Again today a local pastor, his church seemingly set up as an enterprise, is on trial for molesting a 13-year-old. My own 13-year-old daughters, twins, are due back to me this weekend, their absence the parenting-plan-purgatory of a slow motion divorce. A 13-year-old girl dies in Iraq, blown apart by a bomber who, for reasons beyond me, targets a school.
Protect, protect, protect.
Weather in Seattle was lovely last weekend, so warm in the sun, though in the shade a chill breeze betrayed origins much farther north. The Space Needle had crowds on Sunday. Lovers with intertwined fingers brushed soft lips down a curve of throat, parents overwhelmed by the cacophony of their lives herded yelling children who were as safe as they were annoying.
1st street was less crowded and more interesting than the cliché of Pike Place Market, reminding again that though Portland is my home town, Seattle enfolds a center Stumptown has not yet found.
In the car, a couple is looking everywhere but at each other, she has tears in her eyes he can’t see. Lost to one another, again, hurt and melancholy have pushed aside touch and tenderness.
In the rhythm of life, joy seems so regularly married to despair. Those addicted to adrenaline are doomed to live with all of it, contrast etches the context, gives a feeling of seeing it new again, the pleasure of new skin to the caress of god’s finger tip.
Routine feels like death to the dopamine addicted, yet children depend on the dependable, on the anticipation of meals and scoldings and hugs, piano lessons and recess. They need the corral, they need to know where fences lay so they can learn to run at full gallop.
Protect, protect, protect.
A suicide bomber blows up a bakery in Israel killing three, maybe the baker and his wife, a customer from Peru. Eilat was a small coastal town on the Red Sea when I was there three lifetimes ago, when I had more lifetimes in front of me than behind.
Two men are talking to the street walker on the corner in Seattle, she has sores on thin legs, flea bites from flea bags, an immune system long ago compromised by drugs and disease.
The twins want to go snow boarding this weekend, Brina went to the top of the mountain last week with one friend, she is quietly proud, her sister went up halfway with another. They have discovered that sometimes intermediate slopes are easier than trying to remain a beginner. I worry I won’t be able to coach them in soccer this Spring.
There was a car wreck on the Santiam last week, not long before I arrived on the scene a young man lost control on black ice and slammed into the passenger door of an oncoming car and killed the couple inside, the physics of heads coming together at 60 miles per hour is fatal, the last and ultimate bonding, I imagine the sound, soft and hollow and wet.
One of the twins needs to do extra credit in science, ask the teacher to be moved from next to the disruptive boy. When I am not anxious about her future I wonder about his present, if all he needs is breakfast, or less time in front of the xBox or tv. When I am less vulnerable I am more generous.
Protect, protect, protect.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
THE health care question
The headline in Sunday's "Oregonian" says Guv’nor Kuongoski will “go to the mat on kids health.”
Once again the governor leads from behind. But at least, on this, he’s pointed in the right direction.
Before Kulongoski claims too much credit, though, please remember that Senator Ben Westlund of Central Oregon, former Governor John Kitzhaber, and the states of Massachusetts, California and others, are much farther ahead in formulating viable plans for the uninsured.
Rather than pretending to be a champion, we think Kulongoski would better serve the cause by putting his shoulder to someone else’s wheel.
But why do we care at all? Aside from our own personal needs, why do we care that others have access to health care? To health insurance?
This question is NOT about money. The money problem comes later in the debate. Money is a detail, a mechanism, a requirement, a means to the end.
We can, and we should, debate long and hard over the money.
But not yet.
First, as a community, can we agree about the need? Can we agree, as Oregonians, that we share an obligation to our neighbors?
I don’t want my neighbor to bear the constant, excruciating pain of a rotting tooth. I don’t want my neighbor to see fever in her child and fear she can’t get a doctor. I don’t want my neighbor to miss a car payment because he needs 12 stitches in his hand.
Can we agree on that?
If not, then we live in two different states of Oregon.
Yes, yes, we all know that health care for the uninsured via the emergency room is available. It is also horribly inefficient, like paying a carpenter to sharpen a pencil. But again, let’s not talk yet about the money.
Let’s look at some numbers, instead, thoughtfully provided by reporters Michelle Cole and Don Colburn of “The Oregonian.” (Hey you two, if you are going to say the tobacco industry gave $200,000 to lawmakers, primarily Republicans, in a story about taxing tobacco, let’s have some NAMES! Who got the money? And what is the position of those lawmakers on taxing cigarettes for children’s health care?)
“The number and percentage of uninsured children in Oregon are at their highest levels in a decade. Nearly 118,000 Oregonians younger than 19 -- one in eight -- lacked insurance in late 2004, the most recent figures. New state data from 2006 are due by the end of this month, and more recent federal census numbers suggest that the proportion of uninsured children has not changed much in the past two years...” Cole/Colburn wrote.
One in eight. To broad-brush some statistics, this means that in my daughter’s 7th grade social studies class of 32 or so, four kids do not have health insurance.
I am not prepared to say that one of those children, who I know and for whom I am a mediocre soccer coach, should be without healthcare.
For any reason. I will take it out of my own pocket if need be, to a point.
And that is what insurance is, when others benefit. I take something out of my pocket for them. When I benefit, it is my neighbors taking it out of their pocket for me. If you would turn your back on one of those children, we live in different states of Oregon.
We believe, along with Senator Ben Westlund, that “Access to effective, affordable health care is a fundamental human right,” as he quoted from the platform of the Democratic party.
This is a divide that may separate Oregonians, but it is a legitimate divide. Unlike “Death with Dignity” or abortion or gay rights, this actually does affect everybody. We need to debate this, long and hard. Does every Oregonian have a right to affordable health care?
The question deserves a vote, of some sort, unobscured by debates over money, over who will pay and how. Westlund or someone else should introduce this simple bill, that "access to effective, affordable health care is a fundamental human right," in Oregon.
This should not be trivialized. Our very nation was founded on a statement of rights. From this, politics and debate and policy can follow.
Because I believe, if we can agree on this, we can figure out the rest.
Once again the governor leads from behind. But at least, on this, he’s pointed in the right direction.
