Here's what Greater Idaho would look like if that fantasy were to somehow become reality, against great odds, courtesy of a map in the Oregonian story.
This is how a USA Today story, "Secession in the Pacific Northwest? Some Oregon residents petition to join Idaho," starts out.
The movement has secured initial approval from two counties and aims to get enough signatures to put the proposal on local ballots in November, said the group Move Oregon's Border for a Greater Idaho.
If the group succeeds, voters in southeast Oregon may see a question on whether their county should become part of Idaho by redrawing the border.
“Rural counties have become increasingly outraged by laws coming out of the Oregon Legislature that threaten our livelihoods, our industries, our wallet, our gun rights, and our values,” Mike McCarter, one of the chief petitioners, said in a press release. “We tried voting those legislators out but rural Oregon is outnumbered and our voices are now ignored. This is our last resort.”
Oh, boo-hoo. Those of us who didn't vote for Trump are equally outraged at the horrible policies emanating from the White House and Republican-controlled Senate.
But we aren't petitioning to join Canada, though I have to admit that this idea has crossed the mind of quite a few Democrats.
Instead, what we're working hard to do is win the 2020 presidential election.
Likewise, Oregon Republicans could put more effort into taking control of the Governor's office and state legislature, something that has more chance of succeeding than the notion of rural counties joining Idaho, which I suspect is more of a public relations stunt than a serious endeavor.
Even if Oregon’s eastern counties do vote to join Idaho, approval would then be needed from the Oregon and Idaho legislatures -- and the U.S. Congress.
So Job #1 for the secessionists should be winning Republican majorities in the state House and Senate. Good luck with that, sad-faced conservatives. Looks like you're stuck sharing Oregon with us progressives. Of course, there's another option open to you: move to Idaho.
Let's make this the overarching mantra for Democrats until Donald Trump is defeated in the November 2020 presidential election:
No Dem candidate is perfect, but all of them are hugely better than Trump.
Which means, ditch any thought of a purity test for the candidates still in the hunt for the Democratic nomination. I was reminded of this oh-so-important adage when I came across a piece in The Atlantic, "Bloomberg Flunks the Wokeness Test."
Right on subtitle: Stop-and-frisk was awful. But to disqualify the former New York mayor from the presidency on that basis is to risk something more destructive: a second term for Trump. Here's an excerpt.
For some, stop-and-frisk is a deal-breaker. Note how modern—up-to-the minute, even—it seems to disqualify Bloomberg for one mistake on race, even if he would govern better than Trump has in all ways. It’s straight from the woke playbook.
Freezing out the former mayor would also be a kind of atonement for the left’s having let pass Hillary Clinton’s “superpredator” comment in the 1990s. Atonement is the operative word here. To shout down Bloomberg because of that one policy would constitute a strain of anti-racism that has all the characteristics of religion rather than rationality.
By denouncing a candidate as formidable as Bloomberg, people will show one another that they understand the evil of racism and go in grace—even on the pain of an impeached, amoral Trump being reelected.
Though I'm a proud progressive, it bothers me that all too often Democrats obsess over purity, while Republicans obsess over power -- getting and keeping it.
So even though it makes sense to critically assess the policy positions of the Dem presidential candidates, along with their past record, both of those things are hugely less important than Job #!: defeating Trump.
This is why I couldn't care less if billionaires are contributing to someone's campaign, or if, like Bloomberg, they are a billionaire themselves. It's going to take a gigantic boatload of money to beat Trump. Whoever wants to contribute to that effort deserves applause, not criticism.
Purity tests have to take a backseat to political pragmatism. We saw what happened in 2016 when too many misguided voters sat out the election, or voted for Jill Stein, because Hillary Clinton wasn't Bernie Sanders.
What should have been foremost in their minds was Hillary Clinton isn't Donald Trump.
Likewise, all of the Democratic candidates are so much more qualified to be president than Trump, there shouldn't be any doubt in a voter's mind to cast a ballot for any of them this November.
