July 29. I’m starting this draft sitting in the gallery of Portland City Hall. In 20 minutes, the Council will receive public testimony on the report of the West Hayden Island Community Working Group. Following that, they will vote on Mayor Adams’ proposal to have the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability prepare a report on the feasibility of development of a single marine terminal on the island and the preservation of 500 acres of habitat. It’s a difficult issue, with concerns about jobs, the economy and the environment all needing thoughtful, responsible consideration.

So of course we are going to have a battle of over two competing either/or scenarios. Zero-sum politics.

The unions are here, several dozen workers all wearing stickers that say, simply, JOBS. For the unions, it is that simple. Understandably so. The economy has yet to recover, unemployment is awful, and any source of jobs is welcome. It’s the same mindset that leads the Oregon AFL-CIO and other trade unions to be major supporters of the biggest possible Columbia River bridge project. 12 lanes equals maximum jobs. Union leadership sees its only responsibility to the membership, and, for them, that means: what can we do to get the most jobs?

Opposing labor, hammer and tongs I’m sure, are environmentalists. The fragile nature of West Hayden Island, and what they say is an unproven case for the need for industrial development on the island, is leading them to oppose any development. They’d be happy for another 10 years of no-decision, leaving the habitat to its own devices. For them, even the smallest possible terminal development, which is pretty much what the Mayor is proposing for study, is too big.

There will be no common ground found between the two sides this evening. You don’t need a degree in political science or a crystal ball to figure that out. This is a public hearing and, as the old saw goes, these are attending by the “angry and the activist”. This is not a forum for discussion, debate and deliberation. If allowed, each side would try to shout down the other. [At the beginning, Mayor Adams forbid clapping, booing, even murmuring; he didn’t want anyone planning to speak to feel intimidated. I get the feeling he’s been through this before.] Given that the Council will pass the resolution, the no-development enviros are going to leave angry, cynical and ready for a longer fight. And given that the resolution does not commit the City to anything beyond studying a single terminal, the union folk are not going to be happy either; they will also leave in a bad mood, albeit less so than the “enemy”. [As it turned out, the hearing went over 3 hours so everyone left exhausted. Or early.]

Zero-sum politics.

Jeff Mapes reported in yesterday’s Oregonian on a business roundtable held by GOP candidate Chris “The Vacation Man” Dudley. While Mapes focused on Dudley’s avoidance of controversial policy initiatives, it was the nature of two of those suggestions that should raise a big red flag for Oregon workers:

Qwest Oregon President Judy Peppler complained that Oregon's family leave law is more expansive than in most other states and that this has discouraged some call centers from locating here. And Connie Hunt, a former chairwoman of the Oregon Restaurant Association, said restaurateurs should be able to count a portion of tips toward the minimum wage, as is allowed in most other states.

Dudley, as usual, ran from taking a stand on these issues, just as he did on the sales tax (John Kitzhaber, on the other hand, said earlier he would be open to looking at the sales tax — again — something one business leader told Dudley was necessary to drive down Oregon’s high income tax and attract new business.) But the promotion of these two ideas by two of the state’s more powerful business leaders is very troubling. We cannot allow the recession and on-going economic difficulties to be used as an excuse to roll back the rights of Oregon’s workers.

Minimum wage workers depend on tips to take their earnings from hand-to-mouth to almost livable. While Oregon may have one of the nation’s higher minimum wages, it’s still not a lot of money ($8.40 per hour — before taxes). In a city like Portland, with its high cost of living (average price of an apartment is nearly $800 a month), the minimum falls short of the true minimum needed for living — unless we think it is acceptable to tell those workers all they are entitled to is a crappy studio apartment in a bad part of the city while eating cheap food and putting nothing into savings.

Stealing part of their tips just to save the business owner money is more than just an insult. Hunt should be ashamed to make such a suggestion, but the Oregon Restaurant Association has never been a proponent of the public good. They also have a track record of being wrong on their fear-based predictions, too, as when claiming cost-of-living adjustments to the minimum wage (2002’s Measure 25) would lead to escalations in restaurant prices; it did not.

