should remain minimal for a few years. This is a dumb move.

Must-see: The Health Care Movie. I loved it!

Last night I got to watch The Health Care Movie in a marvelous way.

In a living room on a big screen TV. For free. With the filmmakers, Laurie Simons and Terry Sterrenberg -- who now reside right here in Salem, Oregon. Here's the trailer.

 

After the showing I told Laurie and Terry that their movie about the American and Canadian health care systems was one of the best "cause" documentaries I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot. 

The production is highly professional: beautifully edited, creative, humorous in parts. Most importantly, the movie is deeply moving.

I spent quite a few years as a health services researcher, health planner, and executive director of Oregon Health Decisions, a bioethics organization. Though I've been out of the health policy field for a long time, I consider myself pretty well informed in this area.

The Health Care Movie, though, opened my eyes to several important facts.

I wasn't much aware of the early efforts in this country to give every citizen access to health care, and how sleazily these were undercut by vested interests.

Nor did I know much about how the Canadian health care system got going (it is called Medicare in the movie, sort of jarring for old folks like me who are happily enjoying the benefits of the United States' similar 65+ single-payer system).

The person-on-the-street interviews with people in both Canada and the United States are terrific. These were done by Portlander Lindsay Caron. She has a very engaging personality and onscreen presence. A "demo reel" I found on You Tube shows Caron doing her thing.

Collections of Caron's interviews can be viewed here and here. Below is part one.

 

The film also shows interviews with leading Canadian politicians and, I recall, the head of the Canadian Medical Association. It's clear that Canada's single-payer health care is highly popular, though naturally not without flaws. 

Canada spends about half as much per person on health care as the United States does, yet has better health outcomes. This wasn't new news to me. But seeing Canadians talk about their Medicare was.

In our group's post-showing conversation about The Health Care Movie, we talked about how different Canadian attitudes toward helping their fellow citizens is.

Bluntly put, us Americans come off looking self-centered and selfish by comparison. Which is fair, because we are. We put too much emphasis on indvidualism, and not enough on promoting the common good. Sadly, our screwed-up health care system reflects this messed-up valuing of competition over compassion. 

Some people are bound to end up on the bottom of society's rise-to-the-top game. In Canada, nobody has to worry about suffering from a lack of health care if they do. In the United States, even after passage of the Affordable Care Act many citizens don't have health insurance.

The movie says the number is fifty million. At that point filmmaker Laurie said, "It's now forty-two million." (Since the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, has brought health insurance to eight million.)

We can do a lot better. The Affordable Care Act is a good first step.

However, a single payer system -- aptly termed "Medicare for all" -- would be a vast improvement. Costs would be lower because most of the administrative overhead of private insurance companies would be eliminated, along with the multi-million dollar annual executive salaries.

Oregon, Laurie and Terry told our group, could be the first state to implement a single payer system.

On February 11 Health Care for All Oregon is having a noon rally on the capitol steps here in Salem. Watching The Health Care Movie convinced me I should attend the rally.

My wife and I are fortunate to be on Medicare.

After so many years of suffering through Blue Cross of Oregon's double-digit premium increases, along with regular bureaucratic annoyances aimed at denying coverage for needed medical care, we're hugely happier to be on a single-payer system.

Everybody in this country should have what we enjoy, not just those over 65. 

The Health Care Movie makes this clear. It can be viewed online for a mere $4.99. Do it. And if you live in Oregon, come to the February 11, 2015 rally (here's a flyer).

Let's make Oregon the first state to show that a single payer system for everybody can work in this country as well as it does in Canada.

Oregon is fortunate to have a great state court system

At today's Salem City Club meeting, "The State of the Oregon Courts Address," I chose a good table to sit at after walking over from the food table, a vegetarian lunch cradled in my hands.

The speaker, Honorable Thomas A. Balmer, Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, was sitting next to me.

