THE ISRAEL-GAZA WAR, PHASE 2 (following the script)

OK, so here we are in Phase 2 of the Israel-Gaza War, as usual. Phase 1 was when Israel got tired, again, of  having hundreds of rockets and missiles lobbed into it's territory by the Gazan extremists and started lobbing bombs and missiles the other way. And guess what happened? People in Gaza were being wounded or killed, and property was being destroyed.

The usual anti-Israelis trotted out their tired arguments that Israel was killing too many people and it was a lopsided fight. Right, it is. There is no way Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any of the other criminally crazy extremists in Gaza (let's call them Hamas and Company) are going to beat Israel in a fight; they are totally outgunned, and they have always known it.  And so they try to protect themselves and their weapons with human shields, and do you know why they do this? Because they know very well that the Israeli forces will try as much as they can to avoid civilian casualties. They know that the Israeli forces try to warn people that a specific building is going to be blown up, and they should get out. The only logical conclusions during Phase 1 are that: 1) Hamas and Company will start a fight they can't possibly win, and 2) Hamas and Company know that many of their own innocent civilians will be killed, which they want because it builds global hatred for Israel, and Jews.

And now Phase 2. The war has gone on for more than a few days, Israel has invaded Gaza on the ground, and hundreds of Gazans are dead, compared to "only" dozens of Israelis. Well meaning people who decry war start posting photos and articles about all the children who have been killed. Propagandists post these items, too, as well as outright lies and misinformation about Israeli actions. And the Jew Haters world-wide swing into action. Jews are attacked on the streets of France and Germany. Jewish buildings and sites are bombed, vandalized, desecrated. Suddenly Israelis and Jews are guilty of genocide and are labeled worse than Hitler himself! What Holocaust? The Jews are bringing a holocaust down on the Gazans! And oh yes, not wanting to be left out, the United Nations members start piling on Israel, too. (I have to say that it took a lot longer this time around for the U.N. to get to the condemnations of Israel; they were actually very critical of Hamas from the beginning of this go-around.)

In Phase 1, many Jews (and I'm thinking of Americans) start to feel guilty as the body count increases. "But Israel has a right to defend itself, doesn't it?" they say to their friends. In Phase 2, Jews start to feel less defensive and start to take the offense, calling bullshit bullshit every time they see it. This is because Jews understand that anti-semitism is alive and well in the world, including in the good old U. S. of A.

Look, when the USA invaded Iraq and killed probably more than 100,000 Iraqis, were there anti-Christian riots in the streets of Europe and the Arab countries? The US is, after all, a Christian country. No, the riots were anti-USA. But every time the Israel-Gaza War gets to Phase 2, the anti Jew riots start.

Do you want to talk about disproportionality? How about the fact that I have never heard about any demonstrations or riots,  and I have never seen a word on Facebook from those who weep bitterly over dead children in Gaza about the thousands and thousands of innocent Muslim civilians - women, men and children - being indiscriminantly killed by....Muslims, in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and others.

What is happening in Gaza is horrible, and very few Jews anywhere, including or especially in Israel, are dancing in the streets over the bodies of dead children. This just doesn't happen, except maybe for a very small minority of sick, crazy Jewish extremists. This is war, and war is neither a party nor pretty.  It is horrible, on all sides. And yes, it is, and has been for many years, horrible for children in Israel who have never known a time when normal wasn't having to run for shelter many times a day or week when the air raid sirens wail.

The behavior of Israel during war, and this is war, has to be considered differently than the behavior of Israel during peace (a relative term). I defend the right of ANY country to defend itself when attacked. And yes, I guess that means any country whether I consider it "good" or "bad." That's how the animal world works.

I have a different view of Israels behavior during more peaceful times. Israel has negotiated with Palestinians a number of times over the years trying to find a peace agreement. This has never been successful, and yes, the blame game goes both ways. The more moderate Palestinians have sat down with Israelis at these negotiations; the extremists like Hamas and Company want no part of it (and to be fair, the Israelis won't negotiate with terrorists anyway).

I remain very critical of Israel during the more peaceful interludes of the war. While I don't expect Hamas and Company to change their mission of destroying Israel, killing all the Jews, and installing an Islamic Caliphate across all of Israel-Palestine, I do expect Israel to be capable of changing their tactics. Instead of fighting Hamas and Company every day at a low level, and every few years in an outright huge battle, they should instead use diplomacy and politics to work with the moderate Palestinians to marginalize Hamas and Company and get Hamas out of power in Gaza. Instead, what I have seen is Israel purposefully blow off or sabotage these opportunities, while continuing to do the things that fan the flames of Palestinian resentment, namely settlement building, check points, mass incarcerations, racism towards Israeli Arabs, and other institutionalized actions.

