NOT JUST APPLE: CORPORATIONS ROTTEN TO THE CORE

I'm not really picking on Apple in regard to corporate tax evasion; the problem is systemic in our country. But let's start with Apple, because I'm in a shaming mood!

Tim Cook, the Apple CEO, passed out the crying towels at a recent Senate hearing. Poor Apple, he said; they would like to bring their obscene (OK, I added that word) profits home to the US of A, but our corporate tax rate is too high. Give me a break!

Apple has stashed $100,000,000,000 (that's one hundred billion) dollars in Irish banks, where they don't pay taxes. This is $100 Billion in profit. So let's do the math, shall we: if Apple brought that $100 B back to the USA, they would pay about 35% tax on it, or $35 Billion. And then, sob, they would only have $65 Billion in profit left. Poor Apple! 

Let's put this in perspective. All 4 of my grandkids go to school in buildings that are 100 years old. These are buildings made of brick; they are death traps when the big earthquake hits - the one we know will happen. So let's assume that a brand new, modern, high tech and SAFE school building costs $20 million. The 35% tax on Apple's $100 Billion could build 1,750 brand new, safe school buildings! And what the hell, they could throw in an iPad mini for every kid, too! 

I'm sorry Apple, I like your computers (I'm using a MacBook now), but you suck. And just so you think I'm not picking on Apple, all the other big corporations suck, too. Because they all do the same thing. And it's legal. Do you now why it's legal? Because the corporations have armies of lawyers and lobbyists who make sure that tax evasion is legal. 

Corporations suck the tax blood out of America. It's part of doing business. How often do you read about some big corporation shopping around for the best deal on a place to build a new factory, server farm, call center, etc.? By "best deal" I mean the largest package of economic discounts by a city, county and/or state. Whatever public entity gives them the best deal will be the lucky winner, and the lure is JOBS. Unfortunately, as documented by the New York Times, this is very often a con game, where the tax payers are the big losers. A Times investigation has examined and tallied thousands of local incentives granted nationwide and has found that states, counties and cities are giving up more than $80 billion each year to companies. The beneficiaries come from virtually every corner of the corporate world, encompassing oil and coal conglomerates, technology and entertainment companies, banks and big-box retail chains.

According to the NY Times interactive database (go to the link above and spend some time clicking around - this is truly fascinating), my State of Oregon spends $865 million per year on incentive programs - or giveaways to corporations. The Times identified 48 companies in the $100 Million Club - each has received more than that amount in state incentives since 2007.  Apple is one of the members of that club. Apple has received at least $119 million from 3 states. The State of Nevada paid Apple $89 million to build a data center in Reno that is supposed to employ 241 people. So Nevada paid more than $369,000 for each job. It's a good thing Apple can stash that $100 Billion profit in Ireland and not pay taxes in the USA! 

But let's be fair here, and pick on Microsoft. Microsoft received $312 million from 4 states.  And Google, and Amazon, and....oh hell, let's just show you the members of the $100 Million Club:

What we need in this country is state governments who "just say no!" Why should we give money to wealthy corporations to incentivize them to build something in our state? They don't need the tax break or loan or grant. They are simply greedy blood suckers who play the game because they can get away with it. 

If I was in charge, I would say to these guys "No, we will not give you any tax or other incentives. But I'll tell what we will give you; we will give you the opportunity to build in one of our great communities, pay taxes just like everyone else, AND, the opportunity to build one new school building in our state every year using a small fraction of your annual profit. Take it or leave it!"

 People, this has to stop. Corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. Look at this chart:

Notice that the corporate income tax has steadily dwindled since 1950. Yes, corporations pay part of the payroll taxes, but even so, individual income and payroll taxes account for an ever growing share of tax revenues: 63% now, compared to 45% in 1950. And corporate income tax now accounts for 17% of total tax revenue, down from 32% in 1950. 

This is a very complex issue, and my post is just the tip of the iceberg. Sure, corporations create jobs, but only when it works for their bottom line. And don't forget, corporate lobbyists basically write the tax code and other laws that corporations live by; and corporations and their executives, through huge contributions to candidates and PACs, select the candidates who run for office. 

Of, by and for the People? Not a chance! 

SUICIDE BY GUN: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

 The stalled gun control discussion in America is primarily focused on background checks to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and people with known mental illness. This is important, but it is only part of the problem with guns in America. 

This is what a human skull looks like after a hand gun is discharged while pointing up under the chin or in the mouth. This skull was found with most of the rest of a human skeleton and a number of personal items in the woods of rural northwest Florida. The remains of this John Doe were determined to be the result of a suicide by gun.

This is the handgun found with the human remains. According to the Taylor County Sheriffs Office, "The weapon found at the scene was a Charter Arms 38 Cal. Revolver with a serial number of 23173. ATF trace shows the gun shipped from manufacture to Howard Brother Wholesale Distributers at 801 Riverbarge, Monroe Louisianna on 15 February 1968. No further records available."

According to data for 2010 published by the CDC, the rate of suicides in the United States has risen sharply since 2000, now accounting for more deaths than automobile accidents. Suicides by middle-aged men have risen more sharply than for other segments of the population. 

Here are some summary data for 2010:

All suicides

• Number of deaths: 38,364
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4
• Cause of death rank: 10

Firearm suicides

• Number of deaths: 19,392
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.3

Suffocation suicides

• Number of deaths: 9,493
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.1

Poisoning suicides

• Number of deaths: 6,599
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1

What stands out immediately in the data summary above is that suicide by gun  is the most popular method among suiciders (I prefer this term to "suicide victims"). Why is that?

I can only guess about the answer to that question, of course, because there are no interviews of successful suiciders. My guess has two parts: 1) suicide by gun is instantaneous, if conducted properly, thus avoiding the pain and suffering of suffocation, poisoning, or bleeding to death; and 2) guns are very easy to get. 