The attack on Oregon’s family leave law is especially heinous, but Qwest is that kind of company. Oregon’s family leave law may be more generous than some states, but it’s still not good enough. Sen Diane Rosenbaum will be re-introducing her paid family leave act in the 2011 session, and Oregonians who care about families, children and working parents should fight back against fear-mongering and corporate self-interest to support this law which should have been passed in 2009. Like the minimum wage, or child labor laws and other humane workers rights, paid family leave is essential not only for a strong work force but a strong community — and those two are necessary to grow a strong economy.

Paid family leave and the minimum wage are not expenses that hurt business. They are investments in people that lead to a strong society and a thriving economy.

From Western Horseman Magazine, August 2010, page 59:

“People get to a point where they’re just pestering the horse,” he says. “The horse gets confused about what he’s being asked to do, and stops responding as the rider expects. The rider gets after the horse, and a fight starts.”

To counter that tendency to overdrill, [Montana horse trainer Jon] Ensign encourages his students to set aside overly ambitious goals for each ride and instead emphasize small steps — little victories that can build upon on another. This approach, he says, helps ensure that a horse has adequate time to mentally process new experiences, and helps a student learn to recognize the best possible moments to stop work on a maneuver and either move on to a new challenge or call it a day.

“As humans, we’re greedy. We always want more, Ensign says. “If we could take our human tendencies out of this and see things from the horse’s side, progress in the saddle would come easier.”

…

The manaña principle … tomorrow (manaña) always holds the promise of further progress.

Manaña. Not just tomorrow, but an indefinite tomorrow, somewhere down the road. Jimmy Buffett put it this way:

Please don't say manaña if you don't mean it
I have heard those words for so very long
Don't try to describe the ocean if you've never seen it
Don't ever forget that you just may wind up being wrong.

Capt Buffett and the horseman are addressing different issues — being a friend and training horses — but at the heart is the same principle, one that we progressives need to take to heart: The whole world is not wrapped up in today. And the more we invest in making today The Most Important Day in the History of Forever and Ever, the less we’ll accomplish and the more angry, bitter and hopeless we’ll become.

And the more we’ll piss off and alienate the people who don’t agree with us. That’s a lot of people.

Manaña. Do what you can today, be honest about your commitment for tomorrow, and let today go with the setting sun. This day, this opportunity, is not your last. That noise telling you it is? That’s you screaming at yourself that you have to get everything fixed today or the world will end.

(The Buddha would add that you can’t tell the world what it needs to be anyway, today or tomorrow; it is what it is, regardless of your demands.)

Progressives hate hate hate incrementalism. Of all the sins of neo/liberalism, the small-step-by-small-step approach to government is among the worst. Incrementalism, in the eyes of the more fanatic, is a sellout to the forces of evil, a perpetuation of institutions and practices of injustice and inhumanity that bring death and suffering to millions. Put that way, of course, not doing everything we can do right now makes us accomplices in these crimes against humanity. But that’s not how the world is actually functioning, even for those on the side of the angels.

Take the issue of civil rights for GLBTQ Americans. For many of us, this is a no-brainer: any law, regulation or sanctioned practice that condones or enables restrictions on those rights is wrong. Period. No discussion. The inability of gays and lesbians to marry in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples? There is no justification for that. We must end that and other injustices.

But when? Today, of course, is the blithe and heart-felt answer. The response to that, of course, is how? What are you going to do today to change the laws? If injustice has to end immediately, then what can be done to make the change immediate? In this case, the answer is pretty simple: Nothing. In Oregon, an election will be needed to overturn Measure 36, but this won’t see the ballot for two more years. Even if it passes, it only resolves the issue in Oregon. Federal law still blocks the recognition of “gay” marriage across state borders and by the U.S. government.

Got a plan to change that immediately? Yea, I didn’t think so.

We have an over-abundance of issues requiring immediate resolution for the sake of justice, peace, even the planet’s survival. I do not want to be the one telling people who are suffering as the result of laws, institutions or proscribed practices that their condition does not warrant the immediate marshaling of all possible forces to make the necessary changes today. “You must continue to suffer while we craft careful changes to law and implement them bit by bit.” That sounds as horrible as it would be.