Is there a hope for peace in Israel and the Palestinian Territories? I don't think so, unless there is a radical paradigm shift in Israeli politics, and the chance of this is greatly diminished with every major outbreak of the Israel-Gaza War. A paradigm shift on the Palestinian side would also go a great way towards making peace, but I think this is even less likely. The outlook is grim. Fewer Israelis and Palestinians know each other than was the case a decade ago, and this also dehumanizes attitudes on both sides.

I don't have the right to tell the government of Israel what to do; I'm not an Israeli citizen. Although I have a connection to Israel, I don't consider it my country. There are very smart Palestinians and Israelis, and if both sides wanted to make peace, had the will to do so, and most importantly had the leadership to do so, it could happen.

---

MY ISSUES WITH THE ANTI-ISRAEL CROWD

A few statements before I start:

1. This post is, as usual, my opinion, and mine alone. My family and friends might not agree with me, but that's how I roll.
2. This post is NOT simply a defense of Israel; I have been publicly very critical of the Israel government on numerous posts here and elsewhere.
3. It is NOT my intent to insult or anger anyone, and I will not get into on-line arguments about this topic. I would, however, gladly have an objective discussion about this topic, preferably in person rather than on-line. 
4. This post is NOT faith-based. Yes, I am Jewish. I am also an atheist and what I call a progressive realist. The faith issues in the Middle East, and the world, are very real, but I prefer not to be part of any discussions labeled as "inter-faith" because I prefer to leave these labels outside the door, and, well, that's not how I roll.

Every time there is an inflammation of violence in Israel-Palestine (more precisely Israel and Gaza) many people start posting about how horrible Israel is to be bombing and killing the Palestinian population in Gaza. There are demonstrations, such as the one here in Portland yesterday, in support of the Palestinians and calling for Israel to end the occupation, end the violence, stop killing innocent women and children, and etc. Muslim, Christian and even some Jewish friends post these things and go to these demonstrations. 

I also see posts (Facebook) by family and friends who are very protective of Israel, and try to convey information in support of the right of Israel, like any other country, to defend itself. 

All of the above actions are OK; this is what we call democracy. 

I am greatly bothered by the extremes on both sides, even by what I know to be well-meaning people. My greatest issue is with the pro-Palestinian side, and this is what I'll mostly talk about here.

To put it simply, I think the anti-Israel posts and demonstrations feed hatred for Jews, whether intentional or not. There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism world-wide, including here in the USA. This is a fact, supported by data of hate-motivated attacks on Jews and Jewish sites. The anti-Israel movements, such as the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, and the recent decision by the Presbyterians to divest of stocks in companies doing business in or with Israel, all feed this hatred. 

Read this short piece in the New York Times today about one of the hate sites on the internet, Stormfront.org.  It is interesting and chilling. The author's analysis of the site users concludes that 75 percent of the site users are younger than 30. The group most often mentioned as hated is Jews, at 39%, followed by Blacks 33%, Hispanics 13%, Muslims 11%. Surprised? Gee, certainly racists hate Blacks or Hispanics or Muslims more than they hate Jews, right? A lot of Jew-hatred is based on the misperception that we Jews are behind all the societal changes these folks hate because we are so powerful and clever. We control everything. 

There is, and for some reason always has been a hatred of the Jewish people in the world; this has been true throughout the history of the Jews. When I see anti-Israel stuff, it is very easy for me to find that it is not very far from outright anti-Semitism, or a gateway to hatred of Jews. This is certainly true for many people in the Middle East, where many maps used in schools don't even show Israel, and that country is called things like "the Zionist Entity," and children's cartoons on TV show devil-looking Jews eating babies and drinking the blood of children for rituals. If you don't believe me, spend 2 minutes on google. 

So what about the fact that in this present conflict, as in the past battles between Gaza and Israel, more than 100 Palestinians have been killed, and zero Jews have died? Doesn't that prove that Israel is evil and the Palestinians are simply innocent victims? Well, no it does not. The numbers are real, but the facts behind the numbers are the real story.

The elected government of Gaza is Hamas. Hamas is a Sunni Islamist militant organization, and has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, a source I think is objective, "Hamas combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism. Its founding charter commits the group to the destruction of Israel, the replacement of the PA [Palestinian Authority] with an Islamist state on the West Bank and Gaza, and to raising "the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine."" 