I thought I recognized him from his talk on the same subject last year. A confirming clue was him saying, "The speaker has to get here early and eat fast, or be hungry during his talk."

Balmer and I had a pleasant conversation before the meeting was called to order. He was so casual, pleasant, and unassuming, I pretty much forgot that I was talking to Oregon's Chief Justice. 

Thinking back, I don't really regret any of my off-hand remarks.

However, when Balmer told me that the court system doesn't have a typical legislative agenda, I might have phrased my response in a bit more refined manner than my, "Yeah, it wouldn't be very surprising to legislators if you said Hey, we're going to enforce the laws of Oregon this biennium!"

After hearing Balmer speak and answer questions, I had a simple overall feeling. Us Oregonians are really fortunate to have such competent people running our state courts.

I had a question in mind during the Q&A session, but never raised my hand to ask it of Balmer -- in part because it was more of a comment. It would have sounded something like this.

The United States Supreme Court is highly politicized. Many, if not most, Americans don't trust that the Court rules according to the law, but rather on the basis of political viewpoints held by the judges. The Oregon Supreme Court, though, is almost universally respected as being fair. Why is this state so fortunate in that regard, and what do we need to do to keep our Supreme Court beyond politics?

During our pre-meeting chatting, I told Balmer that electing judges bothers me. In other states that do this, right-wing political groups have targeted judges who make decisions on same sex marriage, abortion, or other issues that bother the conservatives.

But so far Oregon has seen very little of this, especially on a statewide level (Court of Appeals and Supreme Court). Maybe it's because the judges on these courts are viewed as so fair and competent, politicizing their decisions wouldn't fare well with Oregonians.

Or maybe our liberal leaning, taking Oregon as a whole, immunizes the court system from the sort of politicized targeting of judges that has plagued other states. Whatever the reason, I think all Oregonians should be grateful for our great court system, and not take our good fortune for granted.

Oregon citizens have reasonable reasons to criticize the performance of both our legislative and executive branches of government. Regularly, each manifests major screwups, including a failure to deal with pressing problems.

If our state judicial system also lacked widespread trust, things would be considerably worse. Which, unfortunately, is the case on the federal level. A high proportion of the American people don't trust the president, federal agencies, Congress, or the Supreme Court. 

Balmer referenced the upcoming Supreme Court decision about PERS (Public Employee Retirement System) reforms recently passed by the Oregon legislature. Whatever the ruling is -- Balmer said it should come early this year -- many people will be disappointed by it.

I predict, though, that the Oregon Supreme Court decision will be respected. It won't be dismissed (except by a few) as being politically motivated. That's a big plus for our state.

Lastly, in his City Club speech Hannah Hoffman of the Salem Statesman Journal got a well-deserved shout-out from Judge Balmer for her column about observing the Supreme Court hearing on the PERS case. He liked Hoffman's observations about her first viewing of the Court in action, and quoted from them.
Download Behind the scenes: Reporting on the Supreme Court

Here's some excerpts from Hoffman's piece.

1.) It's very public.

Journalism school is full of horror stories about public bodies that want to keep secret what they do. Courts are notorious for it. You hear story upon story about courts that don't allow photography, the use of laptops, or sometimes even reporters themselves.

The Oregon Supreme Court does not do that, and I was surprised.

2.) It's not a trial, it's a thesis dissertation.

In most trials, attorneys make opening and closing arguments where they explain what they are trying to prove, what they want the judge or jury to come away with. They spend the rest of the time trying to make a case for their argument.

This is not how the Supreme Court works.

It was obvious Greg Hartman, Keith Kutler and the other four lawyers who testified had prepared thoughtful, logical arguments in favor of their positions. They never finished those arguments, however, because the judges give them about three minutes to speak (maybe) before they start asking questions.

3.) "Shall" is more important than I realized.

Certain words are particularly important to lawyers, and "shall" is one of them. The judges spent ages on that word and what it means. It is, apparently, crucial in determining whether a statute creates contract language.

