I've had it! I'm pissed! The Congress of the United States of America is a body that needs electric shock therapy. In spite of the efforts by those in Congress who understand that their job is to "promote the general welfare" (Constitution of the United States of America), our governing body has been hijacked by those who see their job as un-electing a president and getting their hands on the levers of power.
What has our vaunted governing body been doing lately? Political theater over contraception and the supposed wounded feelings of the Catholic Church. The "War on Religion!!" Oh give me a f*cking break!! How is this promoting the general welfare?
Members of Congress: read this. I dare you! This column by John Canzano, a sports writer for the Oregonian newspaper, is about a 16-year old girl who is battling osteosarcoma - bone cancer. Her doctor has told her that she maybe has a year left. The only treatment for this killer cancer is to remove affected body parts. One leg is gone, parts of both lungs have been taken, and next week the entire lower half of one lung will be cut out. Natalie has a bucket list, and shooting baskets with the Portland Trailblazers was checked off yesterday. The photo in the paper shows a beautiful, smiling, bald and very, very brave teenager. Read this column and then tell us how you can justify your childish behavior. Compared to this teenager - to all of our children - you look like a bunch of spoiled, name-calling children fighting over a pile of toys. Stop it! Do your job!
Members of Congress - what are you thinking? While you posture and pontificate and blabber away about the insults to the church of this or that, thousands and thousands of our kids, like Natalie, are bravely fighting for their lives and futures. They are fighting disease, they are fighting hunger, they are fighting poverty, they are fighting abuse, they are fighting schools that are way too crowded and underfunded, they are fighting for basic health care, they are fighting for a chance to get a meaningful job when they grow up. They are fighting for the future; what are you fighting for? If you can't put aside your petty partisan politics and fight for the future of these kids, then you are failing to perform the job you were elected to do, and you need to step down.
I am so sick and tired of the crap coming out of this Congress. What will it take to change it? I don't have many illusions left about the strength of our democracy; I'm afraid it's been lost. There is a great divide in this country, and it's not just the politicians in Congress. We are now living in a mean society, where people cheer when a political candidate says that people who can't afford health care are on their own and who cares if they die because it's their own fault. A society in which we have devolved to name-calling and demonizing. And yes, a society in which yelling people down about who should and shouldn't pay for birth control is more important than helping our children live, grow and thrive.
---
Friday, March 02, 2012
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
FISHING (NOT PHISHING)
Do you like to fish? If yes, I've built a fishing pond just for you. Yep, that's it just to the right of this text box. See the little fishies swimming around? Place your curser in the pond, let it sit for a few seconds, then slowly move it around. Hours and hours of fun - just for you!!
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
HEALTH CARE ACT, BIRTH CONTROL, AND THE CHURCHES
Here's the situation: the Affordable Health Care Act, passed by the US Congress in 2010, requires health insurance providers to include contraceptives as part of preventative health care coverage. The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a statement to this effect, and includes non-profit religious organizations that provide health insurance to their employees. The Catholic Church and a number of others have loudly protested this requirement, and are joining together to work towards repeal of the health care law. The Republic Party has jumped on this attack on "Obamacare" with all four feet!
My opinion - tough luck non-profit religious organizations, just obey the law. If individual employees don't want contraceptives because of their religious beliefs, they won't get them. But what about your employees who do want them? Why is it any of your business? Do your employees have to be members of your religion? Why do you think you have the right to control what individual people do about their own health care and reproductive practices? I understand that birth control is against your religious doctrine, but we do (still) live in a democracy.
This is all a bunch of smoke that will help obscure the true values and benefits provided to millions of people under the new health care legislation. The media love it - it's a controversy! Talking heads and blabbing bloggers are filling the mediasphere with this stuff.....oh, um, wait a minute......OK, goodbye for now.
My opinion - tough luck non-profit religious organizations, just obey the law. If individual employees don't want contraceptives because of their religious beliefs, they won't get them. But what about your employees who do want them? Why is it any of your business? Do your employees have to be members of your religion? Why do you think you have the right to control what individual people do about their own health care and reproductive practices? I understand that birth control is against your religious doctrine, but we do (still) live in a democracy.
This is all a bunch of smoke that will help obscure the true values and benefits provided to millions of people under the new health care legislation. The media love it - it's a controversy! Talking heads and blabbing bloggers are filling the mediasphere with this stuff.....oh, um, wait a minute......OK, goodbye for now.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
TAXING THE WEALTHY: A QUICKIE
I like numbers. Here are a few I gleaned from the media this week about taxes and some famous wealthy people. And btw, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against wealthy people in general.