To carry out their goal of the destruction of Israel, Hamas, as well as other extremist groups such as Islamic Jihad, has waged a campaign of terror against Israel and its citizens, including suicide bombings, attacking Israeli civilians, including busloads of children, and launching thousands of rockets and missiles from Gaza into Israel over the course of many years. 

I have asked a simple question numerous times in Facebook posts: What would you expect, or demand that your government do if a neighboring community was launching explosives into your neighborhood, and after how many such bombs would you demand action? I have never received an answer to this simple question from any one of my Facebook friends. My answer is simple: go find them after the very first missile is launched and stop them, even if it means killing them! Can anyone say that this is unreasonable? Can anyone say that Israel has not tolerated thousands of rockets before responding at a scale designed to eliminate the threat?

Let's get back to those numbers of people killed. The reason for the disparity is simple: Israel protects its citizens; Hamas purposely puts its citizens in danger. Israel carefully selects its targets and uses extraordinary measures to avoid and minimize civilian casualties. Hamas does not seem to select targets, they launch rockets in the hope that they will kill Israelis - Jews. Hamas (and the other militant groups) stores their weapons and sets up their rocket launchers in heavily populated areas, knowing full well that once they provoke Israel to attack, many non-combatants will be injured and killed, giving their cause a terrific PR boost. 

OK, you say, Israel needs to end The Occupation and everything will be fine; peace will break out. I strongly agree that Israel needs to end the illegal occupation of the West Bank, and the isolation of Gaza. But I don't agree that this will solve the problem. Remember, the goal of Hamas is not to end the occupation, it is the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic state. Does anyone really believe that if Israel ends the occupation, removes the West Bank settlements and tears down the separation barrier that the extremist Islamists will dismantle their missiles and bombs, lay down their arms, and accept Israel with open arms? Yeah, right. 

 I am also very bothered by the fact that so many well-meaning liberal friends are quick to post about how awful Israel is when Palestinians are being killed, but are silent on all the other atrocities in the world. Where are all the posts and demonstrations about the thousands of civilians, mostly Muslim, killed by the Syrian regime? How about the hundreds of school girls kidnapped by the Islamic group Boko Haram in Nigeria? And where are the bleeding hearts about the thousands of civilians murdered in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries - Muslims killed by Muslims? From my perspective, it's only when Jews kill Palestinians that we see such an outpouring of concern - and hatred. When Muslims kill Jews I don't see any comments by non-Jewish Facebook friends. I do see reports of people in Muslim countries dancing in the streets and hailing their martyrs. When Jews kill Muslims that seems to be all anyone talks about. And I never see Jews dancing in the street to celebrate the killing of innocent people.  Am I missing something here? I'd like to know if I am.

I'll end this by saying a bit about the extremists on the other side of the coin. I sometimes see posts defending Israel that at their core are hate-based. Some of these repeat ridiculous statements, such as that there is no such thing as a "Palestinian," or that every Arab or Muslim wants only one thing, to destroy Israel and kill every Jew. To these people the entirety of what is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank is part of ancient Israel, and the Arabs have no legitimate claim to any of it. These are people who are in or support the settlement movement that is rapidly converting Arab-owned lands into Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The existence of these hundreds of settlements is an impediment to any peace process, and has fragmented the West Bank into a jig-saw puzzle that will make any future two-state agreement very difficult.    

Israel is a country that exists within the legal framework of every other recognized nation on the planet. The history of the formation of Israel is not very different than the history of many other countries. We Americans, especially, should not be too quick to criticize the actions of Israel without thinking about the very often horrendous history of our nation. Israel has been forced by its neighbors to become a very highly militarized nation, knowing full well that the day after they become weaker militarily than their Arab and Persian neighbors will be the day Israel ceases to exist. Israel has been condemned more often by the United Nations than any other nation. Israel is condemned by the international community whenever it defends itself. It is no wonder that the government of Israel does what it thinks it needs to do to defend itself in spite of the international criticism and scorn it knows it will get. Israel has a very well equipped and modern military, with all the latest technologies developed by their own and the military industries of the United States and some other western nations. And they use their military when they are attacked. 

I would rather see Israel make peace than war. I fault the Israel government for not doing everything possible to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority and yes, even Hamas. Yes, I know, they have tried, in their own way, without success. But they have not set a goal of making peace even if it means giving up certain concessions to the other side. They have not tried to think outside the box of the same old worn out positions both sides have bolted their boots to. 