Before Kulongoski claims too much credit, though, please remember that Senator Ben Westlund of Central Oregon, former Governor John Kitzhaber, and the states of Massachusetts, California and others, are much farther ahead in formulating viable plans for the uninsured.
Rather than pretending to be a champion, we think Kulongoski would better serve the cause by putting his shoulder to someone else’s wheel.
But why do we care at all? Aside from our own personal needs, why do we care that others have access to health care? To health insurance?
This question is NOT about money. The money problem comes later in the debate. Money is a detail, a mechanism, a requirement, a means to the end.
We can, and we should, debate long and hard over the money.
But not yet.
First, as a community, can we agree about the need? Can we agree, as Oregonians, that we share an obligation to our neighbors?
I don’t want my neighbor to bear the constant, excruciating pain of a rotting tooth. I don’t want my neighbor to see fever in her child and fear she can’t get a doctor. I don’t want my neighbor to miss a car payment because he needs 12 stitches in his hand.
Can we agree on that?
If not, then we live in two different states of Oregon.
Yes, yes, we all know that health care for the uninsured via the emergency room is available. It is also horribly inefficient, like paying a carpenter to sharpen a pencil. But again, let’s not talk yet about the money.
Let’s look at some numbers, instead, thoughtfully provided by reporters Michelle Cole and Don Colburn of “The Oregonian.” (Hey you two, if you are going to say the tobacco industry gave $200,000 to lawmakers, primarily Republicans, in a story about taxing tobacco, let’s have some NAMES! Who got the money? And what is the position of those lawmakers on taxing cigarettes for children’s health care?)
“The number and percentage of uninsured children in Oregon are at their highest levels in a decade. Nearly 118,000 Oregonians younger than 19 -- one in eight -- lacked insurance in late 2004, the most recent figures. New state data from 2006 are due by the end of this month, and more recent federal census numbers suggest that the proportion of uninsured children has not changed much in the past two years...” Cole/Colburn wrote.
One in eight. To broad-brush some statistics, this means that in my daughter’s 7th grade social studies class of 32 or so, four kids do not have health insurance.
I am not prepared to say that one of those children, who I know and for whom I am a mediocre soccer coach, should be without healthcare.
For any reason. I will take it out of my own pocket if need be, to a point.
And that is what insurance is, when others benefit. I take something out of my pocket for them. When I benefit, it is my neighbors taking it out of their pocket for me. If you would turn your back on one of those children, we live in different states of Oregon.
We believe, along with Senator Ben Westlund, that “Access to effective, affordable health care is a fundamental human right,” as he quoted from the platform of the Democratic party.
This is a divide that may separate Oregonians, but it is a legitimate divide. Unlike “Death with Dignity” or abortion or gay rights, this actually does affect everybody. We need to debate this, long and hard. Does every Oregonian have a right to affordable health care?
The question deserves a vote, of some sort, unobscured by debates over money, over who will pay and how. Westlund or someone else should introduce this simple bill, that "access to effective, affordable health care is a fundamental human right," in Oregon.
This should not be trivialized. Our very nation was founded on a statement of rights. From this, politics and debate and policy can follow.
Because I believe, if we can agree on this, we can figure out the rest.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Liberty and Liberals
"Single" seems to thrive on feelings he denies. In this case, feelings about "liberals." He sets up a "straw man" and then crows about knocking him down. (http://eyeonoregon.blogspot.com/2007/01/protect-and-serve.html)
Let's try this in language more plain: We did NOT say cops should not do anything when they feel threatened.
What we did say was that there needs to be greater scrutiny of the "I felt threatened!" defense, better training, possibly a change of culture in the union hall and squad room. Because there seems to be a pattern of behavior.
The other difference between bad cops and good liberals, “Single,” is that a bad cop carries a gun and a badge that allows him/her to victimize others with impunity. And those that do so damage all those good cops, the vast majority, we agree, as well as the rest of our social fabric.
That’s what we said.
The idea that "Single" may favor a society that, without much concern, allows police to batter a man because he didn't do "what the cops ask," even though the man was autistic and barely able to speak and follow directions, is a repugnant but possibly accurate representation of his whole philosophy.
There, a straw man of my very own.
We LIKE it when "Single" takes the opportunity to prove his "conservative manliness" over the "weak liberal" writer by saying there are only a few bad cops and a few good liberals.
It tugs at our “Wobblie” heart strings when “conservatives” do that sort of thing. Gives us a glow right from the 1940s and 1950s, not only a time of “Leave It to Beaver and “Father Knows Best,” but of Eric Hoffer and Alan Ginsberg and Jack Keouac and a vibrant left that was made up of working men and women who fought for these liberties on the battlefield and in the steel yard and ship yard and in the forests. Who bought bonds and made guns and sent their own children off to war.
Liberals are not “weak” by definition. They just misplaced their vitality, a few vital organs, too. Many of them from the past would not even be considered "liberal" today, but great confusion occurred after the 60s, with the boomers ascendant. It was the mushrooms, I just know it.
The left is ignorant about many things, like the effects of global free trade, and that all teachers are of value and should have equal access to the minds of our children, that good intentions are the equivalent of good action. The left can be quite confused about the difference between “equal opportunity” and “equal quality (equality) of life.”
But the left is not inherently weak, unless they choose not to fight.
And the best thing to fight for is liberty, and against those who think that a “police state” is a liberty-enhancing, safer place to live.
Democracy is a funny thing. It is not the bed of liberty, as many suppose. In fact, one of the most important warnings we’ve been given about democracy are the dangers inherent in “Tyranny of the Majority.” And if the last two presidential elections didn't convince you, nothing will.
Which is why we have a Bill of Rights, which is why our founding fathers designed a government that was INTENDED to be slow and awkward and noisy and inefficient.
"Single" my friend, "warm and fuzzy?" The only thing fuzzy here is your thinking. Like you, many of those today who believe they are "conservative" are not, they are actually statists, corporatists, Fascists or theocrats, or some foul amalgam of all of those. Like Cheney’s puppet in the “W”hite House.
Let's try this in language more plain: We did NOT say cops should not do anything when they feel threatened.