And that’s exactly what incrementalism is not.

Chris Dudley’s gotten himself into a bit of hot water by hiding the dual purpose of his family “vacation” — skipping a major debate with John Kitzhaber by saying he had a family vacation planned when, in truth, the vacation itself was planned to allow him to attend the Republican Governors Association meeting in Colorado. While most Oregonians are probably paying little attention to the matter — I can hear the moans of “ick. politics!” around the state — this really is more important than “politics”.

Unless, of course, you don’t care if the next governor is someone whose word you can trust.

Many commenters have noted that if Dudley had been upfront, said he was skipping the debate to combine a family vacation with a major political event, everyone would have been fine with that. The publishers, whose debate he skipped, would still have been ticked off, but the realities of a campaign’s requirements would have tempered that. Unfortunately, Dudley decided he wasn’t going to bother to tell anyone about the political event part of his vacation.

Because, of course, there was no way anyone back in Oregon would ever find out what he was doing in Colorado.

Oh dear. In addition to distrustful of Oregonians, it looks like “dumb” needs to be added to the list of Dudley’s sins here.

What is troubling is how unnecessary this was. If he had just gone on vacation and done the Governors’ event at the same time, no one would have cared. But by using a “family vacation” as cover for the political event, he demonstrated a variety of disrepects for numerous people. Whether or not voters care about that debate, and I’m guessing precious few did, that Dudley felt it was acceptable or necessary to deceive people this way is shameful. Yes, it was a relatively small deception given the nature of what many politicians have done. But deceit it was.

A lie, in fact.

This was not a white lie, either, the kind you tell for ethically sound reasons. This was a lie told to deceive. Though less reprehensible, it is exactly the same kind of lie Sam Adams told when the Breedlove scandal first reared its ugly head. Dishonesty is not measured in black-and-white absolutes. The difference between Dudley’s and Adams’ lies is in magnitude, not in substance. Lies told for selfish reasons are vivid displays of a person’s character. And while no one will call for Dudley to set aside his nomination for governor, the likelihood is that this will cost him votes.

It should.

Policy and politics aside, Oregon needs a governor who will tell hard truths, no matter the cost he may face. John Kitzhaber has been doing that throughout his campaign; he hasn’t ducked the tough challenges, even leaving open the possibility of another go at a sales tax. He’s traveled the state, meeting and talking with thousands of citizens, answering their questions to the best of his ability. I’ve seen him do this, at the very least giving an ear to the complaints and concerns of citizens who manage to corner him at an event. He’s told the state up-front: You’re not going to like what we need to do, but if you elect me, I’ll do whatever it takes to get the state back on course.

That’s another thing Chris Dudley has not been honest about, either. We know almost nothing about what he might do as governor. He’s as empty of substantive policy proposals as he is on vacation and travel plans. If we cannot take his words about how he’s spending a weekend, how can we trust his word on his policy plans?

Simply put, we can’t.

I was out last night, talking politics and gummint with some folks, and one guy decided he needed to make The Important Point Of The Evening. Within two minutes, he had talked over everyone else, gone from calm to, shall we say, rather exercised, and made it clear no one else’s view on the matter was relevant enough to warrant an airing.

In other words, he became a total dick. Life is too short for such shit, so I drank the last of my beer, got up and left. Without a word. He didn’t deserve it.

What’s most disappointing to me is that this guy’s heart is in the right place. I agreed with him on general principle, but I also felt he was wrong on some points. If you had gone around the table and asked everyone present, you would have found us agreeing with him and each other on about 90% of the matter under discussion.

But that 10%, that little bit that meant so much to him and on which others were not on-board. That 10% where his beliefs said “This is right!” and mine said, “I don’t agree” and everyone else said, “Leave me the fuck out of this”. That tiny bit of difference that made all the difference to him. The rest of us were willing to let that bit slide by; it didn’t matter to us who was right or wrong. It mattered a whole lot to him. That little bit had to be agreed on by everyone or else the entirety of what he believed was being rejected — even when it wasn’t. In his mind, it was all or nothing.