I would prefer that concerned people work to achieve peace in Israel-Palestine by waging peace on both sides of the conflict. If you feel that you need to criticize the way Israel responds, please also criticize the Palestinians who constantly attack Israel with bombs and missiles and put their own people at risk. Pay attention to anti-Semitism here at home and abroad (it might surprise you to see in the NY Times article that Oregon has one of the highest levels of users of the internet hate site I discussed earlier). Let your elected representatives, including the President, know how you feel about US support of Israel, but keep in mind that if Israel did not have modern weapons of war, millions of innocent people in that country would have been slaughtered years ago by neighboring countries. 

This is an extremely complex issue, and "truth" and "fact" are hard to find. Each side has a narrative, and every narrative is valid and should be learned and understood by the other sides. But one basic fact remains: every nation has a right to defend itself when attacked, even the tiny nation of Israel. The US was attacked by three airplanes and responded by going to war with two countries for over 10 years. The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by the United States probably killed more than 100,000 people in that country, yet only a small minority of Americans protested that invasion. 

Let's continue to express our opinions, but let's be careful what we say.  

ISRAEL-PALESTINE: DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN

A lot of what I want to say is in the post from 2012, the last time the Israel-Gaza War flared up. Here's the link.

So rather than repeat myself, I want to share an excerpt from an important book by a Palestinian scholar we have sat and talked with a couple of times in Jerusalem, Sari Nusseibeh. The book is titled "What is a Palestinian State Worth?" and is a philosophical look at the conflict, it's roots, and the workings of the human mind. In a chapter titled "How can we move the World?",  Professor Nusseibeh discusses the example of Gandhi changing the way of thinking about freedom and violence.

Ghandi here clearly refers to India and its civilization not as race or religion but primarily as a system of moral values or a humane order.  Patriotism is not racial chauvinism or self-love and self-adulation, but "the welfare of the whole people."  Thus if Palestinians were to take their cue from Gandhi, they would cease looking upon their own patriotism as a religious or national cul-de-sac, and begin viewing it instead as an overarching affinity with the land and its multifaceted racial as well as religious history.  They would have to transform their vision of a free Palestine from that of a princedom to be ruled by Arab Palestinian "princes" to that of a land of a free people living by moral values.  In such a land, an Israeli could be just as patriotic a Palestinian as could an Arab Palestinian!  Indeed, to adopt such a perspective on patriotism is to see the political landscape in a radically new light.  The chasm in that landscape is suddenly no longer between "us" and "them"; rather, it is between "us" in the currently prevailing system of values and "us" in the new one.  More particularly, in this light, a philosophy of renouncing the use of force means more than simply restoring to nonviolent action: more significantly, it means renouncing our underlying assumptions of what the conflict is about, and replacing them with new assumptions which will henceforth guide our pursuit of a moral order.  

This is what is missing in Israel and Gaza and the West Bank and the surrounding region. The existing conflict, part of which I consider to be war between the governments of Gaza and Israel, the only accepted course of action is violence against violence. This has not worked now for 66 years, and will never work as a solution unless one side completely obliterates the other (spawning different endless cycles of violence, of course). 

I would also add my own view of the religious bases for this conflict. The stated struggle for The Land is not really about land, it is about the location of the religious myths of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Every piece of dirt has some religious, i.e. mythical importance as the place where so-and-so walked, slept, died, was buried, rose up, ate lunch, took a nap and etc. and etc. Really? All this killing over mythologies? Even if some of these mythical persons existed at some distant time in history, so what? What is so important that people kill each other to defend it? 

So yes, as our Cousin-neice Erin said so eloquently on her blog, there are two (I would say at least two) narratives operative in Israel-Palestine, and each has validity that needs to be recognized by the other(s). There are options different than war, there have to be. Human history is not just made by war, it is made by people to people interactions, mostly positive and peaceful. And it is often, in fact it probably has to be driven forward by new and different ideas that break societies out of endless cycles of business-as-usual. 

Let us hope for a quick end to the bloodshed in Gaza and Israel. Let us also hope, and work for a different way of conflict resolution that moves towards a new moral order. I think the majority of people in the world would be happier with that. 

---

What is a Palestinian State Worth? Sari Nusseibeh. 2011. Harvard University Press. (also available on Kindle) [I highly recommend it.]

THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN...THE TIMES THEY HAVE A-CHANGED.

I was born in 1944. Yeah, old. The lines from a Dylan song are a constant ear-worm:

Come gather round people where ever you roam,

and admit that the waters around you have grown.