Bernie Sanders...yes, he's rigid, annoying, and not the easiest guy to like. Doesn't matter. He's way better than Trump. Pete Buttigieg...yes, he didn't handle race relations in South Bend perfectly. Doesn't matter. He's way better than Trump. Elizabeth Warren...yes, she has waffled some on Medicare for All. Doesn't matter. She's way better than Trump. Joe Biden...yes, he rambles and can put an audience to sleep. Doesn't matter. He's way better than Trump. Amy Klobuchar...yes, she is a moderate who wants to improve Obamacare. Doesn't matter. She's way better than Trump. Michael Bloomberg...yes, he embraced stop-and-frisk. Doesn't matter. He's way better than Trump. Tom Steyer...yes, he's also a billionaire who is spending his own money freely. Doesn't matter. He's way better than Trump.
So let's thin the Democratic field for good reasons, notably the candidates' ability to defeat Trump, not for a bad reasons such as kicking someone out of contention because they failed a purity test.
Way to go, South Central Association of Neighbors (SCAN) -- the neighborhood association that represents the area where Daniel and Richard Gatti knowingly destroyed four valuable street trees by topping them, yet so far haven't been required to pay the full cost of their value, as required by the City of Salem tree ordinance.
One of the mangled Gatti trees
Here's the resolution that was passed by SCAN yesterday.
SCAN RESOLUTION OPPOSING FAILURE TO FULLY ENFORCE THE SALEM REVISED CODE CONCERNING STREET TREE REMOVAL
Adopted by the SCAN Board on February 12, 2020
WHEREAS, on or about January 2, 2020, the property owners at 1781 Liberty Street SE in the SCAN neighborhood had an unlicensed contractor remove, without authorization, more than 30% of the crown from four mature City-owned street trees adjacent to their property; and,
WHEREAS, removing 30% or more of the crown of a tree will cause the death of the tree and is thus defined in the Salem Revised Code 86.010 as "tree removal"; and,
WHEREAS, "tree removal" under SRC 86.120(c)(1) carries a civil penalty of a fine "not to exceed $2,000.00 per violation in addition to the value of the tree as calculated in accordance with applicable administrative rules (or in the absence of administrative rules, in accordance with the most current edition of Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers "Guide for Plant Appraisal”);" and,
WHEREAS, the property owners at 1781 Liberty Street SE were recently assessed a fine of $2,000 by the City in addition to being required to negotiate a "Restoration Agreement" for removal and replacement of the four City-owned trees adjacent to their property; and,
WHEREAS, the property owners at 1781 Liberty Street SE were not required to reimburse the City for the "value of the tree[s]" as required by SRC 86.120(c)(1); and,
WHEREAS, failure of the City to fully enforce the provisions of the Salem Revised Code in the matter of unauthorized City-owned tree removal is unacceptable to SCAN neighbors and will undoubtedly result in similar incidents of this kind happening in the future.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of the South Central Neighborhood Association requests of our City staff that they not fail to fully enforce SRC 86.120(c)(1), and that the property owners at 1781 Liberty Street SE be required to reimburse the City for the value of the four City-owned trees that have been removed, following a professional appraisal of the value of the trees.
Hopefully this will spur city officials to do what they should have doing all along: enforce the damn tree ordinance!
Peter Fernandez
It really bothers me, and other tree lovers, that Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director, has been choosing to not enforce the portion of the ordinance that requires someone who destroys a street tree to reimburse the city for the full value of the tree or trees.
The City Manager and City Council should take a very close look at how Fernandez has been performing his important job. If he isn't enforcing the tree ordinance, how do we know Fernandez isn't also doing favors behind the scenes for other people who are guilty of not complying with the city's rules and regulations?
After all, we know that he made a backroom deal with the U.S. Bank president to remove four healthy, large, beautiful street trees on State Street back in 2013, because I got the public records that prove this. Yet Fernandez still has his job, and he is still failing to protect Salem's trees.
Until the November election is over, I'm going to be in a perpetual state of political anxiety. Dumping Trump is super-important for lots of reasons, preserving our democracy from authoritarian rule being high on the list.
So obviously it's vital that the Democrats nominate someone who is well suited to defeat Trump. And that means winning the Electoral College, not just running up the score in the popular vote, because we saw how that worked for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
In short, not well.