What we did say was that there needs to be greater scrutiny of the "I felt threatened!" defense, better training, possibly a change of culture in the union hall and squad room. Because there seems to be a pattern of behavior.
The other difference between bad cops and good liberals, “Single,” is that a bad cop carries a gun and a badge that allows him/her to victimize others with impunity. And those that do so damage all those good cops, the vast majority, we agree, as well as the rest of our social fabric.
That’s what we said.
The idea that "Single" may favor a society that, without much concern, allows police to batter a man because he didn't do "what the cops ask," even though the man was autistic and barely able to speak and follow directions, is a repugnant but possibly accurate representation of his whole philosophy.
There, a straw man of my very own.
We LIKE it when "Single" takes the opportunity to prove his "conservative manliness" over the "weak liberal" writer by saying there are only a few bad cops and a few good liberals.
It tugs at our “Wobblie” heart strings when “conservatives” do that sort of thing. Gives us a glow right from the 1940s and 1950s, not only a time of “Leave It to Beaver and “Father Knows Best,” but of Eric Hoffer and Alan Ginsberg and Jack Keouac and a vibrant left that was made up of working men and women who fought for these liberties on the battlefield and in the steel yard and ship yard and in the forests. Who bought bonds and made guns and sent their own children off to war.
Liberals are not “weak” by definition. They just misplaced their vitality, a few vital organs, too. Many of them from the past would not even be considered "liberal" today, but great confusion occurred after the 60s, with the boomers ascendant. It was the mushrooms, I just know it.
The left is ignorant about many things, like the effects of global free trade, and that all teachers are of value and should have equal access to the minds of our children, that good intentions are the equivalent of good action. The left can be quite confused about the difference between “equal opportunity” and “equal quality (equality) of life.”
But the left is not inherently weak, unless they choose not to fight.
And the best thing to fight for is liberty, and against those who think that a “police state” is a liberty-enhancing, safer place to live.
Democracy is a funny thing. It is not the bed of liberty, as many suppose. In fact, one of the most important warnings we’ve been given about democracy are the dangers inherent in “Tyranny of the Majority.” And if the last two presidential elections didn't convince you, nothing will.
Which is why we have a Bill of Rights, which is why our founding fathers designed a government that was INTENDED to be slow and awkward and noisy and inefficient.
"Single" my friend, "warm and fuzzy?" The only thing fuzzy here is your thinking. Like you, many of those today who believe they are "conservative" are not, they are actually statists, corporatists, Fascists or theocrats, or some foul amalgam of all of those. Like Cheney’s puppet in the “W”hite House.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Protect and Serve
A linchpin (not lynch) of our society is a belief in the fairness and honesty of those who administer our laws.
When a cop writes a ticket, we depend on his telling the truth.
We don’t want cops who pull over pretty women, give them bogus tickets and demand to see their tattoos.
We don’t want cops who shoot and kill an unarmed woman because she was too whacked out on drugs to get out of her car.
We don’t want cops who beat to death a homeless man on West Burnside.
We don’t want cops who lie.
Otherwise, we risk becoming an “us vs. them” society, and “them” has the guns, the unions and the courts on their side.
But the cards are stacked in favor of the police, even though we are a country based upon “innocent until proven guilty.”
Here’s the deal: laws on the use of force by cops are based on “feelings,” not facts: if he “feels” threatened, if he “believes” he is defending his life, a cop can do anything. They know this. Their unions know this. If an officer says he “felt” threatened, who can disagree?
Accused officers are schooled by union reps on how to respond to an investigation that does not occur until days (days!) after an incident has occurred.
That should change. The public needs to have confidence. Cops who may have acted inappropriately need to be interviewed immediately, even it we have to grant them a certain immunity from criminal prosecution.
We need the truth, not a union-sanitized version of events, even as we acknowledge an officer’s right to defend himself and even as we respect how tough their job actually is.
Why worry about this? Because turning a blind eye to injustice encourages an unofficial lawlessness that indirectly affects all of us today and could well victimize any of us in the future.
Why worry about this? Because respect begets respect, contempt begets contempt, and police need public support as much as the public needs the cops to protect them against evil scum that will prey on us if there are no cops to serve and protect.
Unions need to move beyond their own “us versus them” philosophy. They know who the good cops are, and the bad ones. While solidarity counts in that world, and cops need to depend on each other, unions should end their knee jerk defense of all policemen in every situation, and encourage a new open culture.
They could start by agreeing to a zero tolerance policy backed by testing on the use of steroids by their members, drugs that affect the “feelings” that can lead to a too quick trigger.
News reporters need to stop being so damned lazy and ask, over and over again if necessary, “Who is lying? Why are they lying? What are the consequences?” They need the courage and support to publish what they learn. With names.
We do need to be careful. We do not want to Californicate our laws, to shackle police with the fear that if they do their duty they will face an automatic investigation, reprimand, termination or a law suit.
At the same time, we need a way to get rid of those who have violated a public trust and cannot be trusted.
There is nowhere to go for justice when justice is has been corrupt, when “protect and serve” becomes “threaten and intimidate,” when thugs in uniform damage the integrity of all those good cops, the vast majority, who risk their lives in the line of duty.
When a cop writes a ticket, we depend on his telling the truth.
We don’t want cops who pull over pretty women, give them bogus tickets and demand to see their tattoos.
We don’t want cops who shoot and kill an unarmed woman because she was too whacked out on drugs to get out of her car.
We don’t want cops who beat to death a homeless man on West Burnside.
We don’t want cops who lie.
Otherwise, we risk becoming an “us vs. them” society, and “them” has the guns, the unions and the courts on their side.
But the cards are stacked in favor of the police, even though we are a country based upon “innocent until proven guilty.”
Here’s the deal: laws on the use of force by cops are based on “feelings,” not facts: if he “feels” threatened, if he “believes” he is defending his life, a cop can do anything. They know this. Their unions know this. If an officer says he “felt” threatened, who can disagree?
Accused officers are schooled by union reps on how to respond to an investigation that does not occur until days (days!) after an incident has occurred.