Mitt Romney 2010 income tax return:
Income: $20,000,000 approx.
Taxes paid: $3,000,000
Tax rate: 13.9%
Charitable donations: $3,000,000 (15% of income)
Barack Obama 2010 income tax return:
Income: $1,800,000 approx.
Taxes paid: $454,000
Tax rate: $26%
Charitable donations: $250,000 (13.9% of income)
Newt Gingrich 2010 income tax return:
Income: $3,100,000
Taxes paid: $994,708
Tax rate: 31.6%
Charitable donations: $80,600 (2.6% of income)
What do I think about this? Mr. Romney makes a lot of money - good for him. Because most of his income is returns on investments - or capital gains - it is taxed at a rate of 15%. This is the standard rate for this kind of income, and I think it was established during the G.W. Bush years.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Gingrich make good money also, and they each pay taxes in the 30% range, which is where many Americans are.
I'm a bit shocked that Mr. Gingrich seems a bit stingy with his charitable donations, paying well below the national average for people in his income bracket.
Now, what if wealthy folks like these three were taxed as much as 5% more on their income per year? Here is the additional amount they each would pay:
Romney: $1,000,000
Obama: $ 90,000
Gingrich: $ 155,000.
Would this extra amount break these people? Hardly. Would the extra tax mean that they would each create fewer jobs (a favorite "fact" of the Republicans)? Well, not directly, because these guys don't create jobs. Maybe indirectly in terms of them spending less money and thus less demand for goods translating into fewer jobs? Nope - they each would be left with plenty of cash to spend. So why don't we want to rescind the Bush tax cuts on these guys and help reduce the federal deficit?
Making money and being wealthy isn't a crime, and neither is paying taxes based on the government tax code. The issue here is the lack of a level playing field for all Americans, and the rightness of asking the more fortunate to pay their fair share.
Mitt Romney 2010 income tax return:
Income: $20,000,000 approx.
Taxes paid: $3,000,000
Tax rate: 13.9%
Charitable donations: $3,000,000 (15% of income)
Barack Obama 2010 income tax return:
Income: $1,800,000 approx.
Taxes paid: $454,000
Tax rate: $26%
Charitable donations: $250,000 (13.9% of income)
Newt Gingrich 2010 income tax return:
Income: $3,100,000
Taxes paid: $994,708
Tax rate: 31.6%
Charitable donations: $80,600 (2.6% of income)
What do I think about this? Mr. Romney makes a lot of money - good for him. Because most of his income is returns on investments - or capital gains - it is taxed at a rate of 15%. This is the standard rate for this kind of income, and I think it was established during the G.W. Bush years.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Gingrich make good money also, and they each pay taxes in the 30% range, which is where many Americans are.
I'm a bit shocked that Mr. Gingrich seems a bit stingy with his charitable donations, paying well below the national average for people in his income bracket.
Now, what if wealthy folks like these three were taxed as much as 5% more on their income per year? Here is the additional amount they each would pay:
Romney: $1,000,000
Obama: $ 90,000
Gingrich: $ 155,000.
Would this extra amount break these people? Hardly. Would the extra tax mean that they would each create fewer jobs (a favorite "fact" of the Republicans)? Well, not directly, because these guys don't create jobs. Maybe indirectly in terms of them spending less money and thus less demand for goods translating into fewer jobs? Nope - they each would be left with plenty of cash to spend. So why don't we want to rescind the Bush tax cuts on these guys and help reduce the federal deficit?
Making money and being wealthy isn't a crime, and neither is paying taxes based on the government tax code. The issue here is the lack of a level playing field for all Americans, and the rightness of asking the more fortunate to pay their fair share.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
KEYSTONE PIPELINE: WHAT IS THE REAL ISSUE?
The U.S. State Department today decided today not to approve, for now, the Keystone XL pipeline project from Canada to Texas. Keystone XL would carry crude oil from the Canadian oil sands in Alberta to coastal Texas. Keystone XL is an extension of an existing network of pipelines (see map).
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline has generated a tremendous amount of controversy, with a host of groups choosing sides: environmentalists, tribes, states, private companies, politicians, and national governments. President Obama has been under a lot of pressure to deny or approve the project, and he tried to put a decision off until after the 2012 elections; however, Congress placed a 60-day ticker on the decision as a rider on a recent must-pass bill.