And this is the issue; the accessibility of guns in America. Tens of thousands of people in this country kill themselves with a gun every year. And we - that's right, you and I - allow it to happen over and over and over. We allow it to happen by not insisting that our government strictly control firearms. I don't have statistics, but I will bet that the number of suicides would drop by many thousands a year if guns were not so easily obtainable in America. 

Did I mention that the skull shown above was my kid brother Larry? Larry became a missing person in January, 1999 after sending his 2 brothers and a few close friends a long, carefully composed printed suicide letter. He disappeared from Manhattan where he had lived for many years. In August of 2000, some hunters found human remains in the woods of Florida, and a diligent investigator with the Taylor County Sheriff's Office finally cracked the John Doe suicide case in 2004. From the articles found at the scene, it appears that Larry sat under a tree, drank a bottle of brandy and smoked a pack of Lucky Strike cigarettes (irony was one of Larry's trademarks) while listening to a John Coltrane CD ("My Favorite Things" which I now have and listen to occasionally) on his walkman. He then put a bullet through his brain. 

Larry most likely bought the handgun on the street in New York. Maybe he knew some shady characters; he hung out at the horse races a lot. The coroners report mentioned that he had a few healed ribs that had been broken;  hence part of our family lore that Larry was in trouble with the mob over gambling debts - but this is just us imaging Larry's life and death. 

The handgun shown above can be traced from the manufacturer to a wholesale dealer, and that is where the trail ends. Why is that? How did that gun get into the hands of a guy in New York city who used it to kill himself? Why doesn't the government track guns as they move through the population? I'll bet the NRA knows the answer to this one! That gun could not be traced, and therefore the identity of a John Doe could not be determined. It took 5 years for us to find out what happened to our brother, and the answer came only because a dedicated law officer in Florida wouldn't give up and finally figured it out starting with the State of New York tax stamp on the package of Lucky Strikes

Larry I. Fishman was 49 years old when he left New York for the last time. He was a bachelor, and in many ways a loner with few close friends. He was intelligent, a talented actor and song writer, a lawyer. He wrote, produced and starred in a short movie just before he checked out (we have a copy). And as shown above, Larry never missed an opportunity to mug for a camera or an audience. 

Alas, poor Larry. I still have a black plastic box containing Larry's ashes (we had his skeletal remains cremated after getting them from the Taylor County Coroner). I need to do something with it, but I haven't yet. His suicide was carefully planned and staged; he even had a plastic bag in his pocket with $150 and a note that the money was for any expense involved if someone found his remains - and it included an apology for the trouble. A kind and considerate man to the very end!

I often wonder if Larry would still be alive if he had not been able to get a handgun. I don't know whether or not Larry would have done himself in by poison, a plastic bag over his head, or opening a vein. But I think he would not have - a single shot through the brain was so quick and, well, so Larry. Maybe if guns were not so easily attainable my little brother would still be mugging for my camera. 

How many more Larrys will kill themselves with a gun before we come to our senses? This is a national tragedy, and we need to end  it

GOING AGAINST THE GREEN - THE ENVIRONMENTAL CURMUDGEON PONDERS METRO BALLOT MEASURE 26-152

I like Metro (the Metropolitan Service District). I like open and green spaces, fish and wildlife, parks for everyone, natural restored organic sustainable places in my natureshed.  But I might vote no on Metro Measure 26-152.

The Oregonian editorial today recommends a no vote because of some unresolved questions and timing issues. I don't always agree with the Oregonian editorial board, but this ballot measure has been nagging at me, and the editorial peaked my interest, so I dug around a bit. 

I read the entire text in the Voters' Pamphlet for Measure 26-152. I went to the Metro web site and read more, including some background reports. I googled (yes, using google, not bing or yahoo) "no on measure 26-152" and managed to find maybe 3 coherent items. 

OK, first off, the measure title falls into one of my pet peeve categories: using buzz words to get a favorable reaction. The measure title: "LOCAL OPTION LEVY: IMPROVE NATURAL AREAS, WATER QUALITY FOR FISH." Wow, three buzz words/terms in one concise title: natural, water quality, fish; impressive. And in fact, water quality and salmon (another PNW buzz word) are prominent in the text. 

By itself, this choice of buzz words isn't such a big deal, but hear me out a bit more.

Here is a pie chart from the Metro web site that shows how the bond money will be spent:

Notice anything? Where do the terms "restore, natural, wildlife, fish and water quality" appear? The right half of the pie, "Restoring natural areas for wildlife, fish and water quality" representing 40-50% of the money. 

The remaining 50-60% of the bond money will be for other things, including 20-30% for regional park operations (places like Blue Lake Park and Oxbow Park). 

So, in fact, only half or less of the bond measure is for "improve natural areas, water quality for fish;" the majority is for operational expenses for other programs ("improving public access to natural areas" is kind-of "improve natural areas" but is a bit misleading). (1)

Why not put forward a bond measure for half of the $53,300,000 (53.3 Million) to fund habitat enhancement and protection projects (the real goal of "restoration") and save everyone some tax payments; or, give the measure a name that actually represents what it is, an operating budget for Metro parks and natural areas?   

I think this is deceptive on the part of Metro.

There are two other items that disturb me about this bond measure: (1) deception regarding the information presented by Metro and supporters about the last natural areas levy, and (2) tax compression.  As Krugman says: let me explain.