Which is why I worry most about Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate.
Yes, polls show him besting Trump nationally. But the election will be won, or lost, not on the basis of national popularity, but on how Trump and whoever the Dems choose does in a handful of swing states -- which means appealing to moderate voters.
He has said that he will govern as a Democrat if he becomes president, but he calls himself a democratic socialist and remains an independent. This is problematic. It seems to me that anyone who wants to be the Democratic presidential nominee should be proud about being a Democrat.
A recent poll found that 53% of Americans said they wouldn't vote for a socialist, while 45% said they would. This is bad news for Sanders, though it must bring a smile to Trump's face as he envisions running against an avowed socialist.
But according to a Gallup pollreleased Tuesday, Americans overwhelmingly are just fine with voting for a woman, as well as a black, Hispanic or (to a somewhat lesser extent) gay candidate. The sort of candidate a majority of Americans reject?
Socialist.
The category was the only one which had a majority of Americans, 53%, declaring they would not cast a ballot for a candidate so described (45% say they would vote for a well-qualified socialist).
Then there's the fact that based on Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders isn't expanding the base of his support. Turnout was lackluster in both states, which diminishes the argument that nominating Sanders will energize young people and those who sat out the 2016 presidential election.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won the New Hampshire primary in such an underwhelming fashion — the second less-than-impressive outing in what should have been two of his easiest states — that it bears consideration as to whether he is actually best positioned to win the race.
Turnout in New Hampshire did not significantly increase from 2016 to 2020, even though there was no competitive Republican primary to draw independent voters. Sanders has twice now failed to produce a promised wave of voters. Without such an influx of voters, his electability argument crumbles.
He must either appeal to a greater share of Democrats and independents than other candidates (which currently is not remotely the case), or he must bring in a flood of new voters (which also is not happening). In short, his ceiling is still stuck around 25 percent, just as it has been from the onset of the race.
Also worrisome is that at 53%, Sanders supporters are the least likely to say they will support the eventual Democratic presidential nominee even if it is not their favored candidate. (Yang supporters were even less, at 50%, but Yang has dropped out of the race.)
Sanders needs to do a better job of telling his supporters that they absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt have to vote for whoever the Dems nominate, because the alternative is another four years of Trump.
This points to the rigidity and fanaticism of much of Sanders' base, the so-called "Bernie Bros."
They've been attacking the Nevada Culinary Union after the union pointed out that Sanders' Medicare for All proposal threatened the private heath insurance plan that union members currently have and like.
Argüello-Kline added: “Workers should have the right to choose to keep the health care Culinary Union members have built, sacrificed for, and went on strike for 6 years, 4 months and 10 days to protect.”
“It’s disappointing that Senator Sanders’ supporters have viciously attacked the Culinary Union and working families in Nevada simply because our union has provided facts on what certain health care proposals might do to take away the system of care we have built over eight decades,” she said, noting that Sanders had participated in Culinary town halls and toured the union’s facilities.
Lastly, I'm dubious that what American voters are looking for is a different old, angry-sounding, white guy to replace the current old, angry-sounding, white guy who inhabits the White House.
(If Sanders ends up becoming president, naturally I'll be pleased to take back those words and admit I was wrong.)
As I said a few days ago, progressives like me are going through an anxious period. There's no obvious Democratic presidential candidate who seems fully up to the job of beating Trump in the November 2020 election.
Meanwhile, polls show that Trump has managed to hold on to his base of support, and maybe even has expanded it a bit. This befuddles people, again, like me, who wonder what 44% or so of the country sees in a guy who is so obviously immoral, a habitual liar, and mean.
A book I just finished re-reading gave me a new perspective on this question. And that scares me, because the explanation makes so much sense, and shows why it is so difficult to get Trump supporters to stop fawning over him.
Here's an excerpt from a blog post I wrote about the book back in December 2014, "The social value of getting wasted." Following the excerpt I'll explain what this has to do with Trump's popularity.
With New Year's Eve coming up soon, this seems to be a good time to share some passages about the positive side of intoxication from a book I just finished, "Trying Not to Try: The Art and Science of Spontaneity."