That should change. The public needs to have confidence. Cops who may have acted inappropriately need to be interviewed immediately, even it we have to grant them a certain immunity from criminal prosecution.
We need the truth, not a union-sanitized version of events, even as we acknowledge an officer’s right to defend himself and even as we respect how tough their job actually is.
Why worry about this? Because turning a blind eye to injustice encourages an unofficial lawlessness that indirectly affects all of us today and could well victimize any of us in the future.
Why worry about this? Because respect begets respect, contempt begets contempt, and police need public support as much as the public needs the cops to protect them against evil scum that will prey on us if there are no cops to serve and protect.
Unions need to move beyond their own “us versus them” philosophy. They know who the good cops are, and the bad ones. While solidarity counts in that world, and cops need to depend on each other, unions should end their knee jerk defense of all policemen in every situation, and encourage a new open culture.
They could start by agreeing to a zero tolerance policy backed by testing on the use of steroids by their members, drugs that affect the “feelings” that can lead to a too quick trigger.
News reporters need to stop being so damned lazy and ask, over and over again if necessary, “Who is lying? Why are they lying? What are the consequences?” They need the courage and support to publish what they learn. With names.
We do need to be careful. We do not want to Californicate our laws, to shackle police with the fear that if they do their duty they will face an automatic investigation, reprimand, termination or a law suit.
At the same time, we need a way to get rid of those who have violated a public trust and cannot be trusted.
There is nowhere to go for justice when justice is has been corrupt, when “protect and serve” becomes “threaten and intimidate,” when thugs in uniform damage the integrity of all those good cops, the vast majority, who risk their lives in the line of duty.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Adding State Troopers is a waste
Republicans and Democrats, in the House and the Senate as well as the governor, are on the band wagon for more State Troopers on the road.
That's too bad, because it will cost millions of dollars. And so far, we have not seen one shred of hard evidence that there will be ANY benefit to Oregonians.
Nor have we seen the OSP budget opened up as part of this debate, a budget that has ranged from $250 million to more than $400 million over the last several biennium's.
How much do those troopers earn, on average? What is the salary range for troopers driving Mustangs down Interstate 5? What does a Lane County deputy make for the same work? How many teachers could we hire for the same amount?
Kulongoski torpedoed a study that would have provided answers to some of these questions. We think he did so because facts would have made it inconvenient to do what he wanted to do. He prefers hand-wringing and anecdote.
The police union organized a rally in Salem on Tuesday (is it just me, or do rallies, be they of cops or of students, seem like mob politics?).
Edward Walsh of "The Oregonian" reports that the Oregon State Police Officers' Association organized the rally because "Oregon today has fewer than half the state troopers it did 20 years ago but double the population ... about 310 troopers now patrol the state's major highways instead of the 665 troopers who handled that task in the 1980s."
So what?
During the same time, the number of accidents per mile driven has declined, as has the number of fatalities per mile. Using the twisted logic used elsewhere by the OSP that we won’t go into today, this would appear to prove that fewer cops means fewer wrecks.
Of course that's not true, but it does balance the non-argument of the "fewer troopers today" canard. Repeat: there is no evidence that more troopers handing out speeding tickets makes Oregon safer. To that end, cell phones have done more than cops.
There is a role for the OSP. We need more state crime labs, OSP should be investigating other police departments for corruption, they should be running a tougher standards and training program (that appears to have been tucked into another budget). And yes, they need to guard the governor and capitol.
This they could probably do with last year’s budget. They just need to take a few more troopers off Interstate 5. Putting more troopers on the road is a waste of money better spent putting more teachers in the classroom.
That's too bad, because it will cost millions of dollars. And so far, we have not seen one shred of hard evidence that there will be ANY benefit to Oregonians.
Nor have we seen the OSP budget opened up as part of this debate, a budget that has ranged from $250 million to more than $400 million over the last several biennium's.
How much do those troopers earn, on average? What is the salary range for troopers driving Mustangs down Interstate 5? What does a Lane County deputy make for the same work? How many teachers could we hire for the same amount?
Kulongoski torpedoed a study that would have provided answers to some of these questions. We think he did so because facts would have made it inconvenient to do what he wanted to do. He prefers hand-wringing and anecdote.
The police union organized a rally in Salem on Tuesday (is it just me, or do rallies, be they of cops or of students, seem like mob politics?).
Edward Walsh of "The Oregonian" reports that the Oregon State Police Officers' Association organized the rally because "Oregon today has fewer than half the state troopers it did 20 years ago but double the population ... about 310 troopers now patrol the state's major highways instead of the 665 troopers who handled that task in the 1980s."
So what?
During the same time, the number of accidents per mile driven has declined, as has the number of fatalities per mile. Using the twisted logic used elsewhere by the OSP that we won’t go into today, this would appear to prove that fewer cops means fewer wrecks.
Of course that's not true, but it does balance the non-argument of the "fewer troopers today" canard. Repeat: there is no evidence that more troopers handing out speeding tickets makes Oregon safer. To that end, cell phones have done more than cops.
There is a role for the OSP. We need more state crime labs, OSP should be investigating other police departments for corruption, they should be running a tougher standards and training program (that appears to have been tucked into another budget). And yes, they need to guard the governor and capitol.
This they could probably do with last year’s budget. They just need to take a few more troopers off Interstate 5. Putting more troopers on the road is a waste of money better spent putting more teachers in the classroom.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Window dressing or reform?
Steve Duin of the "Oregonian," a real smart guy and by far Oregon's best columnist , nailed it today. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/
"... the new "ethics" rules promoted by House and Senate have changed the timing of that influence peddling, not the impact... " Duin wrote.
Exactly. It's not the Prime Rib or Crab Cakes at Bently's Grill in Salem, not even golf in Maui. It's campaign contributions. And until we tackle the hard issues surrounding that, nothing will change, except, as Duin writes, we may get "a revealing display of the Democrats' priorities. And loyalties..."
We have been let down by Democrats before. Kulongoski's first term was a hideous display of ineffectuality. And while Kitzhaber was battling a ferocious ebb tide against Republicans who had national money and momentum on their side, we do wish more had happened with him at the helm. Barbara Roberts was best at casting the non-accomplishments of Barbara Roberts as if they weren't.