(1) Metro and it's supporters on this measure tell us that the last two times we the voters approved bond measures on this natural area stuff, it was ONLY for purchasing property, not maintaining or improving it. Voters approved bond measures for Metro related to natural areas in 1995 and 2006 totaling $363 Million. Here is the first sentence in the Voters' Pamphlet summary for the 2006 measure:  Protects specific natural areas, lands near rivers and streams, wildlife and trail corridors through land acquisition and restoration (underline added). And here is the second bullet in the summary of what the bond measure will do: Protect and restore watersheds for improved water quality (underline added). OK, "restore" is a verb, it means that Metro (or someone) will take actions to restore (improve, enhance, whatever) the land and the watersheds. So Metro and it's supporters are not being factual, the previous bond measure was to restore lands as well as purchase them. 

(2) What the hell is tax compression? This is what I asked myself when I read the Oregonian editorial. So, from the State of Oregon web site: 

TAX LIMITATION (COMPRESSION)
The Oregon Constitution also sets limits on the amount of property taxes that can be collected from each property tax account. These limits are often called the "Measure 5 limits." To figure these limits, taxes are divided into categories described in the constitution. The categories are: education and general government. Some taxes, usually for general obligation bonds, are not subject to limitation. The limits are $5 per $1,000 of real market value (RMV) for education taxes and $10 per $1,000 of RMV for general government taxes. 
  
If taxes in either category exceed the limit for that property, the taxes are reduced or "compressed" until the limit is reached. Local option taxes are compressed first. If the local option tax is compressed to zero, and the limit still hasn't been reached, the other taxes in the category are proportionally reduced. 
  
Please note that these limits are based on the RMV of the property, not the taxable assessed value.

There is some concern that passage of the Metro Measure could result in some municipalities in the Metro region having to cut budgets from other programs, based on the State mandated tax limitation rules. In fact last November, 19 suburban mayors in the Metro region signed a letter to Metro asking it to delay a decision on placing the bond measure on the 2013 ballot until serious concerns were examined. 

There is a green juggernaut in the Portland metropolitan area, and you're either on the bus drinking the lime koolaid, or your not relevant. I generally don't ride that bus.

So now, gentle reader, scroll to my opening paragraph to remind yourself about what I like - I am not anti-environment, anti-natural areas, not etc. (I like cute little pussy cats. I like cotton candy on a summer day at the county fair. I like toast and jam.) 

But I might vote no on Measure 26-152 because of the serious issues discussed above. 

---


Endnotes:
(1) I recently applied for a Community Project Grant, but was denied. This is a good program, I think, and I'm not against the program. 

DOES THE PORTLAND POLICE BUREAU NEED A BASIC CULTURAL OVERHAUL?

The following is from the U.S. Department of Justice web site: 

The United States and the city of Portland, Ore., have jointly filed in federal court a proposed court enforceable settlement agreement to remedy constitutional claims that the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional uses of force in response to “low-level offenses” against persons with actual or perceived mental illness.  The agreement addresses the allegations described in a civil action also filed today by the United States, under provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

There is a long story behind the above paragraph, one that I'm not getting into in order to save time and space. But I chose the above as a lead-in to this post. The answer to the title of this post is yes, in my opinion. 

Here is an opening statement in the final Agreement between the USDoJ and the City of Portand (CoP):
The United States and the City of Portland (“City”) (collectively “the Parties”)
recognize that the vast majority of the City’s police officers are honorable law enforcement professionals who risk their physical safety and well-being for the public good. 

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement, and that is not part of the argument I'm making. I want to talk about the culture of the Portland Police Bureau (PPB), the organizational mind set. 


Here is another statement from the Agreement between the DoJ and the CoP:

The Parties further recognize that the ability of police officers to protect themselves and the community they serve is largely dependent on the quality of the relationship they have with that community. Public and officer safety, constitutional policing, and the community’s trust in its police force are, thus, interdependent. 

This statement really captures the essence of my position. It's all about the "quality of the relationship" the PPB has with the community, and the community's trust in the police.

In my opinion, the Portland Police Bureau has a bad relationship with the Portland community, and it is because of a systemic problem within the Bureau.

There have been numerous killings of Portland citizens by Portland police officers in recent years. The deaths by police of Keaton Otis, Aaron Campbell, James Chasse, Jr., James Jahar Perez, and Kendra James have received a lot of media attention. There are many other shootings by police that have resulted in injury or death that don't get much press. And there are many more incidents of people injured by police officers using excessive force. 

Three recent examples of police using excessive force will illustrate my point. 
1. a young woman was pulled over by police at 1AM, she refused to take a sobriety test but agreed to take a breathalizer test (citizens have this right), she was grabbed by police officers and dragged out of her car through the open car window, and her wrist was broken in the process. 
2. a police officer stopped when she saw a man sitting with his car door open and puking into the street, when he didn't get out of his car after being asked, the officer filled the car with pepper spray and arrested the man when he staggered out of the car gagging from the spray, he spent two nights in jail before being released without being charged.
3. "The city of Portland will pay $2.3 million to settle a federal lawsuit filed by William Kyle Monroe, a man diagnosed with bipolar disorder who was permanently disabled after Police Officer Dane Reister mistakenly fired lethal rounds at him from a beanbag shotgun in June 2011." The unarmed man was stopped by police after getting calls that a man was acting strangely around a playground with children. After he was stopped and emptied his pockets to show that he had no weapon, Mr. Monroe became frightened (he was having a paranoid mania incident) and started to run. The police officer fired his shotgun, thinking that it contained beanbag rounds, but it contained live rounds. The officer fired 5 times, the last shot from about 15 feet away, severely injuring Mr. Monroe, who nearly bled to death. (One wonders why the officer kept shooting after seeing that the shotgun had live rounds.) 

Another example to illustrate my point is that of Captain Mark Kruger. "An internal affairs investigation found Kruger brought "discredit and disgrace upon the Bureau and the City," when Kruger nailed "memorial plaques" of five Nazi soldiers to a tree on the east side of Rocky Butte Park sometime between 1999 and 2001." Kruger was mildly disciplined for this incident that greatly disturbed the Portland Jewish community, and has since been promoted to Captain and conducts leadership trainings for the bureau. 