The author, Edward Slingerland, discusses the ins and outs (along with the yin and yang) of wu-wei, the elusive quality of effortlessly flowing with life so much praised in Daoist and Confucian philosophy.
Slingerland, a Professor of Asian Studies at the University of British Columbia, clued me in to some aspects of both Asian and Western culture that had largely escaped me before.
For example, why getting wasted -- imbibing copious amounts of alcohol or some other intoxicating, mind-altering, inhibition-dampening substance -- is so important in closing business deals, as well as in other social contexts.
The basic reason is that we admire and trust good-hearted people who act naturally, spontaneously, unselfconsciously. Schemers who always seem to be calculating what to do and how to act, not nearly so much, even if they proclaim their beneficent intentions.
Slingerland explains from both a philosophical and neuroscientific outlook that virtue (de, in Chinese) can be faked by what often is called "cold cognition."
That's the slower, more intellectual, thoughtful part of the brain's workings. This is contrasted with "hot cognition," which is faster, more emotional and intuitive. So, Slingerland says:
These techniques take advantage of the fact that deception is fundamentally a cold-cognition act and relies on cognitive control centers. This means that if we can impair the cognitive control abilities of people we're trying to judge, we'll do a better job of sussing them out: they will be less likely to confuse our cheater-control systems.
This, of course, is the rationale for so-called "truth serum" drugs used by interrogators. Lessen inhibitions and what a person says should more accurately reflect what is really inside them, not just how they want to appear to outsiders.
OK, you may have noted that I said we admire and trust good-hearted people who act naturally, spontaneously, unselfconsciously.
Scratch the "good-hearted" and you've got a pretty decent description of Trump -- though I'm sure most of his supporters view him as possessing a good heart, albeit a decidedly weird one, given Trump's habitual vicious attacks on anyone he views as opposing him.
Trump doesn't drink, but he acts like the emotional, intuitive, spontaneous person in the thralls of "hot cognition." His rallies are popular with Trump supporters because he offers them an uncensored view of what's on his mind. (Which is why those rallies horrify the rest of us.)
This goes a long way toward explaining why many voters didn't trust Hillary Clinton, even though she was a much more trustworthy person than Donald Trump. With Trump, what you see is what you get. With Clinton, it was difficult to tell whether the persona she presented outwardly truly was who she was deep down.
So what scares me is that all of the rational, reasonable, well-though-out policy prescriptions and criticisms of Trump the eventual 2020 Democratic presidential candidate presents to the public may not be enough to defeat Trump if the Dem isn't able to demonstrate the sort of natural, spontaneous, unselfconscious personality that appeals to the evolutionarily ancient "hot cognition" part of the human brain.
if you watched the Academy Awards last night, this theme was on full display, as it is every year of the Oscars.
When someone who has won the film editing award, say, walks on stage, steps up to the microphone, and pulls out a piece of paper that they proceed to read, thanking everyone they want to thank in words they wrote before coming to the event, I think, "Oh, no, this is so boring."
Contrast that with someone like Joaquin Phoenix. After winning the Best Actor award for his role as the Joker, Phoenix rubbed his face, looked around, and proceeded to give a gripping acceptance speech that was mostly about how we humans are screwing up the natural world.
He said he'd been thinking a lot about what he said, so it wasn't totally spontaneous. But it had the ring of spontaneity and sincerity, which is why I remember his remarks so much more clearly than the scripted and predictable remarks of other Oscar winners.
Let me be clear. I'd rather have any boring predictable scripted Democratic nominee become president, rather than Donald Trump. What worries me, though, is that the nominee would be much more able to beat Trump if they can muster the sort of "can't look away" spontaneity that Trump and Phoenix possess, albeit in vastly different fashions.
And so far I haven't seen that from the Democratic presidential candidates.
Don't get me wrong. It's always a good time to be a progressive leftie. But at the moment I'm not feeling much pleasurable buzz from being on the right, or better put, wisest, way of looking at the political world.
Let's count some of the reasons.