Speaker of the House John Boehner had this to say about the State Department decision: “President Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese. There’s really no other way to put it. The President is selling out American jobs for politics." Ah yes....politics.
So what is really going on here? What's the big deal, anyway? It's not as if Keystone XL is the only oil pipeline in the USA. The map on the left shows the major existing oil/fuel pipelines in the U.S. The next map shows the regional pipelines. According to the Association of Oil Pipelines there are 168,000 miles of liquid pipelines in the USA, and these are the "safest, economical and environmentally favorable way" to transport oil and petroleum products, other liquid fuels and chemicals. Pipelines, most of them underground, are a fact of life, and we rely on them for the fuels we consume every day.
Do pipelines have spills? Yes, all the time. So do trucks, trains, ships, barges and etc. Fact of life in the modern world.
Am I supporting the Keystone XL pipeline in this post? Not necessarily; I don't know enough about it to make that kind of decision. It's one of those knowing what I don't know moments!
My main question is this: how should our government make this kind of decision? (The astute reader now knows that I'm not in the "keep government out of the way of free enterprise" camp; government absolutely needs to regulate this stuff.) The environmental and cultural issues are a matter of risk assessment; how much risk are we willing to take on in order to get the benefits of the proposed project? We assume risks every day in everything we do.
Other environmental aspects include the negative impacts of recovering oil from oil sands, and the relatively large greenhouse gas emission factor of this type of oil recovery and refining.
What about economics, including jobs? A project of this size will create thousands of construction jobs, and a smaller number of long-term jobs. And US companies could make money supplying materials and equipment for the project. (An interesting sideline: Evraz Steel, a major employer in Portland, Oregon is counting on a major order of steel pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline. An interesting twist - Evraz is a Russian company that bought Oregon Steel a few years ago.)
There is also a geopolitical issue: should the US allow a Canadian company to build a major pipeline through the United States? What if the main use of this pipeline is to get Canadian oil to a seaport so it can be shipped overseas (this is one claim by project opponents who cite recent data showing that the US is now a net exporter of petroleum products)?
And energy security. Does this project make the United States more secure in terms of energy resources and supplies, and reduce our dependence on oil from less-friendly or stable countries than Canada (we get a lot of our oil from Nigeria and Venezuela, although Canada is our largest supplier)?
Complicated, eh what? I think part of the answer lies in the energy policy of the United States. Unfortunately, I don't know that we have a comprehensive energy policy, although I am confident that President Obama will try to push one through in his second term. (Remember the Bush Energy Policy crafted by Cheney and his oil industry cronies behind closed doors?)
In conclusion, the decision to allow or not allow the Keystone XL pipeline will most likely be a political decision, and this is unfortunate. We have now, and will always have many of these kinds of decisions to make. Local examples where I live: several proposals to build export facilities on the Columbia River to ship Montana coal to China, and other proposals to ship liquefied Canadian and US natural gas to Asia. It seems that the Canadians and Americans have large reserves of coal, oil and gas and prices are high in other parts of the world. And by the way, the companies wanting to build these export facilities are not all American companies.
We need to think and act more globally, and our government needs to have a solid set of policies that will guide these kinds of decisions. Can we ever wrest these decisions out of the political arena? Sometimes. Maybe.
are the safest, most reliable, economical and environmentally favorable way to transport oil and petroleum products and other energy liquids and chemicals throughout the U.S.
 |
| Source: indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com |
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline has generated a tremendous amount of controversy, with a host of groups choosing sides: environmentalists, tribes, states, private companies, politicians, and national governments. President Obama has been under a lot of pressure to deny or approve the project, and he tried to put a decision off until after the 2012 elections; however, Congress placed a 60-day ticker on the decision as a rider on a recent must-pass bill.
Speaker of the House John Boehner had this to say about the State Department decision: “President Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese. There’s really no other way to put it. The President is selling out American jobs for politics." Ah yes....politics.
 |
| Source |
 |
| Source: Energy Information Administration |
Do pipelines have spills? Yes, all the time. So do trucks, trains, ships, barges and etc. Fact of life in the modern world.
Am I supporting the Keystone XL pipeline in this post? Not necessarily; I don't know enough about it to make that kind of decision. It's one of those knowing what I don't know moments!