Dems have also shown an ability to peddle the bike for their own interest groups. If the Republicans have the Beer and Wine lobby, the Dems have the Oregon Education Association -- which, by the way, may be as responsible for mediocre schools in Oregon as ANY budget cut.
So, my guess is we are seeing already in Salem a harbinger of disappointment. A window dressing, limits on prime rib when we need to limit the toxicity of large campaign contributions. It's not the dinners, folks, it's the ability to buy misleading 30 second spots aired over and over on KATU.
We won't get universal health care that helps business and the poor. We won't get real tax reform -- yes, a sales tax, even a regressive sales tax -- that provides relief to property owners and income earners and taps visitors to pay for what they use in our state. We won't get election reform, because those who make the laws benefit from the current corrupt system.
"... the new "ethics" rules promoted by House and Senate have changed the timing of that influence peddling, not the impact... " Duin wrote.
Exactly. It's not the Prime Rib or Crab Cakes at Bently's Grill in Salem, not even golf in Maui. It's campaign contributions. And until we tackle the hard issues surrounding that, nothing will change, except, as Duin writes, we may get "a revealing display of the Democrats' priorities. And loyalties..."
We have been let down by Democrats before. Kulongoski's first term was a hideous display of ineffectuality. And while Kitzhaber was battling a ferocious ebb tide against Republicans who had national money and momentum on their side, we do wish more had happened with him at the helm. Barbara Roberts was best at casting the non-accomplishments of Barbara Roberts as if they weren't.
Dems have also shown an ability to peddle the bike for their own interest groups. If the Republicans have the Beer and Wine lobby, the Dems have the Oregon Education Association -- which, by the way, may be as responsible for mediocre schools in Oregon as ANY budget cut.
So, my guess is we are seeing already in Salem a harbinger of disappointment. A window dressing, limits on prime rib when we need to limit the toxicity of large campaign contributions. It's not the dinners, folks, it's the ability to buy misleading 30 second spots aired over and over on KATU.
We won't get universal health care that helps business and the poor. We won't get real tax reform -- yes, a sales tax, even a regressive sales tax -- that provides relief to property owners and income earners and taps visitors to pay for what they use in our state. We won't get election reform, because those who make the laws benefit from the current corrupt system.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Soft Sundays
The wind outside plays with branches but only at the top of the pines, skimming over upthrust needles on it's way someplace else.
Lauren is teaching herself a new song on the piano, listening for the F or the F#. She heads back over the pass to work tomorrow, I stay to tend duties here.
A blog seems like such an indulgence. I am not used to this kind of openness, and am not convinced it’s a good thing. I am old fashioned (just "old," the kids would say) and tend towards privacy. Too much opportunity for abuse, too many words should be deleted before being read by strangers. But my editor insists.
Well, good news/bad news, so far we have no readers.
It's complicated being a left wing, pro-market, gun-shooting, car-racing, gay-rights advocate who believes in universal health care and thinks the minimum wage is a cost shift that will throw poor people out of work. Like money, government is a concept often misunderstood.
Example: It has been suggested that Mt. Hood be closed to winter climbing after three men died last month in a fierce storm that prevented rescuers from finding them since they had decided to go up without a locate beacon.
Please sit down and take a deep breath. Those men, knowledgeable men, made a choice. They died possibly as a result of that choice. They died doing something they loved, for which they had passion.
Picture a set diagram. Those men are a circle (those who choose to climb less prepared) within a circle (those who can climb at that altitude) within a circle (in December). Those who would close the mountain would affect many more than the set which would benefit by the regulation.
To those who say, "Just saving one life is worth whatever it costs," we say, that is absurd.
People have a right to take chances and die. Many lives are lost every day and we do not deprive the entire population of the chance to do the same stupid thing with the same tragic result. We could build cars that would not run without seat belts being locked, or that would not travel faster than 45 mph. We could pull all troops out of Iraq.
We don't. So obviously, we do not as a society think that one life is worth "whatever it takes." Which is good. Because freedom is of life-and-death value, too. Worth dying for, in fact.
Happy New Year to all of you showing up here. May you have a warm cup of cocoa nearby, loved ones within reach and a pleasant week ahead.
Lauren is teaching herself a new song on the piano, listening for the F or the F#. She heads back over the pass to work tomorrow, I stay to tend duties here.
A blog seems like such an indulgence. I am not used to this kind of openness, and am not convinced it’s a good thing. I am old fashioned (just "old," the kids would say) and tend towards privacy. Too much opportunity for abuse, too many words should be deleted before being read by strangers. But my editor insists.
Well, good news/bad news, so far we have no readers.
It's complicated being a left wing, pro-market, gun-shooting, car-racing, gay-rights advocate who believes in universal health care and thinks the minimum wage is a cost shift that will throw poor people out of work. Like money, government is a concept often misunderstood.
Example: It has been suggested that Mt. Hood be closed to winter climbing after three men died last month in a fierce storm that prevented rescuers from finding them since they had decided to go up without a locate beacon.
Please sit down and take a deep breath. Those men, knowledgeable men, made a choice. They died possibly as a result of that choice. They died doing something they loved, for which they had passion.
Picture a set diagram. Those men are a circle (those who choose to climb less prepared) within a circle (those who can climb at that altitude) within a circle (in December). Those who would close the mountain would affect many more than the set which would benefit by the regulation.
To those who say, "Just saving one life is worth whatever it costs," we say, that is absurd.
People have a right to take chances and die. Many lives are lost every day and we do not deprive the entire population of the chance to do the same stupid thing with the same tragic result. We could build cars that would not run without seat belts being locked, or that would not travel faster than 45 mph. We could pull all troops out of Iraq.
We don't. So obviously, we do not as a society think that one life is worth "whatever it takes." Which is good. Because freedom is of life-and-death value, too. Worth dying for, in fact.
Happy New Year to all of you showing up here. May you have a warm cup of cocoa nearby, loved ones within reach and a pleasant week ahead.
Saturday, January 6, 2007
Don't rush reform
Two laws need to be recognized by the Oregon Legislature, and neither was passed in Salem.
