Salem Political Snark

Warren Binford talks about horror of migrant child detention center

It wasn't the cheeriest City Club talk I've ever been to, but it was one of the most important.

Warren Binford, from my seat at a City Club table

Today Warren Binford, a Willamette University law professor and children's rights expert, spoke about the history of child separations at the Mexican border and her four day visit to the Clint, Texas Border Patrol Facility.

Binford told us that the Clint facility, better termed a child warehouse, was built for about 100 adults, yet housed around 400 children. 

When asked "How have you been treated," they started to cry. Binford spoke with a 14 year old girl who was holding a tiny child. A seven year old girl was with the teenager. She wouldn't talk. The 14 year old didn't know either of the other children. Children arriving at the detention center are asked to care for other children.

Shameful? Of course. Sadly, the shame has been on display for many years, though the Trump administration has raised it to new heights. 

Binford described the lengthy history of what led up to, and followed, the Flores order -- a Supreme Court decision regarding the detention and release of unaccompanied children at the border. 

She started off her talk by asking people to read the testimony of some of those children, which had been printed on postcards, all with a different testimony, that had been left on City Club tables. I brought three cards home. 

Here's what those children said:

"At La Perrera, I was separated from mother over our objections. I was very worried and frightened because I was put with strangers." -- Maybeline, 13, El Salvador

"I let my mom know that I was getting sick. But there was nothing she could do." -- Ducesa, 12, Romania

"On the second day we were at the Hielera, they took my mother away from me and had her speak to someone on the phone, but they were speaking Spanish to her and my mother does not speak Spanish. I tried to go to her to translate for her, but they would not let me help my mom. They kept me away from her so she could not communicate our claim for asylum." -- Karla, 15, Guatemala

I was surprised to hear Binford say that these words came from a 1985 lawsuit against the Reagan administration, which alleged that children were being used as bait to get their parents. That case went on for 12 years.

Thus injustices against migrant children and their parents have been occurring in both Republican and Democratic administrations. 

However, what Binford and other advocates experienced at the Clint detention center this year must be at the Worst end of the child detention outrage scale. She said that the children there got little to eat, so were always hungry. Kool-aid was given at every meal. No milk. No fruit.

"We as a nation are in danger of losing our humanity," Binford said.

There was an outbreak of lice at the detention center. The staff told children to share the brushes and combs that had been given to them, which, of course, is a terrible way to handle a lice infestation. After a comb went missing, a staff member took away their bedding and made them sleep on a bare concrete floor.

Some of the children at Clint were being held in a windowless warehouse.

Binford visited the detention center in June 2019. A July story in the New York Times, "Hungry, Scared, and Sick: Inside the Migrant Detention Center in Clint, Tex." echoes what we heard at the City Club meeting today.

Here's how that story starts out:

CLINT, Tex. — Since the Border Patrol opened its station in Clint, Tex., in 2013, it was a fixture in this West Texas farm town. Separated from the surrounding cotton fields and cattle pastures by a razor-wire fence, the station stood on the town’s main road, near a feed store, the Good News Apostolic Church and La Indita Tortillería. Most people around Clint had little idea of what went on inside. Agents came and went in pickup trucks; buses pulled into the gates with the occasional load of children apprehended at the border, four miles south.

But inside the secretive site that is now on the front lines of the southwest border crisis, the men and women who work there were grappling with the stuff of nightmares.

Outbreaks of scabies, shingles and chickenpox were spreading among the hundreds of children and adults who were being held in cramped cells, agents said. The stench of the children’s dirty clothing was so strong it spread to the agents’ own clothing — people in town would scrunch their noses when they left work. The children cried constantly. One girl seemed likely enough to try to kill herself that the agents made her sleep on a cot in front of them, so they could watch her as they were processing new arrivals.

“It gets to a point where you start to become a robot,” said a veteran Border Patrol agent who has worked at the Clint station since it was built. He described following orders to take beds away from children to make more space in holding cells, part of a daily routine that he said had become “heartbreaking.”

Binford ended her talk by telling us what we could do to help. Here's the photo I took of her slide.

Binford also encouraged people to write op-ed opinion pieces for their local newspaper.

Of course, dumping Trump in 2020 is the best long-term strategy to help migrant children, since the Trump administration has been extremely anti-migrant, goings so far as to willfully separate children from their parents in a hope that this would discourage asylum seekers and others from entering the United States.

I was wrong about the wisdom of impeachment. Go for it, Dems!

Time in this age of Trumpism is a lot like "dog years." It passes seven times (at least) more quickly than what I've been used to in every other presidential administration.

Only last Sunday -- which now seems like two months ago, rather than only two days -- I was opining to a friend at our usual get-together at West Salem's Urban Grange coffee house that I hoped Democrats would take the advice of Nancy Pelosi and make the 2020 election an impeachment of sorts.