Finally, another incident that did not involve a human victim of police actions, but helps illustrate my point. In 2012, a Portland Police Bureau anti-terrorist unit staged a training raid on the Columbia River. The cops stormed a beach by boat, shooting high-powered assault weapons at targets set up on the beach. The problem with this exercise was that the location was in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, at Cape Horn on the Washington side of the river. The training exercise left the basalt cliffs at Cape Horn permanently defaced with a large number of pock marks from the high-caliber rounds. The U. S. Forest Service, which manages the Scenic Area, was not notified of the exercise, and probably (one would hope) would not have approved it. The City of Portland apologized and blamed it on a "new person" who planned the operation. There was no penalty of any kind. (Imagine what would have happened to me if I had shot hundreds of live rounds into the basalt cliff in a National Scenic Area!)

My point from all of the above is this: the Portland Police Bureau has little regard for the community it serves, as evidenced by the way they treat Portland citizens as well as iconic and significant landscape features that help form the foundation of what it means to be Portland. All of this stems from the bureau's institutional mindset that values bureau insularity more than the community. People in Portland's minority communities are afraid of the police, as they should be based on the record. 

Police officers can do their job without hurting people, except in a small number of incidents. People stopped for weird behavior, suspicion of drunk driving, or suspicion of gang activity should not be beat up or shot. This is not simply a matter of a "few bad apples" in the force; it is a matter of a failed institution that trains it's officers poorly and condones bad behavior by looking the other way. 

Police officers have a tough job to do, every day. However, their job would be easier if they were a part of the community, not an armed force running roughshod over the community. 

I've worked with Portland cops on neighborhood issues. They are mostly good people with a difficult job. There are many good things to be said about the Portland police and the majority of dedicated and professional officers. As an institution, however, the Portland  Police Bureau has failed the community in too many important ways, and a complete overhaul to change the culture of the institution is way overdue. 

I AM THE NRA'S FAVORITE MAN

I am the NRA's favorite man. I am the man they will excitedly point their fingers at, jump up and down, get red in the face, and piss their collective pants. And they will smile, because their favorite man has made their case for them.

Here's my 10 point plan that makes me the NRA's favorite man:

1. I want the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution repealed because it is worthless and causes more trouble than good. Short of repealing the Second Amendment, I want it amended. My proposed amended text is in a previous post, here.

2. I want the U.S. government to collect all of the military-style semi- or fully automatic weapons presently owned by non-military persons. The government can buy them back from the present owners, but it will be compulsory. The Australian government has done this twice, and the results very clearly reduced gun violence and death.

3. All military-style weapons, like the infamous AR-15, will be illegal to own unless you have specific permission from the government because of your need as a military, police or security officer. And possession of such a weapon will be strictly regulated and controlled.

3. I want a federal system of gun registration for all privately owned guns - any and all kinds. Yes, a registry of who owns what weapons. Part of an owner's responsibility is to immediately report the theft of any weapon, and there will be a stiff penalty for not doing so.

4. Gun ownership will be allowed only after a prospective owner passes a background check, a written test, goes through training for safe use and storage of the weapon, and passes a shooting test. Think driving license.

5. Gun owners will be required to have insurance that covers accidental injury and death by their gun to themselves and others.

6. Gun owners will be held legally responsible for shooting accidents that occur with the owner's weapon.

7. Ammunition magazines for all non-military weapons will be limited to a 10 bullet capacity.

8. Gun manufacturers will be required to design safety features for all guns sold in the United States that will minimize or prevent accidents. (There is no reason why a 3-year old should be able to fire a gun he or she picks up.)

9. All of the above, where applicable, applies to handguns.

10. People will be allowed to own guns (yes, they will have a "right" to own guns) in compliance with 1 through 9, above.

This 10-point plan is not meant to prevent people from owning guns. I have no problems with guns used for hunting or target shooting. If people feel that they need a gun for self protection, fine; follow the 10-point plan.

My 10-point plan is very rational and reasonable. The present situation of guns in America is neither rational nor reasonable.

My 10-point plan is exactly what the NRA uses to get people all riled up about the government taking away our rights. This is why I am the NRA's favorite man.

To the NRA I say: "Bullshit! I'm calling you out, suckers! My goal is to protect human lives; your goal is to deal out death under the guise of freedom. I'll win this one."


 

A DAY OF REMEMBRANCE - YOM HA SHOA

For many, probably most Jewish families alive today, there are branches in the family tree that end suddenly in the late 1930's - early 1940's. My family is no exception. Here are two images from the family tree my Uncle Louie did many years ago (it is not up to date).

The red arrow points to the Tevyansky family; all 5 were killed by the Nazis in about 1942. Chaike Fishman, the mother of this family of 5, was my grandfather Isadore's sister. 

I'm in this snapshot of the family tree. I never had a chance to meet these relatives; they were murdered before I was born. Find my name in the second image. I know almost everyone in the column that has my name, and I knew everyone in the column to the left, my parent's generation - everyone except my father's cousins: Zloty, Sorreh and Masheh Tevyansky. 

Also notice that above my father's name, Morris Fishman, are the names of 6 siblings who all died in about 1942 (ABT1942). These were also my father's cousins: Raisel, Yossel, Yentl, Schloime, Osher and Herschel Pollack. 

They were all victims of the Holocaust. 

We Jews remember these victims today because we should never forget them. 


Everyone should take time today - and every day - to remember all victims of genocide. We should remember them as a way of honoring their lives, and their deaths. We should remember them because this evil was carried out by human beings, and we are all human beings. This dark side of our biology has to be controlled and eventually eradicated if we have any hope of peace and justice for the humans on this tiny planet. 