The first is the law of unintended consequences. The second is that given a chance, most people will do the wrong thing for all the right reasons.
These are immutable, and legislators will obey them, willingly or not.
According to “The Oregonian,” next week the House and Senate will attempt to “clean up our act,” in the words of the estimable Peter Courtney, after revelations that the Oregon Beer and Wine Distributors Association paid for legislators to go to Hawaii for a little golf.
Now, Senator Courtney is a good man by all accounts. And even though the Oregon Beer and Wine Distributors Association should be embarrassed about the trips, lobbyist Paul Romain should be even more so about advising legislators the trips did not have to be declared.
And did Romain really equate a trip to Maui with a drive to Medford or Scappoose? Ah, what exquisite brass. Most who have been to Medford, Scappoose and Maui would say they are not “the same thing.” Especially under these cold gray skies.
But that overarching arrogance is not the topic, not today. The topic is that good men and women in the legislature plan on making big changes in the rules, and they need to move more slowly.
As much as we hate to agree with Rep. Wayne Scott about anything, he is probably (that’s a qualifier) telling the truth when he says he can’t be bought for a $50 steak dinner.
And while Romain should have his shoe laces tied together for trying to slide around the rules and have individual beer distributors make contributions rather than his lobby, it isn’t the steak dinners nor gift bags for spouses at the Grand Wailea Resort (Paul, there isn’t one of those in Scappoose. Not even in Medford) that we need to worry about.
It isn’t the martinis or crab cakes at Bentleys Grill, as good as they are (the crab cakes).
it is time to deal with the real issue.
We as a people need to grapple with the thorny free speech issues of huge, single voice campaign contributions.
Yes, this is hard and difficult there may not be any easy answers. There will be many opponents, from the right and the left, from the Beer and Wine lobby to the Oregon Education Association. But to restrict steak dinners, crab cakes and golf may restrict the flow of information to less-than-fully informed lawmakers.
That would be wrong. An unintended consequence. Even if we want more transparency in government, that might be doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
We don’t want to do that. What we do want to limit is the wink and nod and a $10,000 donation wrapped in a hidden agenda.
A step in the right direction, small but important, would be to return to the days when every bill introduced in the House or Senate had a sponsor.
No more namelessness for lawmakers. They need to own their legislation. If a special interest has gotten a bill into and out of committee, at least we the people have a right to know who carried their water.
It needs to be out in the open, where we can keep an eye on things. Opponents of public interest bills should be identified by name as well. That will take more work by the media, but there is no accountability if anonymity is abused.
The first is the law of unintended consequences. The second is that given a chance, most people will do the wrong thing for all the right reasons.
These are immutable, and legislators will obey them, willingly or not.
According to “The Oregonian,” next week the House and Senate will attempt to “clean up our act,” in the words of the estimable Peter Courtney, after revelations that the Oregon Beer and Wine Distributors Association paid for legislators to go to Hawaii for a little golf.
Now, Senator Courtney is a good man by all accounts. And even though the Oregon Beer and Wine Distributors Association should be embarrassed about the trips, lobbyist Paul Romain should be even more so about advising legislators the trips did not have to be declared.
And did Romain really equate a trip to Maui with a drive to Medford or Scappoose? Ah, what exquisite brass. Most who have been to Medford, Scappoose and Maui would say they are not “the same thing.” Especially under these cold gray skies.
But that overarching arrogance is not the topic, not today. The topic is that good men and women in the legislature plan on making big changes in the rules, and they need to move more slowly.
As much as we hate to agree with Rep. Wayne Scott about anything, he is probably (that’s a qualifier) telling the truth when he says he can’t be bought for a $50 steak dinner.
And while Romain should have his shoe laces tied together for trying to slide around the rules and have individual beer distributors make contributions rather than his lobby, it isn’t the steak dinners nor gift bags for spouses at the Grand Wailea Resort (Paul, there isn’t one of those in Scappoose. Not even in Medford) that we need to worry about.
It isn’t the martinis or crab cakes at Bentleys Grill, as good as they are (the crab cakes).
it is time to deal with the real issue.
We as a people need to grapple with the thorny free speech issues of huge, single voice campaign contributions.
Yes, this is hard and difficult there may not be any easy answers. There will be many opponents, from the right and the left, from the Beer and Wine lobby to the Oregon Education Association. But to restrict steak dinners, crab cakes and golf may restrict the flow of information to less-than-fully informed lawmakers.
That would be wrong. An unintended consequence. Even if we want more transparency in government, that might be doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
We don’t want to do that. What we do want to limit is the wink and nod and a $10,000 donation wrapped in a hidden agenda.
A step in the right direction, small but important, would be to return to the days when every bill introduced in the House or Senate had a sponsor.
No more namelessness for lawmakers. They need to own their legislation. If a special interest has gotten a bill into and out of committee, at least we the people have a right to know who carried their water.
It needs to be out in the open, where we can keep an eye on things. Opponents of public interest bills should be identified by name as well. That will take more work by the media, but there is no accountability if anonymity is abused.
Friday, January 5, 2007
Lobbyists in Oregon
Those on the left are anxious to castigate lobbyists (no, castigate. Don't go there). Trips to Hawaii by Oregon legislators paid for by the beer and wine industry, failure to report the trips and clumsy responses when discovered, all paint an easy target.
But reformers need to be careful.
Sources close to the process -- yes, even some with nothing to gain -- say lobbyists perform an important function in Oregon politics. They provide information to busy Senators and House members who might not otherwise hear from constituents.
Is the information skewed? Of course. But all information is skewed. Every journalist is a "filter," and must make choices as to information presented. Those choices will always result in a bias.
Too often, in fact, the attempt to be "unbiased" or "objective" results in pabulum journalism: stupid arguments included in a story so that grams of ink or lines of copy are "fairly" even between "both" sides. As if most issues had two sides.
At least when grocers threaten to scuttle expansion of the Oregon Bottle bill, you know where they are coming from. One legislator has said that he sometimes gets better info about the opposition from a lobbyist of a special interest than he does from the opponents themselves.