I said the Dems should tell voters, "Here's the horrible stuff that Trump has done. We're going to leave it to you to carry out what amounts to impeachment, by voting him out of office in November 2020."

That made sense to me then. Now, I'm all in on impeachment.

As is Pelosi, seemingly, since today she announced that the House is beginning an impeachment inquiry into what Trump has wrought during his scandal-plagued presidency. 

Notably, his attempt to pressure the president of Ukraine to investigate non-existent wrongdoing by Joe Biden's son, Hunter, during his stint on a board of directors of a Ukraine corporation. Also, the non-existent wrongdoing by Joe Biden when he urged that a prosecutor be removed who was failing to look into genuine cases of corruption in Ukraine.

The Washington Post has a great story about how Rudy Giuiani worked mightily at this attempt to smear Joe Biden and hurt his chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

And the New York Times has a cogent analysis of why Trump's self-admitted attempt to get a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 election has pushed Pelosi and other Democrats over the impeachment cliff. Or at least, the impeachment inquiry cliff.

For months, dozens of House Democrats anxiously avoided even the mention of impeaching President Trump — right up until the moment that they demanded it.

The sudden embrace of an impeachment inquiry by previously reluctant House Democrats — most notably Speaker Nancy Pelosi — is attributable to one fundamental fact: They believe the new accusations against Mr. Trump are simple and serious enough to be grasped by a public overwhelmed by the constant din of complex charges and countercharges that has become the norm in today’s Washington.

In contrast to the murkiness of the special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump, Democrats see the current allegations as damningly clear-cut.

His refusal so far to provide Congress with an intelligence official’s whistle-blower complaint as required by law, coupled with the possibility that Mr. Trump dangled American military aid as a bargaining chip to win investigation of a political rival by a foreign government, strikes them as a stark case of presidential wrongdoing.

They consider it egregious enough that they expect many Americans who had been cool to the idea of moving to oust the president to recognize the imperative for the House to act.

Makes sense. 

The Mueller report didn't have enough impeachment octane in it. Sure, Trump obstructed justice. But he does that all the time, and it would have been too easy for Trump and his cronies to say "there was no underlying crime to obstruct." Which is true, though legally obstruction doesn't require a crime.

Now, though, Trump appears guilty of having blatantly done what the Mueller report danced around: an attempt to collude with a foreign power to influence an election. And it is clear that Trump himself was behind this attempt, not people in the Trump orbit.

This indeed is a much stronger basis for impeachment, which is as much a political exercise as a legal one. It's telling that few, if any, Republicans are defending what Trump said to the president of Ukraine.

Sure, they aren't criticizing Trump to the degree that they should. But the fact that the Senate voted unanimously to urge the release of the whistle-blower complaint to Congress shows that Ukraine is a more compelling Trump scandal than what Mueller investigated.

I deeply respect Nancy Pelosi's political acumen. Her willingness to get on board the impeachment train shows that she feels this has a greater probability of leading to Democratic victories in 2020 than defeats.

Of course, Pelosi could be wrong. If there's anything predictable in this Age of Trump, it is that nothing is predictable. Impeachment proceedings are full of high drama by their very nature. With Donald Trump involved, the drama will be on steroids. 

I've read several scary books about the Trump presidency. The best, which also could be termed the worst, is How Democracies Die. I say "worst," because the authors presented persuasive facts about how the United States is heading in the direction that leads to autocracy.

To me, that's the most compelling argument for the House to impeach Trump. The Senate won't go along, almost certainly. But the point isn't to remove Trump from office. Hopefully that will happen courtesy of the voters.

Rather, a strong message needs to be sent that the American people aren't going to sit idly by and watch while Trump destroys both written and unwritten norms of presidential behavior. We the people aren't going to tolerate brazen attempts to get Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. Nor are we going to tolerate stonewalling of legitimate oversight by Congress into Trump administration wrongdoing.

My prediction, or at least my hope, is that impeachment will turn out to be a political plus for Democrats.

But even if it isn't, we have to contemplate which of these scenarios is more disturbing: (1) Trump wins re-election with few checks upon his worst instincts, or (2) Trump wins re-election after a spotlight has been cast on his sordid efforts to undermine our democracy.

Of course, best of all will be if Trump loses his re-election bid. I just believe we need to think of what would be the very worst political scenario, then work to mitigate its worseness.

Oregon Republican Party platform showcases GOP craziness

I'm a firm believer that Republicans here in Oregon are just about as extreme as those, say, in Alabama.

Members of the GOP in our state often just try to look moderate, because they know that with only 26% of registered voters in Oregon identifying as Republican, it's an uphill battle for them to win statewide elections.

(Democrats are at 35% and Non-affiliated are at 32%).

But I think Oregon Republicans should be proud of their extremism. Rock on, crazy conservatives! Don't hide your right-wingless. Flaunt it!