And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone,

If your time to you is worth savin',

Than you better start swimming' or you'll sink like a stone,

For the times they are a-changin'!

Every generation sees great changes during their lifetimes. My generation is no different, and yet I somehow feel that the pace of change has been so much greater than before. 

Computer-information technology, for example, has progressed light years from my first computer, a Times-Sinclair box hooked to a cassette tape recorder and a black & white TV - in the late 1970's. Now we have the internet, on which people in every corner of the world can read this blog, and every word I enter on this blog will be harvested, aggregated and my profile will be sold to marketeers. 

Climate change. It is no longer a matter of when but a matter of how quickly and how severe. We humans have finally pushed the climate of our planet past a tipping point, and there is no going back. 

I also think that the chasm between the older and younger generations is wider than ever before. The Millennials are not a generation I completely understand. Unlike previous younger generations, they are not just about different clothing and hair length and rebelliousness. They understand things intuitively that we older folk have to struggle to understand just a little bit. It's not just that they can pick up and instantly use a remote control or smartphone, it's that the technology is part of who they are. Another way to say it is that what my generation tends to call gadgets are integral to young people's lives and personnas. 

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land,

And don't criticize what you can't understand.

Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command,

Your old road is rapidly agin',

Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand,

For the times they are a-changin'.

When I look at the news every day, I see a struggle between these old and new generations that continues building towards a series of tipping points. The Congress of the United States is primarily old, white men and some newly elected younger but old-minded white men who are waging what to them must seem like a holy battle to save the old order of their generation. The battles are being fought on the holy battlegrounds of marriage, immigration, petroleum hydrocarbon energy, corporate profits, and free-market greed. The old guard will lose these battles, that much is clear. What the new order will be is anyone's guess. President Obama, in my view, stands in the middle between these generations. He is old enough to understand the old guard and young enough to understand that things are very different now. 

Come senators, congressmen please heed the call,

Don't stand in the doorway don't block up the hall.

For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled,

There's a battle outside and it's raging',

It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls

For the times they are a-changin'! 

The world is aflame with terrorism, something we older generation folks never saw much of in our lifetimes. These terrorists, mostly Islamic extremists, are a manifestation of the struggle between the old and the new. The jihadists want to keep, or go back to an extremely fundamental view of Islam in which their religion is the controlling force over every life. Those who don't agree are to be killed. End of conversation! What these old-minded extremists understand is that the world has changed, and they don't like it. 

The never-ending war between Israel and Hamas is another example of the struggle between the old and new. Hamas has a very clear goal: get rid of Israel (and all the Jews, too) and implement a fundamentalist Islamic state. Israel, faced with never-ending terror and missile attacks, maintains a strong defense-offense to periodically knock Hamas back to a tolerable nuisance. Many people on all sides (Israel, Gaza, West Bank) would prefer peace; however, the old men in charge of all sides can't get past the old hatreds, the old resentments, the old injuries to body and psyche and find a way to make peace. Imagine what it would be like if the young generations of Israelis and Palestinians lived side-by-side and were free of the conflict that keeps them from realizing their true potential. 

The young people who took to the streets during the Arab Spring revolts clearly know that they are trapped in the old world while the new world goes on without them. In most cases, the outcomes of these revolutions have been a retrenchment of the old order, with associated imprisonment, torture and death for the rebellious young generation. But the old order can't stay in power forever; they will die and hopefully be replaced by a new order sown by the seeds of revolt in the 2010's. 

We Americans are at a turning point, both internally and externally. We seem to have lost our way, our identity, our ability to be One Nation, united. We have become mean - to the old, the poor, the immigrant, women, and the "other." We are divided by a wide chasm of intolerance based on politics, gender, sexual orientation, race and religion. 

America's standing in the world has also taken a downturn. We remain the lone - and lonely - superpower, but that might not last. We are still looked up to, but our recent political history, at home and abroad, has dimmed the shiny patina of America, Land of the Free. The world is changing rapidly, but we seem not able to stay in step with those changes. 

The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast,

The slow one now will later be fast.

As the present now will later be past,

The order is rapidly fadin',

And the first one now will later be last

For the times they are a-changin'. 

To the generations that follow mine I can only say "good luck, we did our best and we know that we failed you in many ways." This is not glibness, it is actually said with an aching sadness. If only we had heeded the Prophet Dylan's words when he wrote them a half-century ago. 