4.) The judges are always paying attention.

I am most used to watching people testify before committees in the Oregon Legislature. Usually, what happens in those hearings is a few lawmakers are truly engaged, although at least one or two fall a bit short in their understanding of some points. Others are only half listening and end up asking questions whose answer came two minutes before. Others are clearly messing with their phones, their notes or something else. Some actually close their eyes and appear to be napping.

...Watching the court is not like this. The judges are always engaged. They're listening to everything. They see everything the attorneys do because they never look away. (One justice did look at the ceiling for a while. He appeared to be sorting out his thoughts.) Every judge has a question for nearly every attorney. Those seven minds are nowhere but in that courtroom.

My brilliant can't-miss prediction about Obama's immigration executive order

I love writing blog post titles like this one. I make myself sound so absolutely great! 

I spent a few milli-seconds wondering whether I should leave out the "can't-miss" and just go with "brilliant," but then I thought, To hell with it; let's go for the egocentric gusto. 

Tomorrow President Obama is going to talk to the nation about his plan that could allow five million undocumented immigrants to stay in this country and get work permits. 

This sounds like a great idea to me.

After all, the Senate has passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform, but the Republican-led House has never taken up the bill. Speaker Boehner realizes that if a vote was taken, the Senate legislation likely would pass with mostly Democratic and some Republican support.

That would freak out the Tea Party wing of the GOP, along with others who are automatically against anything Obama and the Democrats are for -- even if it makes good sense and benefits this country.

So Obama is doing the right thing: get the immigration reform ball rolling through his entirely lawful executive action. If Congressional Republicans want to improve and expand upon what he's done, they can pass a bill the President is able to sign that supplants the executive action.

So says a Chicago Tribune editorial:

The president is going to do what he's going to do. How will Republicans respond? We've heard a lot of angry threats about shutting down the government, suing Obama, even impeaching him. Most of that is coming from what our friends at The Wall Street Journal call "the blow-a-gasket caucus." Let them blow.

The adults in the party, meanwhile, should recognize this as an opportunity to lead. They should stop arguing about what the president can or can't do to fix the immigration system, and fix it themselves.

My view, though, is that the "blow-a-gasket caucus" in the GOP will prevail over the "adults" in the party. This will have some short-term ill effects, but likely will be great news for progressives.

Here's my brilliant can't-miss prediction about what will happen after Obama reveals his plan tomorrow:

Republican leaders will go bat-shit crazy. To put it mildly. There will be a lot of talk about impeachment, but eventually the crazies will realize going this route is too crazy even for them.

So they'll decide to stop Obama from carrying out the executive action by blocking funding for it. The GOP will attach this condition to a budget bill needed to fund the government. Obama will refuse to sign the bill after it passes the Republican-led House and Senate next year.

This will create a government shutdown. Just like the last time this happened, most people in this country will blame the Republicans.

After all, they just took control of Congress.

They promised to get government working again right after the mid-term election. And now here we are: the stock market plummeting, consumer confidence shrinking, government services increasingly unavailable, gridlock in Washington even worse than before.

As polls show Americans getting more and more pissed off at the GOP, Republican leaders will find a face-saving way to send Obama a budget bill he can sign.

But the damage will have been done: the year before the Hugely Important 2016 Presidential Election, Republicans will have shown the country that if you give them a chance to lead, they'll blow it.

The government shutdown debacle helps put HIllary Clinton in the White House. Democrats also retake the Senate in 2016. We're right back where we started: a GOP House and Democratic Senate/President. 

All isn't exactly right with the world again; it's a hell of a lot better than it looks today, though. So take heart, progressives.

 The angrier and crazier Republicans get after Obama makes his announcement tomorrow, the better it will be long-term for this country, since their over-reactions will help pave the way for a Democratic resurgence. 

Salem, Oregon is more liberal than many people think

Salem is Oregon's capital, the seat of state government. But no one would call it the capital of Oregon's vaunted liberalism/progressivism. 