To that end, I'm pleased to share some highlights -- OK, for many, lowlights -- from the official 2019 platform of the Oregon Republican Party. You can read the whole thing by clicking below. 
Download Oregon Republican Party platform

This is what you're supporting if you vote for an Oregon Republican. I've added my own irreverent progressive take on each platform item in red. 
----------------------------
We support the full repeal of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and oppose any efforts to implement similar provisions at the state level.

Oregon GOP wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Plus, no health care replacement by Oregon. I guess praying to have your cancer cured is the Republican health care plan.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Who says? Not the United States Supreme Court. And not the many happily married same-sex couples in Oregon. The Republican Party is on the wrong side of both love and history.

There are only two sexes, male and female, based on a person’s biological sex at birth. We oppose unassigned gender identity at birth. We encourage the natural expression of those genders, masculine and feminine. We affirm that both are valuable in the raising of children.

Hmmmm. This goes against science, which finds a strong genetic component in the many varieties of sexual expression and attraction. Also, it sounds like the Oregon GOP is against same-sex couples raising children.

We believe individuals have the right to protect themselves, their livestock, and domesticated animals from predators, regardless of the predators’ species federal or state protection status.

Kill them wolves! Who cares if there are so few of them in Oregon, and so many cattle. 

Each Oregon educational facility should encourage trained district personnel to be armed in order to protect themselves and their students from violence. We oppose gun free zones.

Gosh, what could go wrong with teachers having guns in classrooms? Except, everything.

We support the delisting of species protected by the State or Federal Government at the earliest opportunity, based on the complete and timely implementation of the recovery plans or if there is a low probability of recovery.

I remember when conservatives actually believed in conservation. Those days are long gone. Endangered species are doubly endangered when Republicans are in control of government.

Every person has a fundamental right to life that begins at conception and endures to the natural conclusion of life. We strongly oppose abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide, including any government funding of these deadly practices.

I also remember when abortion was illegal and women died from botched terminations of pregnancies. Is that a "natural conclusion of life"? Plus, Oregonians believe in the right of terminally ill people to choose assisted suicide when their suffering is too extreme. It's shameful that the GOP doesn't.

We oppose reintroduction or protection of any fish, wildlife, or plant species in Oregon unless there is valid, peer-reviewed scientific data and the consent of state and local government.

Sure, why not have the Harney County Board of Commissioners decide whether a species should go extinct in Oregon? (Answer, there are lots of reasons this is a really bad idea.)

It is the role of parents or legal guardians to direct topics of education concerning human sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, birth control, ethics, and moral values. Governmental or public agencies shall obtain written permission before discussing sex and/or gender-related subjects with minor age children and shall not penalize families for opting out.

Sex education in schools is scary to Oregon Republicans. Maybe they should trust teachers more and their fundamentalist Christianity less.

Parents or legal guardians are the final authority in deciding what is best for their children; they must receive full disclosure and give written permission before any healthcare services, outside referrals, content, or materials are distributed to their children. No person shall be forced to undergo any healthcare services as a condition of school enrollment or attendance.

Like immunizations? Are you really that bad at medical science, Oregon GOP?

We support the constitutional protection of private property rights, including the rights of prospectors and small-scale miners.

Sure, people have a perfect right to ruin fish habitat and wreck the environment so they can play gold miner. NOT!

We oppose international environmental treaties or agreements with organizations using environmental issues for social engineering and/or global control.

Ooh, global control. Scary! Except the leaders of almost every nation on Earth support efforts to fight global warming other than our Idiot-in-Chief, Donald Trump.

We believe that no corporation should be above the law. We do not support bailouts; businesses should be allowed to succeed or fail.

Hey, I hope Trump pays attention to this platform item of the Oregon GOP. He's determined to save the failing coal industry, and give bailouts to farmers being hurt by his trade wars.

We affirm that the President of the United States must adhere to the constitutional separation of powers by seeking and receiving Congressional authorization for any act of war and by seeking and receiving Senate approval for any treaty.

Wow, another platform item I agree with. Trump can't go to war against Iran, or any other country, without Congressional authorization. 

Why homelessness is an absurd problem, philosophically

Being human is tough.

We're subjective creatures, as are all other animals. Yet unlike our fellow primates with whom we're closely related, us Homo sapiens possess a strong capacity for objectivity -- seeing the world from a perspective largely, though not completely, distinct from our personal viewpoint.

Many social problems are difficult to perceive clearly given the often-blurry double vision that comes with our twin capacity for empathetic subjectivity and detached objectivity.

Homelessness is one such problem.

I got to thinking about this after finishing a book by philosopher Thomas Nagel today, The View From Nowhere. Nagel is more famous for his "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" essay, but this book addresses some of the same questions surrounding objective and subjective views of reality.