(1) Trump is emboldened following his impeachment acquittal. He's shown no sign of repentance for trying to get Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. Aside from Senator Romney, congressional Republicans are kissing Trump's ass with disgusting relish.
(2) The Iowa caucuses were a disaster. The messed-up tally of results makes Democrats look incompetent.
(3) And the two candidates who came out on top in Iowa are Sanders, an avowed socialist, and Buttigieg, who basically has zero black support. I much prefer Buttigieg to Biden in the moderate camp, but I worry about the ability of either Sanders or Buttigieg to either beat Trump in November or bring the Democratic Party together -- a necessity for beating Trump.
(4) Trump's approval rating has shot up recently. Hopefully this is an aberration. However, his base of support certainly hasn't eroded, and it may be enlarging.
(5) Here in Oregon, the lumber trucks have arrived in Salem to once again protest the current version of the cap-and-trade bill to reduce carbon pollution so our planet remains fit for human habitation. Republicans likely will walkout like they did last session if it appears the bill has any chance of passing, dooming it for lack of a quorum.
So us progressives are in an awkward period.
Neither the candidate who can beat Trump, or the path to do so, is at all clear. Meanwhile Trump supporters and Republicans are rejoicing in Trump's State of the Union speech and the nasty in-your-face divisive remarks he made at, of all things, a Prayer Breakfast.
Plus, Oregon Democrats seem poised to repeat the depressing spectacle of the 2019 legislative session: allow Republicans to stage a walkout without any negative consequences, after which the cap-and-trade bill will be shelved until 2021 as the Earth continues to warm dangerously.
Everybody has their own way of coping with anxiety. I don't claim that my approach to dealing with the worries I've just enumerated are any sort of universal worry-salve. These are simply some of the things I try to keep in mind when progressive nightmares haunt me.
Everything changes. No one can know what will happen in the next 24 hours, much less between now and election day in November, or now and the ending of the short Oregon legislative session in early March. Surprises are going to be plentiful. They're as likely to be progressive-friendly as the reverse. So let's enjoy surfing the wave of political change and hope we progressives don't wipe out.
Negativity is a human predilection. Most people, me included for sure, find it easier to visualize bad things happening than good things. In early human history worriers who feared that the rustle in the brush was a saber-toothed tiger fared better in the evolutionary sweepstakes than the optimists who thought it was just the wind. Thus it's psychologically likely that many or most of my political anxieties aren't going to come to pass, or will be less extreme than I expect.
Life is much grander than the latest headlines. I'm a news junkie. But often I stick the most recent issue of TIME or The New Yorker in a drawer and don't get around to reading it for weeks, or even months sometimes. Then I skip much of the issue, because what was so important then, isn't now. Other things are. And rarely do either the old things or the new things impact my daily life, which exists on a different level than national, state, or local politics.
Close to home, progress is always possible. While progressive anxieties tend to skew nationally, obviously the best ability to produce positive progressive outcomes is at the local level, right here in Salem. Yesterday I got to hear Virginia Stapleton speak about why she's running to replace retiring Ward 1 city councilor Cara Kaser. Stapleton was so sincere, eloquent, inspiring, and persuasive, listening to her raised my progressive spirits. A lot.
Virginia Stapleton
The way Democratic primaries work, Oregon is going to have little say in who the Dem presidential nominee is going to be once our May election rolls around. All we'll be able to do is passively watch other states vote (or, in the case of Iowa, screw up voting).
But when I contributed some money to the campaigns of three progressive Salem City Council candidates about a week ago, I felt really good about playing a small role in what hopefully will be the victories of Virginia Stapleton, Vanessa Nordyke, and Trevor Phillips.
Doing something concrete to aid local progressive causes wasn't exactly a cure for my above-mentioned anxieties about national and state politics. However, it definitely alleviated some of the symptoms. Here's links to the web sites of Stapleton, Nordyke, and Phillips if you feel like doing some healing yourself.
Just when I thought the wanton destruction of four valuable street trees by Daniel and Richard Gatti couldn't be more outrageous, it turns out I was wrong.