My main question is this: how should our government make this kind of decision? (The astute reader now knows that I'm not in the "keep government out of the way of free enterprise" camp; government absolutely needs to regulate this stuff.) The environmental and cultural issues are a matter of risk assessment; how much risk are we willing to take on in order to get the benefits of the proposed project? We assume risks every day in everything we do.
Other environmental aspects include the negative impacts of recovering oil from oil sands, and the relatively large greenhouse gas emission factor of this type of oil recovery and refining.
What about economics, including jobs? A project of this size will create thousands of construction jobs, and a smaller number of long-term jobs. And US companies could make money supplying materials and equipment for the project. (An interesting sideline: Evraz Steel, a major employer in Portland, Oregon is counting on a major order of steel pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline. An interesting twist - Evraz is a Russian company that bought Oregon Steel a few years ago.)
There is also a geopolitical issue: should the US allow a Canadian company to build a major pipeline through the United States? What if the main use of this pipeline is to get Canadian oil to a seaport so it can be shipped overseas (this is one claim by project opponents who cite recent data showing that the US is now a net exporter of petroleum products)?
And energy security. Does this project make the United States more secure in terms of energy resources and supplies, and reduce our dependence on oil from less-friendly or stable countries than Canada (we get a lot of our oil from Nigeria and Venezuela, although Canada is our largest supplier)?
Complicated, eh what? I think part of the answer lies in the energy policy of the United States. Unfortunately, I don't know that we have a comprehensive energy policy, although I am confident that President Obama will try to push one through in his second term. (Remember the Bush Energy Policy crafted by Cheney and his oil industry cronies behind closed doors?)
In conclusion, the decision to allow or not allow the Keystone XL pipeline will most likely be a political decision, and this is unfortunate. We have now, and will always have many of these kinds of decisions to make. Local examples where I live: several proposals to build export facilities on the Columbia River to ship Montana coal to China, and other proposals to ship liquefied Canadian and US natural gas to Asia. It seems that the Canadians and Americans have large reserves of coal, oil and gas and prices are high in other parts of the world. And by the way, the companies wanting to build these export facilities are not all American companies.
We need to think and act more globally, and our government needs to have a solid set of policies that will guide these kinds of decisions. Can we ever wrest these decisions out of the political arena? Sometimes. Maybe.
are the safest, most reliable, economical and environmentally favorable way to transport oil and petroleum products and other energy liquids and chemicals throughout the U.S.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
THE AMERICAN UN-CIVIL WAR: 2012 - 20??
I've stopped laughing at the Republican presidential candidates comedy show; it's not funny anymore. I now realize that this bizarre episode in U.S. history is only one of many indicators of a war brewing within our country, the Un-civil War.
The signs have been right in front of us for a few years, most evident since the election of President Barack Obama. Our Congress has devolved into a snake pit of partisanship, with the minority leadership pledging to uphold only one goal - to beat Barack Obama in 2012. Both sides of the aisle play the game; the losers are the American people.
There is a large and widening chasm running down the middle of the American people, dividing us into mostly two camps - the left and the right. But "left" and "right" are terms that are too simplistic, and not really correct. The divide runs along a seam of what Americans think about who we are or should be. The geographic features on either side of this chasm have labels like religion/secularism, capitalism/socialism, gay/straight, 1%/99%, big government/small government, private/public, basic rights/survival of the fittest, union/non-union and others.
When G. W. Bush was President, I often talked about taking back our country from what I considered to be dangerous men in control of our government. Now I hear people interviewed on the radio saying that we have to take back our country, except they mean from Obama and his supporters. Obama is characterized as a European-style socialist who, according to Mitt Romney, is using the "politics of envy" as part of his attack on and deconstruction of free enterprise.
What I initially considered to be loony tunes statements and ideas expressed by candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are actually serious, and supported by many voters. Some examples (and these are actually mild compared to others):
- Ron Paul was endorsed by a pastor who once spoke about executing homosexuals,
- Rick Perry pledged to devote predator drones and thousands of troops to protect the U.S. - Mexico border
- Governor Perry also said that voters should serve god by voting for him,
- Rick Santorum promised not to be cowed by "the craven secularists who believe that a stable, healthy household need not be headed by god-fearing moms and dads,"
- and Newt Gingrich stated that only people of faith should have the right to be citizens of this country.
The lack of civility in the national discourse has reached great heights. The Congress is a prime example, and a number of congressional old-timers have talked about this sea change in how members of Congress relate to one another. Some have announced their retirement, citing this new lack of civility and collaboration as a primary reason.