In a concluding chapter, Nagel says, "So the absurd is part of human life."

He isn't talking about absurdity in the sense of ridiculousness. Rather, it is the consequence of people being capable of seeing things both from inside our own mind, and by extension the minds of others, and allso from a more objective view from nowhere.

Understand: both perspectives are part of being human. The challenge -- and the absurdity -- arises from the need to simultaneously grasp the individual and the universal; the personal and the impersonal; the intimate and the public.

Here's an excerpt that gives a flavor of what Nagel is speaking about.

Morality is a form of objective reengagement. It permits the objective assertion of subjective values to the extent this is compatible with the corresponding claims of others. It can take various forms, some of which I have discussed. 

All of them involve, to one degree or another, occupying a position far enough outside your own life to reduce the importance of the difference between yourself and other people, yet not so far outside that all human values vanish in a nihilistic blackout.

OK, those words aren't transparently clear.

Nagel, being a philosopher, often engages in philosophy-speak. However, his central thesis strikes me as indisputable. We are subjective beings who strive to see things as much as possible from an objective perspective when the situation demands it.

The situation of homelessness, for example. 

Here in Salem (Oregon), City officials are struggling to find an approach to this problem that is both compassionate and realistic. Homeless camps on both public and private land near Wallace Marine Park have been removed recently. A "sit-lie" ordinance that would prohibit sleeping/camping on sidewalks during the daytime is being considered. 

Two public forums on the ordinance have generated a lot of debate and discussion on social media. Advocates for homeless people see the ordinance as a heartless attack on vulnerable individuals who already are struggling mightily. Supporters of  businesses see the ordinance as a way to keep downtown welcoming to everyone.

Good arguments can be made on either side. 

This is especially true when individuals convey what it is like to be a homeless person or a business owner from their personal subjective point of view.

My heart goes out to someone who is forced to live outside through no fault of their own. My heart also goes out to someone trying to make a living from a retail store who sees customers going elsewhere because of homeless people and their belongings being so apparent on downtown sidewalks.

Today's homelessness debates remind me of my health policy work back when John Kitzhaber was president of the Oregon Senate. Kitzhaber, a physician, spoke forthrightly about the controversial subject of health care rationing. 

A 1990 Washington Post story, "Rationing Medical Care," told the story of Coby Howard.

A blunt kind of medical rationing began three years ago in Oregon.

It started a movement that could sweep the country.

In July 1987, trying to stretch dollars for care of poor Medicaid patients, Oregon legislators voted to stop funding many organ transplants -- cost, $65,000 to $250,000 apiece. They voted, instead, to use the money to give basic health services to 400 more women and 1,800 children.

Four months later, a 7-year-old boy with leukemia, Coby Howard, was denied a $100,000 bone-marrow transplant and died.

Told to "smile big," he had stood before TV cameras to help raise $60,000 toward the operation. But by the time a medical center agreed to accept that sum for the surgery -- the transplant that might or might not have saved his life -- he was too sick for it.

Coby Howard was a victim, the media told the public, of health care rationing. And he became a symbol of an emerging era in which Americans, like it or not, must face the fact that no government, no employer, no insurer, no individual can afford to pay for everything medicine can do.

This was a collision of the subjective and the objective, the emotional empathy felt toward a boy needing a bone-marrow transplant and the stark reality that if limited public money was spent on the transplant, others would go without basic medical care such as prenatal services.

Homelessness and health care rationing obviously are different issues. Still, the difficult-to-bridge gap between our subjective feelings about an individual who needs help and the more objective nature of what Nagel calls the "view from nowhere" is still very much alive in today's debates over how to address homelessness.

I don't have an answer. My goal in this blog post is simply to talk about the issue from a perspective that, while philosophical, also is distinctly real. 

Ralph Crawshaw, a psychiatrist I worked with in my role as publicist, and then executive director, of Oregon Health Decisions (a bioethics organization), liked to say, "Society must decide." He was speaking about health care rationing and death with dignity. The same holds true for homelessness.

I understand the passion of those who feel strongly about this issue, whether from the viewpoint of individuals lacking a home or the burden homeless people impose on others. Somehow we have to strive to listen to all viewpoints, recognizing that there isn't an easy way to come up with broadly acceptable policies in this area.

Life often is absurd, as Nagel correctly says. While living in, and as, this absurdity, we have to find ways of moving forward in as clear-sighted a manner as possible.

City Council shake-up: Sally Cook and Brad Nanke aren't running again

Today brought some interesting, though not hugely surprising, local political news. The Salem Reporter broke the story that Sally Cook has decided to resign her Ward 7 City Council seat following the death of her husband, Jason.

Sally Cook plans to resign her seat on Salem City Council soon, she informed City Manager Steve Powers on Thursday.

The 39-year-old councilor said the sudden death of her husband three months ago and reality of being a single mother of two led to her decision.