Thanks for reading this.

WHAT'S IN A BIRTHDAY-

"What's on your mind?" 

facebook

Well, as many people are reminding me, thanks to facebook, it is my 23rd (X3) birthday. And I want to thank facebook for helping all of my fb friends remember this historic day. 

So what does a birthday mean, anyway? 

Well, I'm still wearing the same suit I was wearing when I was born; although next time I think I'll request permanent press. 

I have a lot on my mind, except for hair, which seems to have abandoned ship (and it must think that my ears and nose are lifeboats). 

It has become more difficult to spring out of bed at 6 AM.

I now have at least 5 doctors with whom I spend wonderful times talking about various biological systems that are getting close to warranty (and, yes, maybe the extended warranties would have been a good investment). 

But - on the other hand - 

I still live with my best friend and love going on 48 years.

We know two amazing middle-age men who also happen to be our loving sons.

We have two beautiful young women whom we call daughters.

Grandkids - what happened? Tall Boy is in San Diego right now checking out one of the universities that accepted his application for this fall. One of the 14-year-olds has been asleep in our guest room since we picked him up at a dance last night. He and the other 14-year old dude will be high school students in the fall (and how did they get to be my height already?). And then there is a certain 12-year old going on 17 young woman who continually boggles my mind with her wit, smarts and looks. 

What happened to all of our babies??? 

I'm still retiring every year, which means that I'm still in the game and getting to exercise what's left of my brain. 

My repaired shoulder is at the point where I'll be back in the kayak very soon. And I'm hoping the other shoulder makes it.

The Zap 3-wheel, 6 battery UEV is still on the road.

I have so many wonderful friends and relatives, whose names I actually still remember!

And so, on this very rainy April 6th, as I sip my coffee and tap on the computer keyboard, I can say that I very much enjoy this day of birth celebration. 

And finally, I want to thank my mom and dad, Florence and Morrie, without whom none of this would have happened. 

Getting old is a grey area. 

Man of the Fish

PROPOSED GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IN OREGON

I attended a rally today in Salem, Oregon, on the front steps of the state Capitol. My guess is that there were 150 or more people there to support gun control legislation, and maybe another dozen or so demonstrating against gun control. The Oregon Senate will hold hearings, starting tomorrow, on proposed new legislation of guns. The proposed laws would:

• Ban guns in primary and secondary schools, eliminating a law that allows people with concealed-handgun licenses to carry weapons in schools. Local school boards would be able to opt out and continue the existing policy.
• Prohibit openly carrying a weapon in public buildings, including the state Capitol. Gun owners with concealed-handgun licenses could continue to carry firearms if they're hidden from view.
• Require background checks on gun sales and transfers, except between family members. Oregon already requires background checks on private sales at gun shows.
• Require a shooting test to obtain a concealed-handgun license.

In my opinion, these proposals are common sense and a beginning, not an end. Other proposed legislation that would have banned assault-type weapons and large-capacity ammunition clips were too contentious and has been dropped. 

Several Oregon legislators spoke at the rally (above). These Senators and Representatives are firm supporters of gun control, and have been on the front line of the often acrimonial public discourse about this issue. They have received nasty and often threatening emails for their efforts. 

My sense is that the majority of Oregonians, including gun owners, will support these proposed regulations of firearms. I think people are tired of the killings, and not just the widely publicized mass shootings like Newtown and Aurora. Most of us see gun control as a set of common sense rules that will not take away people's right to own a gun, but address serious public health issues - death and injury by gun. 

The opponents of gun control who were at the rally are afraid that government will take away their guns and then do bad things to us. The above placard likens Oregon Senator Ginny Burdick, one of our most outspoken and persistent elected officials, as well as national leaders,  to Adolf Hitler. Really? And I did mention to this particular man that tyrants love armed militias - that work for them. 

It was good to see many more supporters of gun control today than opponents. I firmly believe that reasonable people can come to agreement about the basic issues here, and get behind common-sense rules about guns and gun ownership. What is truly needed in this country is a cultural shift away from fear of government towards protecting the public. This is possibly; it will take a lot of hard work and time. 

THE PROBLEM WITH "INTELLIGENT DESIGN"

I had an aha moment this evening. I was having a glass of wine and some happy hour food at our favorite neighborhood spot, 3 Doors Down, and was reading the online NY Times (eating alone at a restaurant strategy - bring something to read). A fascinating article was about the NASA Mars Rover that has recently drilled into a Mars rock and completed a chemical analysis of the rock dust. The findings were a number of chemicals that are able to support life, and NASA scientists conclude that the Mars environment several billion years ago could have supported simple life forms. This is not the same as saying that life existed on Mars, but it is still a very important finding.

The thought then struck me: belief in "intelligent design" is a cop-out; it is a bypass around intellectual curiosity and discovery. If one believes that the entire universe was designed and created by some superior force, e.g. god, then exploration, curiosity, research and discovery are all a waste of time. I cannot, and will not accept this!

The Mars missions are explorations of the unknown, and every tiny bit of knowledge gained about Mars is a valuable step in the human quest for knowledge. If we forsake these intellectual journeys, well, then we are no different from simple microbes, and we might as well spend our lives stupidly whirling about in some primordial soup.

Part of what makes humans human is our curiosity and, more than that, our thirst for knowledge and truth. How marvelous is it that humans can manufacture a machine, shoot it into space, land it on another planet, remotely drive it around, drill into a rock, and analyze the drilling dust in an on-board chemical laboratory? I mean - fantastic! How boring life must be for those who simply say "god made everything - end of discussion!"

We cannot give up on intellectualism, a characteristic we all have. WE are the intelligence in our world, and it's time we accepted it and used it to whatever lengths we can take it. It is time for we humans to stop acting like mindless animals and evolve (yes, evolve) into the thoughtful, compassionate, intellectually curious beings that we have the equipment (the human brain) to be.