Because Michael Slater reported in a Salem Tree Advocates post on Facebook that the City of Salem's Public Works Director, Peter Fernandez, has admitted that he hasn't been requiring people who improperly remove street trees to pay for the full assessed value of the trees, as is required by a city ordinance, SRC 86.105(c).
l heartily agree both with Jim Scheppke's comment above, plus a post that Scheppke wrote on the Facebook page where Salem City Council goings-on are discussed.
lt sure does smack of favoritism. Richard Gatti has admitted that he knew he needed to get a permit before trimming the street trees on his property that borders Liberty and Superior streets. (See here and here.) Further, Gatti didn't use a licensed tree service, and he failed to tell the contractor how the trees should be trimmed.
So the Gatti brothers knowingly destroyed four street trees that could have a total value of tens of thousands of dollars. Yet Peter Fernandez is OK with not complying with the city ordinance, shown below, that requires Daniel and Richard Gatti to pay the full appraised value of the trees that were damaged, in addition to a fine. (Boldface added for emphasis.)
Costs of restoration. Persons violating this chapter, or a permit issued hereunder, shall be responsible for restoring damaged areas in conformance with a plan approved by the Director that provides for repair of any environmental or property damage and restoration of the site. Costs of restoration shall be not less than those determined equal to the monetary value of the regulated trees removed in violation of this chapter, or permit issued hereunder, as set forth in an appraisal acceptable to the Director and based upon applicable administrative rules. Each removal of a regulated tree in violation of this chapter shall result in a separate civil fine in addition to costs of restoration.
Sure, the City Council can indeed look into modifying this portion of the tree ordinance. But it can't roll back the clock and pretend that the ordinance didn't exist when the Gatti brothers decided to ignore it and top the four trees, which is one of the worst things that can be done to a tree.
Mangled Gatti tree on Liberty Street
City Manager Steve Powers needs to overrule Peter Fernandez' outrageous decision to not enforce the city's tree ordinance and let the Gatti brothers off the hook for their willful destruction of four valuable street trees.
This, of course, is the same Peter Fernandez who made a backroom deal with Ryan Allbritton, the U.S. Bank president, to destroy five large, beautiful, healthy trees on downtown's State Street for no good reason. I was so disturbed by that travesty, I wrote a report about it, "Outrage: the true story of Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings."
To my knowledge, Fernandez never was disciplined for the shoddy way he acted back in 2013. And here he is again, looking the other way while other well-known "pillars of the community" knowingly destroy street trees. Why Fernandez still has his position is beyond me, because he sure is doing a crappy job at it.
Today, after filing a public records request, I learned how much Daniel and Richard Gatti are being fined for destroying four street trees after failing to get a permit, as required by a City of Salem ordinance: $2,000, $500 per tree. Here's the PDF file I got. Download 20-132 Enforcement Order-Notice Redacted_Redacted
Wow. Richard Gatti knew he shouldn't trim street trees on public property without getting approval from the city. He didn't use a licensed tree service. He didn't tell the contractor what to do.
If this behavior doesn't end up with Gatti paying a big fine from the City of Salem, then city officials should give up any claim to being dedicated to protecting Salem's trees.
This sort of needless tree destruction has been going on for many years. It has to stop.
Making people who trash street trees pay for the full cost of replacing the trees with comparable ones of the same size would send a message that the City of Salem is serious about protecting public property in the form of valuable street trees.
I've seen an estimate on Facebook by a certified arborist that the value of the trees Gatti destroyed could be over $75,000. So there's no way Gatti should get off with a $2,000 fine per tree -- though even that would be more than the zero fine that the city spokeswoman said would be levied.
Now, I thought the $2,000 fine was for each tree removed, but apparently the maximum fine for unpermitted tree removals is $2,000, no matter how many trees were destroyed. See:
There's a key question that remains to be answered. SRC 86.105(c) says this about restoring damaged trees. I've boldfaced parts for emphasis.
Costs of restoration. Persons violating this chapter, or a permit issued hereunder, shall be responsible for restoring damaged areas in conformance with a plan approved by the Director that provides for repair of any environmental or property damage and restoration of the site. Costs of restoration shall be not less than those determined equal to the monetary value of the regulated trees removed in violation of this chapter, or permit issued hereunder, as set forth in an appraisal acceptable to the Director and based upon applicable administrative rules. Each removal of a regulated tree in violation of this chapter shall result in a separate civil fine in addition to costs of restoration.