“I need to be able to spend time with my family. It really is a large commitment, being a city councilor,” she told Salem Reporter. “I love the work. I am interested in doing more, but right now my family needs me more.”

With election season’s official start Thursday, Cook’s resignation adds another wrinkle to Salem City Council. The council will appoint a replacement to serve the remainder of her term, which expires Dec. 31, 2020.

Jason was only 42. I got to know him through our participation in self-defense classes at Pacific Martial Arts. It was a shock for me and my fellow classmates to hear of his untimely death. My heart goes out to Sally, who is a wonderfully kind and caring woman. 

Given the current makeup of the City Council, six progressives and three conservatives, seemingly Cook's appointed replacement will be a progressive like her.

I'd guess that this person will be chosen with an eye toward them running for the Ward 7 seat in the May 2020 primary election (if a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote in the primary, they become the city councilor, which usually happens). But political guesses often turn out to be wrong.

Also today, the Statesman Journal has a story about Brad Nanke, the Ward 3 councilor, deciding not to run again after 19 years on the City Council. 

Salem City Councilor Brad Nanke will not seek reelection in 2020, planning to cap a nearly two-decade run representing southeast Salem after his term concludes.

Nanke, in his fifth term on the council, has more than a year left to influence policy: His current term ends Dec. 31, 2020.

"Five is enough," he told the Statesman Journal on Thursday.

...Nanke is regarded as a more conservative voice on the council. His wife was one member of the conservative talk radio duo that hosted "The Gator & Denise Show," which used to broadcast locally on KYKN.

Given Nanke's rightward political leaning, I'm not a fan of him in that regard. However, anyone who soldiers on as an unpaid city councilor for as long as Nanke has deserves a standing ovation, no matter what side of the aisle they favor (actually, there are no aisles for city councilors, since they sit on two edges of a box-shaped area).

Nanke's Ward 3 district went for Clinton over Trump in 2016 by a 48-41 margin, so this City Council seat appears to be a good chance for a progressive pick-up. Cook's Ward 7 seat went for Clinton by 50-36, so it also leans leftward.

Sure, the Mayor and City Council races are nominally non-partisan. But these days there is very little about politics that isn't partisan on some level, even though much of what the City Council does is nuts and bolts stuff involving keeping the machinery of city government working smoothly.

Recently I heard a city councilor say that about 80% of what they do is in that mostly non-controversial category, while about 20% has liberal/conservative overtones where the political heat is turned up higher. That seems about right to me.

Progressive Salem will be involved in the four City Council seats up for election in 2020. The other two seats are Cara Kaser's Ward 1 seat and Matt Ausec's Ward 5 seat. Kaser and Ausec are both progressives. 

It's always an open question to what extent a City Council candidate should focus on their general political leaning, versus talking about specific goals for Salem and their neighborhood. Of course, it's possible to do both -- something that makes sense to me, especially in 2020, a presidential election year.

Both progressives and conservatives are going to be fired up about the national election. Since Salem leans decidedly liberal, I'm hoping that the progressive City Council candidates will do a lot of talking about the positive things that their council majority has accomplished locally. 

After all, there's a lot to like about the Progressive Salem vision statement.

Political moderation has a place in Salem. So does extremism.

As the saying goes, there's a time and place for everything. Like, being a political moderate. Or, a political extremist. It doesn't make sense to always embrace one or the other. 

Sure, it sounds good to hear politicians say, "I want to work with those on the other side of the aisle." 

But sometimes those on the other end of the political spectrum aren't interested in compromise and moderation. Barack Obama found this out when Republicans in Congress opposed almost everything he put forward.

For example, a lot of time was wasted trying to get the GOP on board with the Affordable Care Act when all Republicans wanted to do was scuttle it. 

Frequently I hear people claim that local politics is different.

They believe that conservative and progressive elected officials  here in Salem can join hands and agree on policies that would be better than what those on the political right and left could come up with on their own. Well, maybe. I'm skeptical about this, though.

One reason is that I'm dubious our local Republicans and Democrats are markedly different from those inhabiting the halls of Congress or the corridors of the Oregon legislature. 

Here in Salem the Mayor and city councilors are nominally non-partisan, lacking a "D" or "R" after their name.

But almost always it's obvious where their political leaning lies. And it's well known that over the past few decades the Republican Party has veered rightward to a much greater degree than the Democratic Party has tilted leftward. 

The following graphics show the average ideology of the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress since World War II. In recent years, the Republican party has become far more conservative than the Democratic party has become liberal.

So meeting in the middle no longer results in genuine moderation, given that Republican positions have steadily become more extreme than Democratic positions. 

Another reason I'm wary of moderation, whether on the national, state, or local level, is that some issues cry out for urgent, all hands on deck, full bore action. 