Go NASA; drill baby drill!

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20130312.html

THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON

The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled last week that: "the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment" and that "In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Supreme Court stated in dicta that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” This, to me, is an important ruling.

The case was brought by a man named Gray Peterson who lives in Washington State. He applied for a concealed handgun license (CHL) from the sheriff in Denver, CO and was denied because Colorado law states that CHLs may only be issued to residents of Colorado. Mr. Peterson sued the Denver sheriff and Colorado’s executive director of the Department of Public Safety, claiming that denial of the license violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (Here is the link to the court opinion, if you are interested in reading it.)

An interesting side note is the list of Intervenors in this case:


NRA CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FUND;  SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.; BUCKEYE FIREARMS FOUNDATION; CITIZENS RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE; COMMONWEALTH SECOND AMENDMENT; CONNECTICUT CITIZENS DEFENSE  LEAGUE; CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC.; GUN OWNERS CIVIL RIGHTS ALLIANCE; HAWAII DEFENSE FOUNDATION; ILLINOIS CARRY; ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE  ASSOCIATION; MAINE OPEN CARRY ASSOCIATION; MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE;  OREGON FIREARMS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION; WISCONSIN CARRY INC.; SCOPE  INC.; STILLWATER FIREARMS ASSOCIATION; VIRGINIA CITIZENS DEFENSE LEAGUE,  INC.; WEST VIRGINIA CITIZENS DEFENSE LEAGUE INC.; BRADY CENTER TO  PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE.

Who are all of these groups? Well, you now me, I always want to dig a little. How about the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, right here in my home state?

The OFEF logo: nice assault rifle!

Their mission: Welcome to The Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, a non profit 501(c3) organization created to provide gun owners with valuable resources in a hostile political environment.

Just as the Oregon Firearms Federation has proven itself to be Oregon’s only no compromise lobbying group, OFEF takes the same tough stands and serves as a vehicle for educating gun owners, promoting their rights and when necessary, fighting the freedom haters in court.

"Hostile political environment," "freedom haters." Love it! 

On their website, the OFEF mentions the Oregon Firearms Federation. Who is that? Their logo:

Look familiar? And the mission of the OFF:

Oregon’s Only No Compromise Gun Lobby

Gun ownership in the age of Obama is a risky undertaking. We hope this website will provide you with information you need to stay informed and safe while the most anti-gun administration in US history is in power. 

So the OFEF and the OFF are/is the same people/person. The address is the same for both organizations (a PO Box in Canby, Oregon). The OFEF is the legal arm of the OFF. 

I assume that the rest of the intervenors listed, with the exception of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, are all similar organizations. And I would guess that many, if not most of them, get funding from some larger sugar daddy like the NRA. 

These folks are organized; most gun-control supporters are not. Why not? 

IT ISN'T EASY BEING GREEN

We're green here in Portland, Oregon. We're green here in the Fish House. I'm green. So why is it sometimes so confusing to be green?

Let's look at the containers we get for take-out food or restaurant left overs. We have been to a few restaurants lately, and have come home with a variety of containers holding the left-overs. We emptied three of them the other day, and I was left puzzling over what to do with the boxes. This is what we had, and what I did:

BioPlus Earth#1 - this is a brown paperboard box with a shiny (plastic?) lining. Printed on the bottom is the name of the product, the chasing-arrows recycling symbol, and the following text:

• Made from 100% recycled paper (average 35% post-consumer content)
• Made in the U.S.A.
• For recycling information visit www........[web address]

Sustainable Packaging Done Right - Reduce, Re-use, Recycle

So, do I throw it in the recycling bin, the compost bucket, or the garbage? How would I know? It looks like plastic-lined paper. I certainly wasn't going to go get my computer and get online. I threw it in the garbage.

Plain brown paperboard clamshell box. This one had no printed labeling on it; however, upon very close inspection, there seemed to be some words embossed on the inside of the bottom (where the food goes). I rinsed off the food residue and then held it under a strong light, but couldn't read it. So I got a pencil and ran the lead back and forth over the embossing until I could make out the word "compostable." OK, easy! The funny thing is that the restaurant lined the box with a square of aluminum foil - I guess these containers leak through. So I put the foil in the recycling and the box in the compost bucket. This left me wondering what the true environmental footprint of this choice is, if you consider the cradle-to-grave of the paper box and the aluminum foil.

BioPak #1. Black paper box with plastic lining. This box, made by the same company as the first one, has the same messaging printed on the bottom, telling me that it is made from 100% recycled paper, made in the USA, and to go to their web site for recycling information.  Again, I have no frickin' idea what to do with this box, so again, into the trash it goes.

So, what is the correct, GREEN thing to do with these boxes? Did I make the correct choices? To find out, I went to the web site listed on the BioPak boxes; the company is FoldPak (a RockTenn company). They have a page about recycling, pasted here:

which basically tells me that, yes, their products can be recycled if my local recycler will accept it. Um, OK, that isn't very helpful. 

Next stop, my local recycler. I went to the Metro (Metropolitan Service District) website for recycling information. Aha! After clicking around a bit, I found the following info for Portland curbside recycling:

PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THESE IN YOUR RECYCLING CONTAINER
	Freezer boxes, butter boxes, ice cream containers, take-out containers (These are impregnated or lined with a plastic moisture barrier to keep them from disintegrating. They are also contaminated with food.)

So, I made the correct decisions after all. Two out of three takeout boxes were trash. So much for recycling. 