(In the 2014 midterms we were the only state that added to its Democratic majorities in the state House and Senate; we reelected a Democratic governor and U.S. Senator; and we legalized recreational marijuana. Yay, us!)

Rather, Salem lies between two cities with much stronger liberal reputations, Portland and Eugene. Salem has just about the same population of Eugene, but nowhere near its blue cool'ness. Portland kicks our butt in this regard to an even greater extent.

Which is kind of depressing for progressives like me who live in or near Salem. I was cheered up, though, after a fellow political junkie sent me some charts about how Salemians voted in the 2014 presidential election.

Obama rocked it over Romney by 10%! Not even close. 

The chart above shows how Salem compared with Marion County, Polk County (the two counties comprising the Salem city limits), and Oregon. Salem voted for Obama by just 2% less than the state as a whole, 53% vs. 55%. Marion and Polk county voters as a whole went for Romney. 

Thus Salem appears to be almost as liberal as all of Oregon, while being more liberal than the two counties that contain it. 

Above you can see the 2012 presidential election results by ward -- which is how Salem's eight city council seats are divided by district. Each ward had about the same population in the 2010 census.

Six of the eight wards went for Obama, two of them (wards 1 & 2) overwhelmingly. Only two wards, 4 and 8, cast a majority of votes for Romney. Yet even in conservative-leaning South Salem and West Salem, Obama got 46% and 48% respectively.

So Salem is more liberal/progressive than many people give the city credit for.

If Salemians voted for local officials such as the Mayor and City Councilors in the same political fashion as they voted in the last presidential election, this town would have a much more liberal-leaning city government than it does now.

I can only hope... for 2016.

Republican denial of global warming makes me hate the GOP

Progressive Democratic me actually is a pretty moderate guy.

I was raised by a very conservative mother. I grew up reading Bill Buckley and National Review. I have right-leaning friends. As a long-time Oregonian I fondly recall our state's Governor Tom McCall, along with Senators Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood -- Republicans.

I can forgive today's GOP for taking misguided stands on the Affordable Care Act, immigration reform, and other domestic issues. I can accept their hawkishness on Iran, the Palestinian issue, and other foreign policy matters.

But there is one thing that makes me freaking angry when I hear Republicans spout off about it: denial of the scientific consensus that global warming is happening; humans are responsible for climate change; and the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic.

The GOP cannot be allowed to wreck this planet for future generations. It's that simple: CANNOT. 

I'm fine with political game-playing, horse-trading, and other forms of the usual Washington D.C. bullshit. I've got a high tolerance for politicans throwing their weight around after an election victory like the GOP enjoyed in the 2014 midterms. 

However...

I'm infuriated by "Republicans Vow to Fight E.P.A. and Approve Keystone Pipeline." 

The new Republican Congress is headed for a clash with the White House over two ambitious Environmental Protection Agency regulations that are the heart of President Obama’s climate change agenda.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the next majority leader, has already vowed to fight the rules, which could curb planet-warming carbon pollution but ultimately shut down coal-fired power plants in his native Kentucky. Mr. McConnell and other Republicans are, in the meantime, stepping up their demands that the president approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to carry petroleum from Canadian oil sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

I'm outraged by "China Tries to Save Earth; Republicans Furious." 

In a surprise announcement, the United States and China, which combine to produce nearly half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, struck a deal to reduce their emissions. The U.S., which has already pledged to reduce its emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, now promises to reduce them by 26 to 28 percent by 2025. China promises to cap its emissions by no later than 2030 and to produce one- fifth of its energy from zero-emissions sources by then.

...It would be nice to think that evidence like today’s pact would at least soften the GOP’s unyielding certainty about the absolute impossibility of a global climate accord. The near-total refusal of the right to reconsider its denial of the theory of anthropogenic global warming sadly suggests otherwise. James Inhofe, the incoming chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a fervent climate science skeptic, has quickly dismissed the deal as a “hollow and not believable" and a “non-binding charade.”