Climate change and income inequality are two issues that demand thoughtful extremism. Our planet isn't going to remain habitable for humans without drastic immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Finding a middle ground on global warming means losing a fight that has to be won.

The City of Salem is embarking on a Climate Action Plan aimed at reducing our city's carbon pollution. That's great. However, not so great has been the resistance by Steve Powers, the City Manager, to doing what needs to be done in this area.

Often the inertia of City staff to implementing policy goals established by the City Council is irksome rather than dangerous. In the case of a Climate Action Plan, though, nothing short of 100% dedication to markedly lowering Salem's greenhouse gas emissions is acceptable.

This won't happen by tinkering around the edges of current policies. Urban sprawl, incessant road building, and excessive reliance on gas-powered vehicles have played a big role in getting Salem, Oregon, and the United States into the climate change mess we're in now.

Reversing our way out of that catastrophe, whose effects are becoming increasingly evident, won't happen by splitting the difference between the views of global warming realists and deniers. The deniers are on the wrong side of science and of humanity, whether they sit in Congress or the Salem City Council chambers.

Income inequality isn't as obvious a local issue. Here too, though, there are signs that City officials aren't taking the widening divide between the 1% and 99% (or 10% and 90%) as seriously as they should be. 

A payroll tax on employees and an operating fee paid via utility bills are in the works to deal with City of Salem budget deficits.

Both of these revenue streams would hit ordinary people more than the wealthy in Salem. For example, reportedly a single family home would pay an $8 a month operating fee, while Salem Hospital (along with other commercial properties) would pay $38.56 a month.

This seems decidedly unbalanced. No doubt the Chamber of Commerce is pleased with these proposals, but it's hard to see how they reduce income inequality in Salem, which surely is increasing here as rapidly as it is elsewhere in our country.

I could be wrong -- an ever-present possibility -- but I sense that people in Salem, as elsewhere in the United States, are hungry for Big Ideas that improve the lives of ordinary people. 

Modern Republicans, by and large, are silent in this area. Their focus is on further improving the lives of the rich and powerful. This is why many of the Democratic presidential candidates are garnering so much attention for their Big Ideas in the areas of the environment, health care, education, and so on.

I'm hoping that Salem will be fertile ground for our own Big Ideas, some of which are seedlings in the minds of our six progressive city councilors. Hopefully those ideas will grow into fertile reality. If they do, likely a look back will reveal that it wasn't moderation that brought them into being, but a passionate extremism.

On a lighter note...

Trump is best mocked, not ignored

Donald Trump is a joke of a president. Except, he isn't a funny joke. He's pathetic. Which makes him eminently mockable, because he's clueless about his obvious weaknesses, failings, and insecurities. 

If Trump had even a smidgen of self-awareness, if he showed even the slightest bit of compassion for other people, if he even occasionally manifested respect for truth -- then my compassionate Buddha-nature (slim though it is) would look upon Trump somewhat more favorably than I view him now.

But since Trump has never shown me anything but incessant narcissism, incompetence, and non-stop lying, I've concluded that mocking him is the best thing we all can do until he slinks out of the White House, covered in the cloud of crap that surrounds Trump wherever he goes.

I've gone back and forth as to whether I should follow Trump on Twitter. Which reflects the larger debate as to whether ignoring Trump's idiotic antics is preferable to giving him the attention that his insecure psyche demands 24/7.

Currently I'm following Trump, though some mornings (well, many mornings) it's painful to start the day by reading his latest inanities, insults, childish feuds, and nonsensical policy pronouncements. I've come to believe that it's my duty to stay informed about what he's doing on Twitter, in much the same way a puppy that isn't housebroken needs to be kept an eye on.

Since Trump is going to spread bullshit, I figure I should hold my nose and stay aware of it.

This afternoon, as I was driving into town, I heard Anderson Cooper discuss this general issue with a Republican guest on his show. That guy was criticizing the media for paying so much attention to Trump's stupid acts, the most recent being Sharpiegate, Trump clumsily using a black pen to make it look like a hurricane forecast threatened Alabama, which Trump wrongly claimed.

Cooper kept saying that it wasn't the media who made this into a story. It was the president of the United States refusing to admit that when he said last Sunday that Hurricane Dorian could hit Alabama, this was utterly false, since the official forecasts were showing that Dorian was going to move northward along the east coast of Florida.

Geez, the non-genius in the White House couldn't even create a halfway believable forgery. Instead, Trump used a black pen to narrow the white cone of uncertainty that, as is known to anyone with an ounce of meteorological knowledge, always expands with time. So narrowing it added an extra dose of stupidity to what Trump did.

Washington Post opinion writer Eugene Robinson nailed it: "Trump's Sharpie-doctored hurricane map embodies the man." 