So it appears that an appraisal of the value of the trees that were destroyed by the Gatti brothers needs to be conducted. Then the Gatti's have to pay at least the amount of that appraisal -- which seemingly could amount to tens of thousands of dollars, given the size of the trees that were destroyed.
Yet as shown below, the Restoration Agreement discussed in a letter that went to the Gatti brothers doesn't mention the appraisal. Hopefully this was just an oversight, because otherwise the Restoration Agreement would be in violation of SRC 86.105(c).
As it stands, the Restoration Agreement seems to allow for the possibility that Daniel and Richard Gatti could replant much smaller trees, which obviously would take many years to grow to the size of the trees that were illegally destroyed. This shouldn't be allowed.
UPDATE: The Statesman Journal has a story on the fine, "Gatti fined $2,000 for illegal tree trimming." (headline of print edition) These quotes from Richard Gatti make him sound unrepentant and insensitive to the plight of homeless people.
Gatti said that, though he doesn't think the trees were harmed, he is willing to replace them. But he said he's "livid" that the city fined him. He plans to appeal the fine.
"Apparently, being a taxpayer and homeowner, property owner, making an effort to keep the property in great condition, having made a mistake, the city now wants to punish me by citing and fining me," Gatti said. "I find that a double standard and outrageous."
"When I drive into the city I see campers on the right-of-ways, destroying the ground, leaving their trash, their needles, their feces all in the right-of-way, not one of whom has been or is being cited or fined," Gatti said.
"I see their priority," he said of city officials. "Their priority is those who contribute nothing to this city. The ones who make it a better place to live are the ones they want to drive out of here and punish."
You'd think that Gatti would know that courts have ruled that homeless people can't be banned from sleeping outside if there aren't enough shelter beds to house them, and that the City of Salem has banned homeless camping throughout the city.
My 12-year-old granddaughter, Evelyn, did the right thing in sending me an "OK Boomer" hoodie for Christmas.
While at first I took it as a putdown of my baby boomer generation, upon further reflection I see it as a totally justified putdown of my generation.
About the same time as the arrival of the hoodie, TIME magazine's Person of the Year issue arrived. It featured Greta Thunberg on the cover, with the words "The Power of Youth."
Since, that issue has been sitting in my pile of Things to Blog About One Day. That day has come, in part because next Monday, February 3, the Oregon legislature convenes in a short even-numbered year session.
A revised cap-and-trade bill that would reduce greenhouse gas pollution in the state will be introduced and, hopefully, passed. Republicans are threatening a walkout to deny the quorum that is needed for the legislature to function, but this would be unpopular with voters who like to see elected officials perform the job they're supposed to do.
The following excerpts from the TIME cover story about Thunberg probably wouldn't change the minds of climate change deniers. However, I was moved by them. My generation truly has let young people down when it comes to protecting our one and only planet for human habitation.
Pass the cap-and-trade bill, Oregon legislators. Listen to what the youth of the world are saying...
The common thread is outrage over a central injustice: young people know they are inheriting a world that will not work nearly as well as it did for the aging adults who have been running it.
"It's so important to realize that we are challenging the systems we are in, and that is being led by young people," says Beth Irving, 17, who came from Wales to demonstrate for sweeping changes outside the U.N. summit.
Thunberg is not aligned with any of these non-climate youth movements, but her abrupt rise to prominence comes at a moment when young people across the globe are awakening to anger at being cut a raw deal.
The existential issue of climate puts everyone at risk, but the younger you are, the greater the stakes.
The scale of addressing climate change -- the systematic transformation of economic, social, and political systems -- animates young progressives already keen to remake the world.
Karin Watson, 22, who came to the climate summit as part of a delegation from Amnesty International Chile, describes a tumultuous, interconnected and youth-led "social explosion" worldwide.
She cannot disentangle her own advocacy for higher wages from women's rights and climate: "This social crisis is also an ecological crisis -- it's related," she says. "In the end, it's intersectional: the most vulnerable communities are the most vulnerable to climate change."