Political and religious craziness is one thing. Anti-scientific craziness that threatens the ability of humans to live safe, happy, and prosperous lives, not only now but for many, many generations to come -- that cannot be tolerated.

I am an extremist when it comes to standing up against this sort of Republican insanity. Take all the money you want from the Koch Brothers and BIg Oil. But GOP, you can't be allowed to drag this country, and indeed our entire planet, into an environmental hell hole. 

I'm confident that a majority of Americans would agree with me that keeping the Earth habitable for humanity is Job #1.

If the GOP doesn't realize this, their 2014 election victory is going to backfire on them big time.

A variety of polls show that a majority of American voters now believe that climate change is occurring, are worried about it, and support candidates who back policies to stop it. In particular, polls show that majorities of Hispanics, young people and unmarried women — the voters who were central to Mr. Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012 — support candidates who back climate change policy.

Five takeaways from Ed Dover's Salem City Club talk about 2014 election

Almost always, the Salem City Club has highly enjoyable noon hour presentations. Last Friday's was especially interesting for a political junkie like me.

Ed Dover, a professor of political science at Western Oregon University and chair of the department, spoke about "Election 2014: Outcomes and Implications." 

Here's my top takeaways from his talk -- based on my scribbled notes and memory.

(1) The 2014 mid-terms were more of the same "trench warfare." 
Just as World War I the opposing armies were dug in with little movement on either side, despite massive fighting and casualities, elections in this country don't result in lasting wins for either Republicans or Democrats.

Much of the populace was barely aware of the mid-term election, which is akin to soldiers being hidden in the trenches. "Is there an election underway?" "Where's the battle?" Being a progressive, this made me feel better about what just happened. 

Only about a third of registered voters took part in the election (twice that in Oregon, in part because we have vote by mail). This was a continuation of the prior trench warfare, Dover said, not a Republican victory or Democratic defeat.

(2) A few battleground states saw most of the action.
Per usual, a small number of "purple" states (not blue, not red) received most of the national attention. In 2012, I believe it was, Dems and the GOP each spent a billion dollars on the presidential campaign. Half of this was for television advertising in just nine battleground states. 

So even though the 2014 mid-terms have been called a wave election for the Republican Party, most of the country wasn't washed much by the wave. Meaning, by and large voters cast their ballots as they usually do. In the House of Representatives, which elects all members every two years, 96% of incumbents were re-elected.

(3) Suburbs often are the deciding electoral factor.
Urban areas tend to be reliably Democratic; rural areas, reliably Republican. The suburbs can bounce either way.

For example, California is mostly urban and Democratic. Wyoming is mostly rural and Republican. Colorado, though, is mixed. There, three suburban counties typically decide the outcome of a statewide election. Thus suburbs are the trenches in which today's political trench warfare is fought. 

(4) The "silent generation" is a big political influence now, but not for much longer.
Being 66, a baby boomer, I found this age-related analysis by Dover to be fascinating. Often polls and election results talk about the over-60 vote. However, Dover said there is a big difference between how those born between 1929 and 1941 vote, and how the post-war baby boom generation I'm a part of votes.

Members of the so-called silent generation generally were in high school in the 1950's. Now they are aged 70-80, or thereabouts. They are much more likely to vote than young people, and are considerably more Republican. In a mid-term they have an outsized influence, since 37% of those over 60 voted in 2014 compared to 12% of those under 30.

A national election, which will occur in 2016, brings a higher turnout among young people. And, obviously, the oldest people are steadily growing older. So before too long the "silent generation" will be truly silent: dead. This demographic change will affect the political landscape.

(5) Paul Evans vs. Kathy Goss race reflected national politics.
Dover worked on the Paul Evans campaign for state representative, so he said his comments about the race were in the spirit of participatory involvement. Nonetheless, his observations made a lot of sense.