We lefties can be like that. Our beliefs systems are not based on institutionalized religion or a belief in national or corporate power like the beliefs of conservatives and tea partiers. But many of us believe as fervently and tolerate as little disagreement. Which is stupid, of course, but that’s what people do: stupid things because We Know We Are Right.

“Truth” is an ugly bitch.

Americans are hopelessly stupid. This is true of all human beings, of course, but I live in America and I’m stuck with the consequences of American stupidity more than just about any other. So it’s American stupidity rather than, say, Portugese or Australian stupidity that chaps my ass. And this is some stupid shit:

• More than 7 out of 10 in the U.S. say the economy is mired in recession, and the country is conflicted over how to balance concerns over joblessness and the federal budget deficit, according to a Bloomberg National Poll.
• The public’s perception that the U.S. is still in recession contradicts data showing the economy has been growing for a year, with the Commerce Department reporting GDP rising at 2.7 percent annual rate in the first quarter.
• The public’s perception is gloomier than some recent economic data: The U.S. economy has been growing for a year, first-quarter corporate profits were up more than 33 percent from a year earlier….
• The public gives the Obama administration little credit for its tax cuts, which according to the Washington-based Tax Policy Center lowered federal income taxes for 93 percent of filers. Asked to compare their federal income taxes to what they paid during George W. Bush’s presidency, only 7 percent say they are lower; 20 percent say their taxes are higher and 65 percent say they are about the same.

And maybe stupidest of all, blaming Obama for a deficit that was created out of record surpluses by Geo W Bush and his criminal cohort. It was Bush who cut taxes for the rich, started two wars, and let the stock market and economy go to hell in a handbasket. During most of that time, Barack Obama wasn’t even in Congress, and yet somehow this is all his fault?

You people are too stupid to live.

Argh. Sadly, facts are meaningless things. Between the hard times people are living through, the fear of being ground-up by the economy, and the relentless drone of inaccurate “news” reports that echo right-wing talking points, I am not the least bit surprised that people think it was Obama who let the banks fail, invaded Afghanistan and personally ordered BP to flood the Gulf of Mexico with oil. I wish Americans would get their facts right, but that’s not going to happen. We are going to continue to have elections being decided by the stupid and the scared-shitless.

Earlier this year, state Sen Mark Hass thought he’d done the work necessary to get a plastic bag ban passed by the Oregon Legislature. And up until the moment the Senate voted on his bill in February, it appeared he was going to be successful. Then three Democratic Senators, who sat silent during the floor debate, stabbed him and Oregon’s environmental community in the back. Their votes led to a tie vote, and, in the Leg, a tie is not a win.

Hass is back a second time, and it looks like he’ll not have to worry about sneak attacks from colleagues. His bill will be co-sponsored by Republican Senator Jason Atkinson (presuming Atkinson can avoid shooting himself again) and should be able to muster the 19 votes needed to head to the Governor’s desk for signature (the House is very unlikely not to support the bill). Nothing is guaranteed, of course, but there are a couple of important pieces to the 2011 approach over last year.

Hass is not only working with Republicans (Rep Vic Gilliam, R-Silverton, is sponsoring the bill in the House, not necessarily to promote it but to ensure the discussion occurs), he’s working with Oregon’s grocers. They, after all, will need to provide the means for their customers to get groceries home. Since the second part of the bill is to have grocers charge a nickel for paper bags, working with the stores is a crucial element.

And the cool part about the paper bag fee is that stores keep that money; it’s not a fee paid to the state. This is a cost born entirely by shoppers who fail to bring their own bags. While the plastic bag ban is the headliner of this act, it’s this nickel fee that will change the game.

I lived in England for 5 years in the last 70s, and over there, many shoppers provided their own bags. String bags were common: compact, strong, easy on the contents. Of course, there were plenty of plastic bags, too, but the ease with which so many people used their own bags showed me early on a viable alternative (one that took me too many years to adopt myself, I’m afraid). Here in Portland, the use of non-disposable bags, either paper or plastic (both are bad for the environment), is common but still in desperate need of advancement. Mayor Sam Adams would like Portland to ban bags as San Francisco and several other cities have done; perhaps, like me, he remembers that Portland banned styrofoam food containers over 20 years ago and the fast food industry did not leave town.