The major constraint in Salem is time. Credibility is currency. A lobbyist who consistently lies or clumsily manipulates will soon be unable to catch an ear. Information travels fast among the 60 representatives and 30 senators. Someone without credibility will lose access, ultimately their accounts, or their job.
Now, this is not to say that $30,000 campaign contributions should not be examined. It is one thing to provide information, it is another altogether for an industry to buy a candidate’s path to power.
But reformers need to be careful.
Sources close to the process -- yes, even some with nothing to gain -- say lobbyists perform an important function in Oregon politics. They provide information to busy Senators and House members who might not otherwise hear from constituents.
Is the information skewed? Of course. But all information is skewed. Every journalist is a "filter," and must make choices as to information presented. Those choices will always result in a bias.
Too often, in fact, the attempt to be "unbiased" or "objective" results in pabulum journalism: stupid arguments included in a story so that grams of ink or lines of copy are "fairly" even between "both" sides. As if most issues had two sides.
At least when grocers threaten to scuttle expansion of the Oregon Bottle bill, you know where they are coming from. One legislator has said that he sometimes gets better info about the opposition from a lobbyist of a special interest than he does from the opponents themselves.
The major constraint in Salem is time. Credibility is currency. A lobbyist who consistently lies or clumsily manipulates will soon be unable to catch an ear. Information travels fast among the 60 representatives and 30 senators. Someone without credibility will lose access, ultimately their accounts, or their job.
Now, this is not to say that $30,000 campaign contributions should not be examined. It is one thing to provide information, it is another altogether for an industry to buy a candidate’s path to power.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Democrat Westlund
Senator Ben Westlund’s office in Salem is on the east end of the third floor of the Capitol Building. To get there from the northeast, jaywalk across Court Street from Cliff’s Automotive Repair.
Salem Police hopefully have better things to do.
The Capitol Building is formidable with it’s marble façade, revolving brass doors, words of democracy chiseled in stone. The polished floor of the lobby reflects grand murals and the gravity of government.
A path through the Senate Gallery leads to offices much less elegant. Low, 8-foot ceilings with fluorescent lights, piles of notebooks on the floor, typewriters on tables, trash cans of various sizes, small desks occupied by young and eager staffers.
And everybody wants to say “Hi” to Ben Westlund, the newest Democrat in the Senate. His 1 p.m. meeting was cancelled. He has time for lunch.
Westlund changed his registration last year from Republican to Independent to make a run for governor. Last month he changed from Independent to Democrat.
On the way to the cafeteria in the basement he jokes several times with different well-wishers that his next affiliation will be with the Pacific Green Party.
“I left the Republican Party because I grew weary of the intolerance of many ... certainly not all... Republicans to our fellow human beings,” Westlund says. “A lot of people call that ‘values.’ But there are lots of people (in the state) who have lots of different ‘values.’ ”
Intolerance grew and the Republican party of Mark Hatfield, Tom McCall and other moderate Oregon republicans was captured by extremists.
A reporter from KGW stops him, wants an interview. Westlund offers to meet the reporter later downstairs, or the reporter can hang around outside his office, if he has the time.
“It became, ‘You have to have MY values, you have to worship from the same pew.’ That was inconsistent for me, for a party that was founded on individual rights and liberties,” Westlund says.
A detour into Hearing Room 50, his favorite. There is a large tattered flag on the wall that was flying when the capitol burned in April, 1935. This is the room where the house met when the chamber was damaged in the Scotts Mill Earthquake in March of 1993.
Westlund loves the history of the room. He loves the history of the whole place.
“It was inconsistent to me that they opposed an individual’s right to make choices. If you support gun rights and property rights, you have to support other individual rights as well. If you support some, you must support them all,” he said.
“If I am gay, or I want to take my own life when I am in great pain and have no hope and am draining my children’s bank account at $10,000 per day, I should have that right.”
As a moderate Republican in the Oregon House of Representatives, Westlund had already lost some influence within the Republican party. When he became a Senator, he was still held outside the fold.
“For some time I had been called a ‘RINO,’ a Republican In Name Only. And in some regards that was true,” he acknowledged.
On the way to the cafeteria, others stop him in the halls. He has their respect. You can tell by the way legislators approach, make jokes with him, ask him to meet colleagues seated with them at lunch.
When he ran for governor, he did so from the “middle.”
“I became an independent. It was legitimate. I was and still am concerned with extreme partisan politics where the rules of engagement are to ONLY make yourself look good or your opponent look bad.”
Later Westlund likened the process to selling Fords or Chevrolets. “You have Ford and Chevy preaching to the same audience at the same time. But it has become not ‘Our product is better,’ it has turned into ‘Their product is lousy.’ ”
To reduce the extremism of politics, Westlund is still supportive of open primaries and repealing the “undemocratic laws” passed limiting primaries to party members.
On the way back from lunch, Westlund puts into effect a New Year’s resolution: He takes the stairs from the basement back to his third-floor office. He is breathing hard. It reminds you that he doesn’t have all of his left lung. At the same time, he climbed the stairs fast enough that a healthy reporter is also breathing hard, and without an excuse.
Westlund is now a Democrat. As he fought for campaign reform and health care reform around the state, he found himself sharing podiums with Democrats at Kiwanis meetings in Astoria or Rotary meetings in Medford.
He realized that to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish in Salem, health care reform or election reform, he needed to join up.
“Like it or not, this state has a two-party system. History is littered with examples of independent campaigns that flared and died. To be effective, and best represent the district, (I had to affiliate with a major party.)
A short detour through the senate chamber. Westlund is upset that his desk blotter from the last session, signed by his wife Libby and children, has been replaced. He barks that he wants it back.
The choice to switch to the Democratic party was finally made when he was looking at what each party stood for.
“I was sitting in my living room with Libby reading the platforms of the Republicans and Democrats, and I came across one sentence. ‘The Democratic Party of Oregon believes access to effective, affordable health care is a fundamental human right,” Westlund recites from memory.
That was his belief as well. “I closed the book right there.”
As senator, healthcare reform is Westlund’s priority for the new six-month legislative session that begins on January 8. Universal healthcare. He thinks it is good for the people, and good for business.