District 20 is one of the most evenly balanced in Oregon between Democrats and Republicans. In 2014 it was the only state house district that changed parties. (Previously the district representative was a popular Republican who didn't run for re-election.)

In some ways District 20 is a suburban district as it includes West Salem and Monmouth/Independence. A million dollars was spent by both sides on this race. It was fiercely fought, whereas in many parts of Oregon with non-competitive state house races, voters barely knew an election was going on.

Character and policy are both important in a candidate's campaign. Ideally, personal characteristics and policy positions align. This is one reason Evans won, Dover said. For example, Evans had a military background and he advocated for treating veterans better. Goss, on the other hand, didn't have clear policy positions, in Dover's view. 

Well, these are some key points I recalled. Ed Dover had more to say, naturally. I believe his talk will be on Salem's CCTV eventually. It'll be well worth watching.

Post-election thoughts from a mostly upbeat progressive Oregonian

Like I said in a recent blog post, "What we pay attention to determines our reality," last night I tried to heed my own November 3 advice while keeping track of both the national and local election returns. 

There will be so many ways to look upon tomorrow's election. Nationally. State by state. Local, as in right here in Oregon. It is impossible to pay attention to everything that will happen. It isn't Polyannaish to choose to focus on certain results that please you.

Why not? It makes sense to see the glass of life as half full, rather than half empty. Or even better, completely full.

Nationally, the 2014 mid-term election sucked big-time for us progressives. But here in Oregon, mostly everything went great -- as a Blue Oregon post said in "A bloodbath. But not in Oregon!"

Oregon once again proved that things look different here.

Absolutely. 

We re-elected our Democratic governor, one of our two Democratic U.S. Senators, our four (out of five) Congressional representatives, and expanded Democratic majorities in both the state Senate and House.

And super-pleasingly...

Oregonians passed Measure 91. Legal recreational marijuana is coming soon! Well, July 2015 before possession is legal; early 2016, likely, before pot can be bought in stores.

This is a major accomplishment, especially since weed was legalized here in a mid-term election. Some pro-pot types criticized Measure 91 leaders for not waiting until 2016, arguing that a presidential election year would bring out more of the progressive base.

So a big leafy thumbs-up to Anthony Johnson and the rest of the super-competent Measure 91 team. They ran an amazingly skillful professional campaign that was hugely better than the 2012 Oregon marijuana legalization effort that failed to garner enough votes.

Since I'm writing this blog post, I'll also give myself a pat on the back (and maybe some other places too, when nobody is watching) for contributing what knowledgeable observers, a.k.a. Me, call the best philosophical neuroscientific reason to legalize marijuana ever penned by an Oregonian.

It can be marveled at here. 

Locally, it was great to see that Peter Courtney whipped Patti Milne's lying ass in their race for a state senate seat. Even Dick Hughes, the normally clueless editorial page editor of the Statesman Journal, called out the Milne campaign for its shameful falsities.
Download The politics of fear, Republican style

I also was glad to see that Democrat Paul Evans beat Republican Kathy Goss in a state representative race. Goss was a dreadful candidate who refused any more debates with Evans after he thoroughly embarassed her in their first head to empty-head matchup. 

Goss achieved instant Oregon notoreity for referring to bicycle lanes as "fringe things." Brilliant move, Kathy, in a state with so many avid bicyclists of all political persuasions. You clearly have the political skills to be elected to something, someday, somewhere, somehow.

Soil and Water Conservation District board member, maybe? They often only have one candidate running, which would give Goss a decent chance of winning. 

I never really thought Jeff Merkley would lose to Monica Wehby, but it still was a surprise to see how much he beat her by. Wehby's demeanor and style showed that even pediatric neurosurgeons can look like idiots.

In a Facebook post today I read that Wehby said after the election something like, "God wanted me to continue being a physician." I took pleasure in leaving a comment: "No, God wanted you to not be a god-awful U.S. Senator."