I think this is serious. I think this is more than election year rhetoric. I think the United States of America is headed for an Un-civil War within, the result of which will be a great tear in the fabric of our society. We are slipping from greatness. We are devolving into a country of meanness in which many good people will be hurt economically, socially, politically and, yes, even physically. I fear for our future.
Does this sound dire? I think it is, and the lack of leadership in this country at this critical time does not bode well for the American future.
The signs have been right in front of us for a few years, most evident since the election of President Barack Obama. Our Congress has devolved into a snake pit of partisanship, with the minority leadership pledging to uphold only one goal - to beat Barack Obama in 2012. Both sides of the aisle play the game; the losers are the American people.
There is a large and widening chasm running down the middle of the American people, dividing us into mostly two camps - the left and the right. But "left" and "right" are terms that are too simplistic, and not really correct. The divide runs along a seam of what Americans think about who we are or should be. The geographic features on either side of this chasm have labels like religion/secularism, capitalism/socialism, gay/straight, 1%/99%, big government/small government, private/public, basic rights/survival of the fittest, union/non-union and others.
When G. W. Bush was President, I often talked about taking back our country from what I considered to be dangerous men in control of our government. Now I hear people interviewed on the radio saying that we have to take back our country, except they mean from Obama and his supporters. Obama is characterized as a European-style socialist who, according to Mitt Romney, is using the "politics of envy" as part of his attack on and deconstruction of free enterprise.
What I initially considered to be loony tunes statements and ideas expressed by candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are actually serious, and supported by many voters. Some examples (and these are actually mild compared to others):
- Ron Paul was endorsed by a pastor who once spoke about executing homosexuals,
- Rick Perry pledged to devote predator drones and thousands of troops to protect the U.S. - Mexico border
- Governor Perry also said that voters should serve god by voting for him,
- Rick Santorum promised not to be cowed by "the craven secularists who believe that a stable, healthy household need not be headed by god-fearing moms and dads,"
- and Newt Gingrich stated that only people of faith should have the right to be citizens of this country.
The lack of civility in the national discourse has reached great heights. The Congress is a prime example, and a number of congressional old-timers have talked about this sea change in how members of Congress relate to one another. Some have announced their retirement, citing this new lack of civility and collaboration as a primary reason.
I think this is serious. I think this is more than election year rhetoric. I think the United States of America is headed for an Un-civil War within, the result of which will be a great tear in the fabric of our society. We are slipping from greatness. We are devolving into a country of meanness in which many good people will be hurt economically, socially, politically and, yes, even physically. I fear for our future.
Does this sound dire? I think it is, and the lack of leadership in this country at this critical time does not bode well for the American future.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
CHANUKAH: EARLY ORIGINS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST?
Because this is the eighth, or last night of Chanukah, it is fitting for me to delve into some historic secrets that might link people in different parts of the world. To do this, we need to dial time back to the early 19th century and Thomas Jefferson's preparations for what would be known as the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
Jefferson was at heart an explorer and scientist. In early 1803, he wrote to three prominent Philadelphia scientists, including Dr. Benjamin Rush, asking each to send him their thoughts "in the lines of botany, zoology, or of Indian history which you think most worthy of inquiry and observation." Rush prepared a long list for Jefferson with questions aimed at many aspects of Indian culture, health, diet and habits. Among these, Rush included questions about Indian languages and ceremonies that might prove or disprove an old, persistent academic theory about the origins of native people in the American west, that they might be one of the lost tribes of the children of Israel.
We now know that Lewis and Clark did not find any direct evidence linking Native Americans with early Israelites; however, there are some interesting possibilities. Let's start with the anchovy. Lewis and Clark described and wrote about the "anchovy" in the lower Columbia River. They found this to be the most delicious fish they had encountered during their travels. They learned that these small fish migrated into the river from the sea every year, and were harvested by the native people. They also learned that these are very oily fish, and that the Indians rendered them for their oil, which they used and traded.
In fact, this fish is not an anchovy but is a smelt that is usually called the eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). It also goes by numerous local names, including hooligan and candlefish. The fish is so oily that, when dried, it can actually be ignited.
And so we get (finally) to the point. If Native Americans had been one of the lost tribes of the Israelites, how would they have celebrated Chanukah? If we combine the materials available to these people before European/Russian contact, and add a bit of over-active imagination, we might come up with something like the illustration below.