“This is not just for those who don’t have it,” he said. “This is about lowering costs for those who do.” He has support from a variety of business interests which seek to contain the cost of insurance.
Not yet back to his office he asks fellow Senator Avel Gordly if she will be at a tax reform meeting on Friday in Portland. No, she tells him, she will be at the mayor’s conference on mental health and public safety.
Westlund says he would like to be there too, and she says they need his perspective on the issues.
Whether the switch from Republican to Independent to Democrat will hurt his chances for reelection in Republican Deschutes County remains to be seen.
“That’s not the question,” he fires back. “The question is, what is the best thing I can do to represent my district and follow my heart. I can’t worry about winning the next election. My job is to represent my district and do the best job I can.”
At 1:40 he is ten minutes late for another meeting. He greets the appointment in the hall way outside his office. They are glad for a chance to get his attention.
Salem Police hopefully have better things to do.
The Capitol Building is formidable with it’s marble façade, revolving brass doors, words of democracy chiseled in stone. The polished floor of the lobby reflects grand murals and the gravity of government.
A path through the Senate Gallery leads to offices much less elegant. Low, 8-foot ceilings with fluorescent lights, piles of notebooks on the floor, typewriters on tables, trash cans of various sizes, small desks occupied by young and eager staffers.
And everybody wants to say “Hi” to Ben Westlund, the newest Democrat in the Senate. His 1 p.m. meeting was cancelled. He has time for lunch.
Westlund changed his registration last year from Republican to Independent to make a run for governor. Last month he changed from Independent to Democrat.
On the way to the cafeteria in the basement he jokes several times with different well-wishers that his next affiliation will be with the Pacific Green Party.
“I left the Republican Party because I grew weary of the intolerance of many ... certainly not all... Republicans to our fellow human beings,” Westlund says. “A lot of people call that ‘values.’ But there are lots of people (in the state) who have lots of different ‘values.’ ”
Intolerance grew and the Republican party of Mark Hatfield, Tom McCall and other moderate Oregon republicans was captured by extremists.
A reporter from KGW stops him, wants an interview. Westlund offers to meet the reporter later downstairs, or the reporter can hang around outside his office, if he has the time.
“It became, ‘You have to have MY values, you have to worship from the same pew.’ That was inconsistent for me, for a party that was founded on individual rights and liberties,” Westlund says.
A detour into Hearing Room 50, his favorite. There is a large tattered flag on the wall that was flying when the capitol burned in April, 1935. This is the room where the house met when the chamber was damaged in the Scotts Mill Earthquake in March of 1993.
Westlund loves the history of the room. He loves the history of the whole place.
“It was inconsistent to me that they opposed an individual’s right to make choices. If you support gun rights and property rights, you have to support other individual rights as well. If you support some, you must support them all,” he said.
“If I am gay, or I want to take my own life when I am in great pain and have no hope and am draining my children’s bank account at $10,000 per day, I should have that right.”
As a moderate Republican in the Oregon House of Representatives, Westlund had already lost some influence within the Republican party. When he became a Senator, he was still held outside the fold.
“For some time I had been called a ‘RINO,’ a Republican In Name Only. And in some regards that was true,” he acknowledged.
On the way to the cafeteria, others stop him in the halls. He has their respect. You can tell by the way legislators approach, make jokes with him, ask him to meet colleagues seated with them at lunch.
When he ran for governor, he did so from the “middle.”
“I became an independent. It was legitimate. I was and still am concerned with extreme partisan politics where the rules of engagement are to ONLY make yourself look good or your opponent look bad.”
Later Westlund likened the process to selling Fords or Chevrolets. “You have Ford and Chevy preaching to the same audience at the same time. But it has become not ‘Our product is better,’ it has turned into ‘Their product is lousy.’ ”
To reduce the extremism of politics, Westlund is still supportive of open primaries and repealing the “undemocratic laws” passed limiting primaries to party members.
On the way back from lunch, Westlund puts into effect a New Year’s resolution: He takes the stairs from the basement back to his third-floor office. He is breathing hard. It reminds you that he doesn’t have all of his left lung. At the same time, he climbed the stairs fast enough that a healthy reporter is also breathing hard, and without an excuse.
Westlund is now a Democrat. As he fought for campaign reform and health care reform around the state, he found himself sharing podiums with Democrats at Kiwanis meetings in Astoria or Rotary meetings in Medford.
He realized that to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish in Salem, health care reform or election reform, he needed to join up.
“Like it or not, this state has a two-party system. History is littered with examples of independent campaigns that flared and died. To be effective, and best represent the district, (I had to affiliate with a major party.)
A short detour through the senate chamber. Westlund is upset that his desk blotter from the last session, signed by his wife Libby and children, has been replaced. He barks that he wants it back.
The choice to switch to the Democratic party was finally made when he was looking at what each party stood for.
“I was sitting in my living room with Libby reading the platforms of the Republicans and Democrats, and I came across one sentence. ‘The Democratic Party of Oregon believes access to effective, affordable health care is a fundamental human right,” Westlund recites from memory.
That was his belief as well. “I closed the book right there.”
As senator, healthcare reform is Westlund’s priority for the new six-month legislative session that begins on January 8. Universal healthcare. He thinks it is good for the people, and good for business.
“This is not just for those who don’t have it,” he said. “This is about lowering costs for those who do.” He has support from a variety of business interests which seek to contain the cost of insurance.
Not yet back to his office he asks fellow Senator Avel Gordly if she will be at a tax reform meeting on Friday in Portland. No, she tells him, she will be at the mayor’s conference on mental health and public safety.
Westlund says he would like to be there too, and she says they need his perspective on the issues.
Whether the switch from Republican to Independent to Democrat will hurt his chances for reelection in Republican Deschutes County remains to be seen.
“That’s not the question,” he fires back. “The question is, what is the best thing I can do to represent my district and follow my heart. I can’t worry about winning the next election. My job is to represent my district and do the best job I can.”
At 1:40 he is ten minutes late for another meeting. He greets the appointment in the hall way outside his office. They are glad for a chance to get his attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)