It would have been a nightmare I wouldn't have woken up from for four years if Republican Dennis Richardson had somehow become governor rather than John Kitzhaber. Thankfully, Oregonians realized that Kitzhaber's fiancee, Cylvia Hayes, wasn't running for governor; he was. 

Personally, I found that Hayes' "scandals" introduced some pleasing interest into Oregon's political scene. Gosh, the wife-to-be of a leading politician is a savvy, scheming, intelligent woman who sometimes rubs people the wrong way and takes a few ethical short-cuts. 

Anyone who is offended by that should watch House of Cards to see real Machiavellian wifely goings-on. Plus, I found it endearing that Hayes tried to set up a marijuana growing operation quite a few years go. You just were ahead of your time, Cylvia.

Give it another try now, with the passage of Measure 91.

Lastly, this is one of the best explanations I've come across for why Democrats did so much crashing and burning on the national level: "Democrats only have themselves to blame for upcoming losses."

Right on, Steven Pearlstein.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that Tuesday will not be a good day for Democrats. The reason isn’t Ebola or the Islamic State or that the country has suddenly become more conservative. It’s not because of Fox News or all the outside money that is being spent. What we have here is a failure of brand management — in this case, the Democratic brand.

...What’s true for companies also applies to political parties. And from that standpoint, the performance of the Obama White House and his party’s congressional candidates has largely been a case study in how to destroy brand equity: Democratic candidates begging the Democratic president not to campaign for them and, in one memorable instance, refusing even to say whether she voted for him.

The president and candidates rarely mentioning, let alone defending, their landmark health reform legislation. Party leaders pleading with the president not to take executive actions on immigration or climate change before the election. A Democratic Senate willing to put off action on urgent or popular issues out of fear that Republicans will force tough votes on controversial amendments.

Now, on the eve of the election, Democratic candidates find themselves caught in a vicious cycle in which their refusal to embrace and defend their party’s brand is discouraging the faithful and turning away the undecided, threatening their election prospects still further. What Benjamin Franklin said of revolutions also applies to political campaigns: Those who don’t hang together will surely hang separately. 

What we pay attention to determines our reality

After tomorrow, everybody in this country will have a lot to be potentially pleased about, and a lot to be potentially upset with. This is the nature of a mid-term election.

And more importantly, life. 

The good news is this: we can choose what to pay attention to, what to focus on, what our experience of reality is. In other words, the good news is that we can create our own good news, no matter what happens in the world.

This is the core message of Winifred Gallagher's fascinating book, "Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life." I've been re-reading it. Since I'm a political junkie, Gallagher's words have helped me realize that I don't need to feel like the election results will control my mood come Wednesday and thereafter.

Here's some quotes (indented) from the first few pages of her book, along with my commentary.

That your experience largely depends on the material objects and mental subjects that you choose to pay attention to or ignore is not an imaginative notion, but a physiological fact. When you focus on a STOP sign or a sonnet, a waft of perfume or a stock-market tip, your brain registers that "target" which enables it to affect your behavior.

There will be so many ways to look upon tomorrow's election. Nationally. State by state. Local, as in right here in Oregon. It is impossible to pay attention to everything that will happen. It isn't Polyannaish to choose to focus on certain results that please you.

Why not? It makes sense to see the glass of life as half full, rather than half empty. Or even better, completely full.

In contrast, the things that you don't attend to in a sense don't exist, at least for you. All day long, you are selectively paying attention to something, and much more often than you may suspect, you can take charge of this process to good effect.

Indeed, your ability to focus on this and suppress that is the key to controlling your experience and, ultimately, your well-being.

Neuroscientists point out to us that what we are aware of at each moment is just a minute fraction of the reality available to us. Our sight, for example, zeros in on a small well-focused patch of what surrounds us. The rest is a blur.