In other words, retailers adjust quickly to standards set to protect the planet.

I’ve been protesting the thoughtless use of the word “progressive” for several years now. I’ve protested liberals like Hillary Clinton using it simply to dodge the L-work, and I’ve protested lefties in general using it without any definition beyond “please don’t call me a liberal”. A Gallup poll shows that use of the word may be of use to some people, but, overall, it’s a term that is clarifying nothing for the American public.

According the poll, only 26% of Liberals agree that the label “progressive” describes their political views; 54% of Liberals are unsure about the term. For Moderates, the numbers are 11% and 65%. If this was a candidate running and these were approval numbers, most people would agree the campaign was in deep trouble.

This is how untenable the term currently is. Of those who call themselves progressive, 45% say they are liberal or very liberal; 32% describe themselves as moderate; and 22% say they are conservative or very conservative. Yes, that’s right: 1-in-4 “progressives” are self-identify as conservatives. But, as I have written before, this is not an unreasonable finding.

Progressive politics (per me) is not about the end; it’s the means. A clean environment, sustainable economy, peace, justice, quality education, etc; all the great social goods so many of us work for are not “progressive” goals — they are liberal goals. They are liberal goals for the come from a belief in goals that we achieve working together as a society, without government playing a vital role in this process. Goals like this are relatively unchanged from what we spent most of the last century trying to achieve. We have new circumstances, new tools, new complications, but an economy where most Americans earn a living wage is still a goal we cannot call anything but “liberal”. It’s the New Deal, Great Society, Change We Can Believe In; call it what you want, it’s the same as it ever was. Liberal.

What is different in 2010 is how we work to make a liberal goal a reality. In the 20th Century, government decided what needed to be done, developed the programs and told the country what was going to happen and what was expected of citizens. Today, in various ways, not all of them good, the people direct government how to act. As progressives, we do this not by throwing tantrums or forming astroturf groups; we do it by becoming part of the political process. This is problematic thing. If someone gets involved directly in the political process in the same “progressive” way that I do, but with different ends in mind, I don’t know that I can say they are not progressive. Since I believe progressivism is about the how and not the what of politics, to judge another’s progressivism based on their goals does not strike me as justifiable.

Last week, just in time for the 4th of July weekend, not to mention a serious lack of media coverage, the “Climategate” professor was cleared of all charges:

Penn State University gave final vindication to one of the most prominent scientists caught up in the affair, Michael E. Mann.

Dr. Mann, director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center, was a target of climate change skeptics even before the release of the e-mails, but the subsequent controversy moved the university to investigate. In early February, a committee reported back that there was no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had engaged in any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data; similarly, he had not tried to delete or conceal e-mails and had not engaged in any misuse of privileged or confidential information. The committee only held off on declaring whether Dr. Mann had committed any serious deviation from accepted academic practices, saying that more review was necessary.

Last week, that verdict was returned. By unanimous vote, a new investigatory committee found there was no substance to the final allegation. For Dr. Mann, it is vindication. For the continuing debate on climate change and what to do about it -- a subject in the process of being taken up by Congress -- it removes an unfounded distraction. (emphasis added)

The next question, of course, is will those who pimped the false charges acknowledge they acted imprudently and issue apologies? For example, State Rep Matt Wingard found the time to take to the House floor last year and make this speech:

Well of course he won’t. Rep Wingard has no interest in the truth regarding climate change; his worldview cannot accept the possibility that human industrial activity could have a down-side worse than allowing government to tax corporations. The science on the matter is incontrovertible, but that’s irrelevant. Wingard, like all those opposed to making the changes necessary to avoid a rapidly approaching disaster too spectacular for even Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay, is satisfied to “debunk” fact via name-calling, cherry-picked “facts” and other rhetorical tricks that have nothing to do with the real work, much science and the earth’s climate.