(A quick note: while having a beer with an environmental consultant friend last night, he told us about his recent tour of the composting facility contracted by the City of Portland for our curbside compost service. He was told that a very small percentage of the stuff delivered to the facility was actually compostable. One factor is that people toss a lot of inappropriate stuff into the compost bin. Another factor is that some items labeled "compostable" take too long to break down and don't compost in this facilities' process. Hmmm...)

Many years ago I decided that there are certain myths about recycling. One of these is that just because something is labeled "recyclable" doesn't mean that it is. Many items that are labeled as recyclable are only that IF you can find someplace to take them that will actually recycle them. 

Recycling is an important component of getting to sustainability; but we need to be smart about it, and not just go with what feels good or seems to be correct. Is paper better than plastic for food containers? I think most people would say that paper is better; however, the data tell us otherwise. If you are interested, here is a case study by folks at University of Michigan, published in 1995, about paper vs. plastic clamshell boxes used by McDonalds. After studying the aspects of plastic-lined paper vs. polystyrene containers, McDonald's chose plastic. The public didn't like the decision because they felt that plastic = bad, paper = good. However, independent research, detailed in the paper cited above, tell a different story. The facts will very likely surprise you; plastic has a lower environmental footprint than coated paper sandwich boxes. 

Years ago, the City of Portland banned styrofoam food containers used by restaurants. So restaurant owners scrambled to find alternatives. The most common container following the ban was the clear plastic clamshell. These containers were not easily recycled (I found a place about a 1 hour drive from our house), and to this day cannot be put into the curbside recycling bins. So what was gained by the ban? I'm not sure if anything was gained. It was not, in my opinion, a smart decision, it was a "feel good" decision (we are sooo green). 

I'm not trying to be cantankerous in this post; I'm trying to present information that can help us all think more clearly about recycling and sustainability. As Kermit sings, it isn't easy being green!  

THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U. S. CONSTITUTION: REPEAL OR AMEND IT

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

And there it is, one of the most poorly constructed popular sentences in the English language. There are two major camps in the interpretation of this amendment: 1) those who think that it gives every person in the United States a constitutional right to own and keep firearms (usually without any limitations); and 2) those who think that the Amendment means that people have a right to own weapons if they are part of a "well regulated militia."

I personally think that the Second Amendment should be repealed; this would make our national discussion of guns a lot more objective and reasonable. But I don't really think the amendment will ever be repealed, so I offer the following rewrite, to be done as an amendment to the Amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall be maintained by the federal government. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, under a well-regulated set of laws and rules to protect the health and welfare of the people, shall not be infringed.

Can anyone seriously argue with that? My amendment to the Amendment allows the federal government to establish and maintain our armed forces (armed). My amendment to the Amendment also gives people in the United States the right to keep and bear guns, but within a well-regulated system that is structured to protect people (including the gun owners).

Why is this so important? Simple answer: the staunch anti-regulation folks (the NRA, other gun organizations, self-proclaimed gun rights patriots, and etc.) use the Second Amendment as a crutch for their argument against gun regulation. Read any and every statement by the NRA and anti-regulation folks and you hear the words "second amendment," "constitutional rights," "free society" and similar. One example in the newspaper today is a statement by Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Association, commenting about a recent poll on gun regulation: "What isn't important to me is how many people have decided to give up their rights." In other words, he dismisses the results that show what percentage of people favor more strict regulation of guns, based on his "fact" that we all have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

If we pull the Second Amendment rug out from under these gun death deniers, they will be forced to talk about real issues, and will have a much more difficult time dodging the reality of gun murder and mayhem in this country.

My next task is to look at the best way to start a national petition drive in support of my amendment to the Amendment.

"WHY POLICE LIE UNDER OATH"

The title of this post is the headline of an article in the Sunday February 3, 2013 New York Times. The article, written by Michelle Alexander, examines the issue of police not telling the truth, in their reports and in court.  Ms. Alexander cites real cases and public statements by current and former police about this phenomenon. She begins the article with a question for jurors: who would you believe, a prisoner in an orange jumpsuit, or a well-groomed police officer in a snappy uniform?

I was in just this situation last year as a member of a jury. The criminal case involved a very pathetic family, and an accusation that the older brother had threatened and beaten the younger brother with a pellet gun. The younger brother was a 21-year old who had been a heroin addict since the age of 17. The older brother had an admitted problem with alcohol and drugs. The mom spent her days in her greenhouse, growing "medicinal herbs" (marijuana). The step dad had recently been laid off from his job. Each member of the family testified, and each testimony contradicted that of the other family members. A police officer also testified; he had responded to the 911 call made by the younger brother following the alleged incident.

The instructions given to us, the jurors, by the judge were very explicit. We needed to base our decision on the evidence presented at the trial, and the only evidence presented was the testimony of each person who was called to the stand. In other words, who did we believe most?

At the beginning of our deliberations, all of us agreed that we believed the police officer. We also all agreed that every member of the family was lying, and our job was to decide who was lying the least. We concluded that the accused brother was guilty of all but one count.

Something about this jury experience nagged at me. First, it was obvious from the outset in the jury room that many of my fellow jurors felt that they had more important things to do and wanted to get to a decision quickly so they could leave. I was bothered by this because, after all, we were talking about a person and whether or not he would do jail time. I felt strongly that all the witnesses, with the exception of the police officer, were lying about something - it was really that obvious. I was uncomfortable with the thought that we had to choose who we thought was lying the least.

I did not, at the time, give a second thought to the testimony of the police officer. I did, however, wonder why the officer had not taken the pellet gun as evidence and have it examined for finger prints and the younger brother's DNA, for example (have I seen too many TV cop and lawyer shows?).  This did seem very odd at the time. There were other things that I thought the police might have, or should have done that could have provided some physical evidence for the trial, but I shrugged off those thoughts and focused on the lying game (not including the officer).