So since it isn't possible to be aware of everything in the world, we might as well choose to pay attention mostly to what uplifts us and gives us pleasure.

If you could look backward at your years thus far, you'd see that your life has been fashioned from what you've paid attention to and what you haven't. You'd observe that of all the myriad sights and sounds, thoughts and feelings that you could have focused on, you selected a relative few, which became what you've confidently called "reality."

You'd also be struck by the fact that if you had paid attention to other things, your reality and your life would be very different.

Interesting observation. It is kind of disturbing, if one looks backward, focusing on how much better life would have seemed if we'd paid more attention to stuff other than what we actually did. But the past is, well, past. 

In the next moment, as in all the rest to come, we can decide what fills our attention, and what doesn't. That choice determines the sort of life we will fashion.

Attention has created the experience and, significantly, the self stored in your memory, but looking ahead, what you focus on from this moment will create the life and person yet to be. Since Sigmund Freud, psychologists have mostly examined our pasts to explain and improve our lives.

If you think in terms of the present and future instead, you might encounter an intuition lurking in the back of your mind, as it was in mine: if you could just stay focused on the right things, your life would stop feeling like a reaction to stuff that happens to you and become something that you create: not a series of accidents, but a work of art.

No matter what happens nationally tomorrow in the mid-term election, I'm confident there is going to be some good news here in Oregon not only for me, but for everybody who cares about politics. 

Some candidates I like will win; others will lose. Some ballot measures I favor will be passed by voters; others will be rejected. 

I'm going to do my best to focus on the positive and downplay the negative. Not because I want to ignore much of reality -- because I have to. It simply is physiologically impossible, as Gallagher says, to attend to everything happening around us.

So choose happily tomorrow, and every day thereafter. Life is too short, too precious, to put a lot of attention on what disturbs us. 

Gallagher writes:

Some decisions about what to focus on, such as what profession to pursue or person to live with, automatically receive serious attention.

Other choices may be less obvious but are just as important to the tenor of your daily experience: deciding to concentrate on hopes rather than your fears; to attend to the present instead of the past; to appreciate that just because something upsetting happens, you don't have to fixate on it.

Still other targets may seem inconsequential: focusing on a book or guitar instead of a rerun; a chat instead of an e-mail; an apple instead of a doughnut. 

Yet the difference between "passing the time" and "time well spent" depends on making smart decisions about what to attend to in matters large and small, then doing so as if your life depended on it.

As far as its quality is concerned, it does. 

Salem City Council (sort of) endorses marijuana legalization

Last night Statesman Journal reporter Michael Rose tweeted:

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

Today a story appeared on the SJ web site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, it almost certainly is illegal.

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

Second, it almost certainly is a bad idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The War on Drugs is a failure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further, people become dependent on all kinds of things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ooh! Scare quotes around "solution"!

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

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

Vote Yes on Measure 91.

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

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

Click below for the best reader comments.

Marijuana legalization opponents make the case for legal pot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Kids can easily get marijuana now!

 

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

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

We just can't afford to legalize marijuana!

 

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

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

There's not enough drug treatment in Oregon!

  

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

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

There will be mass advertising for marijuana to our kids!

 

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

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

Strangest reason to legalize recreational marijuana in Oregon

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

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

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

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

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

Have a read. 

A strange reason to legalize marijuana

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

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

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

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

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

Mind-blowing, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why unaffiliated voters aren't treated dismally in closed primaries

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

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

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

Jack replied with a terrific second message.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope this clarifies things.

Sure does, Jack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's one of them.

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

How is this a "Top Two" system?

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

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

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

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

And this bothered me. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read why here.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s about voting.

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

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

Who hates this proposed change? The big political parties.

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

Hence the agitation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rather, he expressed his support for Measure 90. 

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

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

Rick Steves tells Salem why marijuana should be legal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

Here's some excerpts:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Why everyone in Oregon should vote to legalize marijuana

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, no problem! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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