We’re left with two disturbing possibilities. One is that Trump altered the map himself. In that case, we have a president too insecure to admit the slightest misstep and too incapable of logical thinking to do a plausible job of forgery. We also have a president who broke the law, since altering a National Weather Service forecast is a crime.

The other possibility is that someone on Trump’s staff used a Sharpie to fulfill the mission of “proving” Trump right even when he was wrong. That’s basically all the White House communications shop does these days, anyway.

I know it’s a minor episode, but I hope that doctored map makes its way into the Smithsonian someday. Like Washington’s uniform or Jefferson’s desk, Trump’s bogus map embodies the man.

The last I heard, White House officials were saying that Trump himself created the fake map. Which figures. Trump never stops lying, yet the whiny little bitch (as Bill Maher calls Trump) constantly cries fake news! 

If he'd take a look in the mirror, Trump would realize that what's being reflected is the most fake president our country has ever endured. From now until Trump is kicked out of office, he deserves constant mockery. I'm pleased to do my patriotic part.

Check out the City of Salem's new "sit-lie" proposed ordinance

Something needs to be done about homeless people sleeping on sidewalks during the day, and leaving their belongings on sidewalks. The City of Salem has come up with a proposed approach that seems quite reasonable.

Because there's been discussion on Facebook and elsewhere that this amounts to a criminalization of being homeless -- which isn't true -- I'm hoping that people will educate themselves about the proposed ordinance before rejecting it as a bad idea.

Below I've copied in the questions and answers from a City of Salem web page, "Salem responds to growing concerns of activities in public right of way, including sidewalks and parking strips." I've also copied in the Findings section of the proposed ordinance. 

[Note: I don't see the language/details in the first question and answer below in the proposed ordinance. Perhaps this is an oversight and the proposed restrictions will be added later, as currently the Findings section is the only substantive part of the draft ordinance.]

I'm curious to learn what, specifically, homeless advocates might find objectionable in the following descriptions of the proposed ordinance and the Findings that provide the rationale for the ordinance. Personally, I don't find much, if anything, that strikes me as a bad idea.

Yes, before implementing the ordinance City officials need to make sure that there's a safe place for homeless people to store their belongings during the day. This seems to be a key to making the ordinance work. 

Read on...

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

FAQs:

1.      What does the proposed City of Salem Sidewalks and Public Space Ordinance restrict?

• Sleeping or laying on the sidewalk during the day, from the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
• Erecting “campsites” on the sidewalk all day or all night.
• Leaving personal property unattended on the sidewalk all day or night for more than 24 hours.

2.      What is the purpose of the proposed Sidewalks and Public Space Ordinance?

• Keeping sidewalks and public spaces clean helps the overall appearance and vitality of city, particularly in commercial areas.  Business owners, their employees, and their patrons may also feel more safe using the sidewalks in all areas of the city.
• With the ordinance in place, Salem Police can make contact with those in need and help direct them to the appropriate shelters or service. It also gives Salem Police a tool to use when unsightly and unsanitary temporary structures are being used on the sidewalks, or when individuals establish a presence or camp in front of a business that detracts from or deters visitors to the business through their behavior, trash, or waste.

3.      Are there exceptions or times where sidewalks and public spaces could be used to set up temporary seating?

• If enacted, the ordinance allows for medical emergencies, seating for persons with physical disabilities, strollers, sidewalk cafes, attending a parade or other special event, sitting in a chair or bench, waiting for the bus, or other City-permitted activity.

4.      Does the proposed Sidewalks and Public Spaces Ordinance cover the entire city or just downtown?

• If approved, the proposed ordinance would apply to the entire city.

5.      Does the proposed Sidewalks and Public Spaces Ordinance apply to everyone?

• Yes. All laws must be applied and enforced uniformly.

6.      If homeless individuals can't sit on the sidewalk during the day, where will they go?

• Over the past several years, due to the City Council's priority of addressing our community's homeless, a variety of options are available for food, shelter, storage, and other personal needs. 
• Available services include Arches, Union Gospel Mission, Salvation Army, parks and city benches, or churches or social service agencies who allow such activity.

7.      Can offenders be jailed?

• Not for simply being in violation of the conduct regulated by the ordinance.
• Repeat violations can lead to an exclusion order. Violation of an exclusion order can lead to a citation for trespass, which carries criminal sanction and possibly jail.

8.      What about Boise?

• This ordinance was written based on the 9^th Circuit's decision in Martin v. City of Boise and complies with the outcome of that case.
• See the Idaho news article for more information.

9.      What about the City of Portland case?

• The City of Portland enacted a similar ordinance several years ago, that an Oregon circuit court judge invalidated because it was found in conflict with an Oregon criminal law for pedestrian interference.
• The proposed Sidewalks and Public Spaces Ordinance avoids this issue by: 1) not imposing criminal sanctions (no jail) and 2) specifically addressing appearance and enhancement of community vitality.  This ordinance is not directed at preserving physical pedestrian access or public safety.