In the U.S., Jaclyn Corin, 19, one of the original organizers of the March for Our Lives anti-gun violence movement, framed the challenges at stake.
"We can't let these problems continue on for future generations to take care of," she says. "Adults didn't take care of these problems, so we have to take care of them, and not be like older generations in their complacency."
Me, Brian Hines, a member of an older generation, trying not to look too complacent
I'm already irked again at Republicans in the state legislature, because they're indicating that another walkout could happen in the upcoming short legislative session over a bill to reduce carbon pollution in Oregon and stem global warming.
The GOP leader in the Oregon Senate says there could be another walkout by Republicans over legislation aimed at stemming global warming.
Senate Minority Leader Herman Baertschiger, Jr., told reporters Wednesday that a bill being prepared by Democrats in the Legislature, which they control, is similar to one that was introduced in 2019.
...Senate Republicans left the state in the 2019 legislative session in order to prevent a vote on the controversial climate change proposal. A measure to curb carbon emissions is once again at the top of Democrats’ priority list, and Republicans have signaled that another walk out is not off the table.
Newly elected House Republican Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, said a walkout is a “breakdown of the process,” but she didn’t rule it out as an option to block the climate change bill.
Republican legislators need to carry out the job they were elected to do: legislate.
That means voting on bills that come before the legislature. If Republicans want to defeat bills they don't like, and pass bills they do like, they should work harder to win elections, not throw a temper-tantrum and walk out when they fail to get their way.
Fortunately, most Oregonians feel like I do, according to a Willamette Week story, "Poll Results Suggest Oregonians Favor Political Consequences for Republican Walkout Tactics."
A new poll, paid for by a group of the state's public-sector unions, suggests voters are supportive of political consequences for senators who stage a walkout, like the one that blocked last year's carbon-cap bill.
"Fully 63% of these voters say they are less likely to vote for an incumbent senator who participated in the walkouts—and more than two in five (42%) say they are 'much less likely' to do so," according to a memo provided to WW on the poll by FM3, which sampled 750 likely November voters.
...The polling suggests a further walkout might cause trouble for Republicans in swing districts—and provide an incentive not to opt for the tactic this session.
Joe Baessler, associate director of AFSCME Council 75, says the poll, paid for by the public-employee union-backed group Our Oregon, showed similar results in those two Senate districts—those held by state Sens. Tim Knopp (R-Bend) and Denyc Boles (R-Salem)—where Democrats are looking to upset Republican incumbents.
OK, that's great news. As is reporting by OPB that union leaders plan to file an initiative that could result in legislators being kicked out of office if they have too many unexcused absences.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and Democratic legislative leaders have played down the idea of trying to amend the Constitution to prevent future walkouts of the kind staged by Republicans during last year’s legislative session.
But a top labor leader says public employee unions are planning to file a proposed ballot initiative that would threaten legislators who walk out with being tossed from office.
Joe Baessler, political director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said polling conducted by the unions show that “voters really seem to like the idea that if you don’t show up to work, you lose your job.”
The proposed constitutional amendment, Baessler said, would oust legislators who have at least 10 unexcused absences in a year.
Excellent idea.
I was deeply disappointed last year when Democrats let the Republicans who walked out, not once but twice, get away with zero negative consequences. No state troopers sent to bring them back. No fines. No nothing.
If a child misbehaves and their parents don't do anything, that makes it more likely that the child will do the same thing again. Ditto for a dog that misbehaves.
So it's entirely predictable that Republicans are talking about another walkout next month, since in 2019 they were rewarded with killing the climate change bill, plus bills dealing with gun control and mandatory vaccinations that the clueless Democrats killed as an incentive to get the Republicans to stop their first walkout.
Hopefully the poll results and the proposed ballot initiative will show Republicans in the state legislature that voters are tired of their walk-out antics, and some serious consequences will befall the GOP if they stage another paid vacation to Idaho while the legislature is in session.
It sure would be nice not to see another Wanted Poster for Republicans failing to do their jobs.
Recent Comments