Were we jurors guilty of what Michelle Alexander calls out in her article? I think we were; we automatically assumed that a police officer would be telling the truth. This is not to say that in this case the officer was not telling the truth. This is a deeper issue, who should we trust, and should we always trust someone only because that person is in a position of authority? I think the answer is that we should basically, as the old cynical saying goes, trust no one.

THE NRA RED HERRING STRATEGY

If you listen to or read the statements of the NRA, you will understand their strategy to kill (oops) any meaningful gun control legislation. The NRA has two major "solutions" to the problem of gun deaths in this country: 1) put armed guards at every school in the country, and 2) swiftly prosecute and punish criminals. This is a red herring, and I will explain why.

1. Put armed guards at every school.  The death toll at Sandyhook School in Newtown was 20 children and 8 adults. This was a tragic event, and a national trauma. But these were not the only people, or children, killed by guns in the USA. In the 1 1/2 months since the killings in Newtown on December 14, 2012, at least 1,440 people have been killed by guns, including at least 23 children and 81 teenagers. This killing by gun will continue day after day, week after week, month after month until somewhere around 15,000 to 30,000 people are dead within 1 year of the Newtown killings. Putting armed guards at schools will not save any of these people; the only possibility that they would be saved under this NRA plan is if every person in the United States has an armed bodyguard with them at all times.

Putting armed guards at every school might possibly and partially address a very specific type of incident, but this "solution" ignores the larger problem of the gun death epidemic.

2. Prosecute and punish criminals.  The NRA would have us believe that only criminals are responsible for deaths by gun. Well, in most cases, this is correct - BUT only in the sense that once someone has pulled the trigger and killed another person, they are then a criminal. The vast majority of gun deaths in the USA are not committed by criminals; these deaths are the result of an argument, a fight, a domestic dispute, a suicide, or "just playing around." Yes, there are many gun deaths perpetrated by criminals, but if you study the available data, these are not the majority.

Most gun deaths are caused by the NRA's "law abiding gun owner." The problem is that human emotion and guns don't mix well. Neither do alcohol and guns, nor depression and guns. Most gun deaths are a result of a gun being conveniently located when something goes wrong, not the deliberate acts of criminals.

There is at least one other fish on the NRA plate of red herrings; mental illness. The NRA would also have us believe that if we did something with all the mentally ill people, gun deaths wouldn't happen. One problem with this is the fact that the NRA also is fighting to keep people's medical and mental health records out of the hands of the authorities. Yes, we need to do a much better job serving the needs of the mentally ill, but that is not the problem behind the gun death epidemic.

So let's not be fooled by the Red Herring Strategy of the National Rifle Association. They want us all to ignore the real problem in this country - there are already way too many guns in the hands of civilians. This includes all kinds of guns. And the data clearly show us that handguns are the leading weapon of gun death in the USA, not assault rifles.

THE LIFE OF A CONVICTED FELON: CAN WE GET TO A LESS MISERABLE WORLD?

[Spoiler alert: I reveal some of the plot.]

This post is about a movie based on a novel based on some historic happenings. But it is also about life today.

We recently saw the movie Les Miserables. Once I got past the fact that people are singing instead of always talking, I settled in and enjoyed the film. The story line, acting, production and costumes were excellent. The story of conditions in France in the early 1800's evoked a lot of empathy for the poor, downtroden underclass of the time. The hero, Jean Valjean, was imprisoned for a minor crime - stealing a loaf of bread for his sister's hungry children - and served many years at hard labor in a prison camp. After 19 years as a prisoner (5 for the crime of stealing bread, 14 for an escape attempt) he was releaased with nothing in his pocket and a prison record. As a released convict, Jean Valjean had no rights, lived on the streets in abject poverty, and was required to report frequently to the authorities. He is caught after stealing silver objects from a bishop who takes him in and feeds him; however, the bishop tells the police that he gave the silver to Jean. In an act of defience, he tears up his prison papers and starts a secret life, using the stolen silver to start a new life as a business man. He becomes a wealthy factory owner, but has a social conscience and treats his employees with kindness and respect, always looking out for their welfare. His true identity is finally discovered by the bad-ass policeman who had tormented him in the prison camp. However, in a few twists of plot, Jean Valjean helps the cop escape from the revolutionaries who had captured him, and then declines to kill the cop when Jean is once again captured. The cop, his mind blown by this extreme act of kindness, takes his own life.

Ultimately for Jean Valjean and his family there is a happy ending.

In the United States of America today, the early 21st century, there are millions of people who live in a situation analogous to that of the ex-convict Jean Valjean. Convicted felons in this country often have fewer civil rights than the general population; this varies by state. Voter disenfranchisement is one result of a felony conviction. Approximately 5.85 million eligible voters were barred from voting in the 2012 election because of a felony conviction. In four states, people with a felony conviction are barred from voting for the rest of their lives. In the remaining 46 states the laws vary, some states allow released felons on parole or probation to vote; some states allow felons to vote once they have completed their sentence. Only 2 states allow felons to vote while in prison.

Persons with a felony conviction face numerous other challenges in the USA. Many cannot get public housing. Most have difficulty getting employment because they have to indicate on employment applications if they have ever been convicted of a felony, and many employers will not hire them. In some states persons with a felony conviction cannot get food stamps. And in some states, released felons have to pay back the cost of their imprisonment, a difficult task if one cannot find employment. As a result, large numbers of people are forced to live  in a Catch-22 world, as if they are playing the role of the ex-con Jean Valjean when he is released from prison. These people, released from prison once they complete their sentence, are still imprisoned economically and socially by cruel laws.

Unfortunately for the people trapped in this prison with virtual bars, the establishment does not kill itself and allow a happy ending. Instead millions of people, many with families, who think they have paid their debt to society, are actually burdened with a debt they can never repay unless the laws of the land are reformed.