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

Portion of the prop0sed ordinance:

Section 2. Findings.

(a)  The City of Salem is a geographically diverse city, largely comprised of residential, commercial, and industrial areas.

(b)  Maintaining pedestrian and authorized commercial activity on public sidewalks is essential to public safety and welfare, thriving neighborhoods, and economic vitality within the city.

(c)  Sitting or lying down on a public sidewalk, camping, or leaving personal property unattended on a public sidewalk, is not the ordinary, customary, or intended use of a public sidewalk.

(d)  The need to maintain pedestrian and commercial traffic is greatest during the customary hours of operation of businesses, shops, restaurants, and other public and private enterprises, services, and activities within the city, when public sidewalks are in greatest use, and when city residents are most likely to use their neighborhood sidewalks.

(e)  Persons who sit or lie down on public sidewalks, camp, or who leave personal property unattended on public sidewalks, during customary business hours threaten the safety and welfare of all pedestrians, with the greatest impact on those pedestrians who are elderly, young children, or who have physical and mental disabilities.

(f)  Persons who sit or lie down on public sidewalks, camp, or who leave personal property unattended on public sidewalks, deter city residents and visitors from patronizing local shops, restaurants, and businesses, and enterprises, and from utilizing public and private services, and activities within the city, and deter people from using the sidewalks in their neighborhoods, with the greatest impact occurring during customary business hours.

(g)  Persons siting or laying on public sidewalks, camping, or the accumulation of trash and personal property unattended on public sidewalks, is detrimental to pedestrian safety, public welfare and the economic vitality of the community, with the greatest impact occurring during customary business hours. This behavior causes a cycle of decline as residents and tourists go elsewhere to walk, meet, shop, dine, and access other services and activities, and residents become intimidated from using the public sidewalks in their own neighborhoods.

(h)  Sitting or lying down, camping, or leaving personal property unattended, is an incompatible and detrimental use of the public sidewalks in all areas of the city.

(i)  The people of the City of Salem promote policies that preserve the right to enjoy public spaces and to traverse freely, while protecting free-speech rights, as well as other safe activity consistent with city ordinances and permitting requirements.

(j)  The prohibitions against sitting or lying down on public sidewalks, camping, or leaving personal property unattended on public sidewalks, contained in this ordinance leaves fully intact the right to speak, protest, or engage in other lawful activity on any public sidewalk consistent with city ordinances and permitting requirements.

(k)  The prohibition against sitting or lying down on public sidewalks, or leaving personal property unattended on public sidewalks, contained in this ordinance, apply only to public sidewalks. There are numerous places within the city where the restrictions of this ordinance do not apply, including private property, public benches, private seating areas of sidewalk cafés, non-sidewalk areas of public parks, public plazas, and other non- sidewalk common areas open to the public.

(l)  The prohibition against sitting or lying down on public sidewalks contained in this ordinance contains exceptions for medical emergencies, persons in wheelchairs, and permitted activities, among others.

(m)  The City of Salem desires to help persons in need to obtain services. In order to provide persons sitting or lying down on public sidewalks, or camping, the opportunity to obtain referrals to appropriate service entities, a peace officer may not issue a citation without first warning the person that sitting or lying down on a public sidewalk during certain hours is unlawful.

(n)  The City of Salem desires to provide persons an opportunity to remove their personal property from public sidewalks on their own. Prior to removing unattended personal property from a public sidewalk in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance, advance notice is to be given unless the property poses an immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare.

(o)  “Campsites” have become a frequent occurrence throughout the City, including on public sidewalks, public property, and public rights-of-way. These campsites are unsafe and unhealthy for the people living in them, and have a detrimental effect on the economic vitality of the city, and the safety and welfare of the residents and visitors of the City of Salem.

(p)  The City of Salem is a compassionate city, and desires to help persons experiencing residential instability or homelessness, to transition to safe and permanent housing. However, allowing camping on our public sidewalks, in our neighborhoods, and in other areas of our city does not help people transition to housing and has a detrimental effect on the economic vitality of the city, and the public safety and welfare.

(q)  Maintaining accessible and attractive sidewalks for pedestrian and commercial traffic is an important public safety objective, and important to maintain the economic vitality of the city. Blocked and obstructed sidewalks present hazards to pedestrians, and discourages visitors and patrons to community businesses.

(r)  The placement of tents or other items on public sidewalks, public property, and public rights-of-way, for habitation, is not the ordinary, customary, or intended use of these areas, and is an incompatible and detrimental use of these spaces in all parts of the City.

(s)  Campsites can also obstruct and delay emergency personnel responding to emergencies. Campsites can obstruct ingress to and egress from businesses, residential buildings, and other establishments and property. Campsites often exhibit the presence of human waste and uncontained food, which poses public health risks.