A bit far-fetched? Perhaps. But.....
Postscript: the eulachon is now listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. They still migrate into the lower Columbia River where they spawn in some of the larger tributaries.
Jefferson was at heart an explorer and scientist. In early 1803, he wrote to three prominent Philadelphia scientists, including Dr. Benjamin Rush, asking each to send him their thoughts "in the lines of botany, zoology, or of Indian history which you think most worthy of inquiry and observation." Rush prepared a long list for Jefferson with questions aimed at many aspects of Indian culture, health, diet and habits. Among these, Rush included questions about Indian languages and ceremonies that might prove or disprove an old, persistent academic theory about the origins of native people in the American west, that they might be one of the lost tribes of the children of Israel.
We now know that Lewis and Clark did not find any direct evidence linking Native Americans with early Israelites; however, there are some interesting possibilities. Let's start with the anchovy. Lewis and Clark described and wrote about the "anchovy" in the lower Columbia River. They found this to be the most delicious fish they had encountered during their travels. They learned that these small fish migrated into the river from the sea every year, and were harvested by the native people. They also learned that these are very oily fish, and that the Indians rendered them for their oil, which they used and traded.In fact, this fish is not an anchovy but is a smelt that is usually called the eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). It also goes by numerous local names, including hooligan and candlefish. The fish is so oily that, when dried, it can actually be ignited.And so we get (finally) to the point. If Native Americans had been one of the lost tribes of the Israelites, how would they have celebrated Chanukah? If we combine the materials available to these people before European/Russian contact, and add a bit of over-active imagination, we might come up with something like the illustration below.
 |
| Ancient lower Columbia River Chanukah menorah. Materials used: board made from Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), candle holders made from Two-spot keyhole limpet (Fissurellidea bimaculata) shells and a Red sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) shell, candles are dried eulachon, or candlefish. |
Postscript: the eulachon is now listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. They still migrate into the lower Columbia River where they spawn in some of the larger tributaries.
Monday, November 21, 2011
THE MILITARIZATION OF OUR POLICE
 |
| Source: bagnewsnotes.com |
Does anyone else remember when the police were the "cops on the beat" who dressed in a regular uniform? When did police departments decide to get militarized? The answer in my mind is the anti-war movement of the early 1970's, when police departments decided that they needed to control riots by American citizens, and to do so they needed to be highly militarized.
To be fair, police officers should be protected from injury if attacked by people with clubs, chains, rocks and bottles. But to me, the question is where the line is drawn between a municipal police force and a military force. If there is a danger of rioting, should the local police handle it, or a state or federal armed force (National Guard, for example)? Here is a blurb I found about a recent "crisis management exercise" involving the National Guard and Portland Police Department; sounds to me like crowd management/control is a service offered by the National Guard.
9/22/2011 - Portland, Ore. -- The 142nd Security Forces Squadron's National Guard Response Force hosted a crisis management exercise with the Portland Police Bureau's Rapid Response Team at the Portland Air National Guard Base September 21 and 22, 2011. The exercise involved training and practicing crowd management by members from each agency.
I don't have a firm opinion on this one, mostly some serious questions about how our local police bureau spends money, the extent to which it is militarized, and the boundary between a police force and a military force.
I have mostly appreciated the way the Portland Police have conducted themselves during the Occupy movement; there have been a few questionable incidents, but overall the cops have been very professional (this is from media reports, not from me being at the scene).
Comments anyone?
I have mostly appreciated the way the Portland Police have conducted themselves during the Occupy movement; there have been a few questionable incidents, but overall the cops have been very professional (this is from media reports, not from me being at the scene).
Comments anyone?
MEMORANDUM TO THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU'RE FIRED!
Your job description as members of the Congress of the United States is "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...." (Constitution of the United States Article I, Section 8). You have not met the basic requirements of your job; therefore, as your employers, we the people of the United States terminate your employment.
You have one hour to clean out your desks before you are escorted off the premises by Capitol Security. We suggest that you try to find meaningful and gainful employment elsewhere. And by the way, you will need to shop for your own health insurance and retirement plan, we will not be funding those for you anymore.
You have one hour to clean out your desks before you are escorted off the premises by Capitol Security. We suggest that you try to find meaningful and gainful employment elsewhere. And by the way, you will need to shop for your own health insurance and retirement plan, we will not be funding those for you anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)