---

The Times They Are A-Changin' words and music by Bob Dylan

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HOBBY LOBBY DECISION TO MY CORPORATION

Dear United States government:

The recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the case brought by Hobby Lobby has important implications for all privately held corporations. In their decision, the SCOTUS ruled that a privately held corporation could decline to provide certain benefits to it's employees if said benefits violate the religious beliefs of the corporation owners.

I am the sole Director and owner of a privately held corporation. I have long believed that certain actions by the government of the United States violate my religious beliefs. I am an atheist. Religion has several definitions, including : A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. I ascribe supreme importance to my pursuit and interest in atheism, and therefore atheism can be described as my religion. 

The government of the United States violates my religion in many ways. The money printed by the government includes the words "In God We Trust." The pledge of allegiance to the United States flag includes the words "One Nation, Under God." Elected officials, from the President down, end their speeches with the words "God Bless the United States of America." I find all of this insulting and a violation of my religious beliefs. 

Based on the recent Hobby Lobby ruling and the examples above, my corporation requests an exemption, on religious grounds, from having to pay taxes for it's employee (me). These taxes support a government that violates my religious, i.e. atheist beliefs, and therefore my corporation should not have to pay them. 

I want to thank the Supreme Court Justices, fine Republican-appointed men all, for establishing this important principle asserting the rights of corporations and the religious people who own them. You have greatly increased our privately-held profits.

American corporations thank you, Supreme Court Republicans of the Unites States (SCROTUS)!

FACEBOOK: MY DILEMMA

I've always had a love-hate relationship with Facebook. I enjoy the connection with friends and family, but I also resent the amount of time sucked away by this "social networking." I have not looked at fb for about a week, and to be honest, I don't miss it. I do miss knowing what friends/family are up to, but all the rest of it has gotten to be, well, like wasted time.

I'm not trying to insult anyone here. The issue is me, and my apparent lack of control. OK, there, I said it, I'm a fb junkie. Damn! Is cold turkey the only course of action?

I've thought that maybe I will spend more time writing posts on my blog. I can link these posts to Facebook, and people can read them if they want. But because I'm not looking at Facebook now, I won't see any comments to my post, because the vast majority of you comment on Facebook, not on my blog site. I could ask you to only comment on the blog site, but that seems somehow unfair. In other words, I don't want to spend time on Facebook, but I want you to spend time on my blog site. Hmmm, I wouldn't blame you for telling me to sod off.

I'll work this out eventually. Maybe I'll go back to fb, but only every 2 or 3 days. But that won't work well because I won't want to spend hours each time scrolling back a few days to see what I've missed. Kind of defeats the objective.

The reality is that there are probably about a dozen or so people I regularly see and exchange comments with on Facebook. Maybe I can set a filter so I only see posts from this smaller subset of people. Or I could hide or unfriend people I don't really have a relationship with. I know that there are people who have hundreds of Facebook friends; that has never been my goal.

I hope the future of humankind isn't that people will be "on screen," or whatever the technology is in the future, 24/7. Texting, tweeting, face booking, instagramming, snap chatting...will people ever talk to each other in the future? Will people actually be together in the same physical space at the same moment in time and interact without a technological device? Will the concept of a handshake or a hug be just historic gestures no longer within the human behavioral repertoire? Oh my.

If you have any ideas for me, leave a comment. But, um, please leave it on my blog site comments, not Facebook comments so I will actually see it. And stay tuned, I'll figure this out.

HATE THE JEWS - THE GAME EVERYONE CAN PLAY

"Jews control the federal government, mass media and the Federal Reserve Bank. And with those powers, they’re committing genocide against the white race." 

These were the comments on a radio talk show in 2010 by the man arrested yesterday for killing three people at the Jewish Community Center and a Jewish retirement home in Kansas. He reportedly yelled "Heil Hitler" when he was arrested. He stated in previous interviews that he definitely hated Jews more than African Americans. He was a member and official of the Ku Kluz Klan. He has been in and out of jail on various charges. And he had a gun, and used it to kill people. And, by the way, the teenager and his grandfather who were killed at the Jewish Community Center were church-going Methodists.

I won't get started on my usual rant about guns; there is a larger issue here.

Most people will write this one off as the actions of a kook, weirdo, etc. But that is the wrong thing to do. 

Most people don't know that anti-semitism - let's call it Jew-hating - is much more common than they think, even here in the United States. 

The number of reported anti-semitic incidents in the United States has been trending downward over the past several years; however, the number of violent anti-semitic incidents has sharply increased.  

Anti-semitism in Europe is increasing. According to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Human Rights:

 November 2013

Jewish people across the European Union (EU) continue to face insults, discrimination, harassment and even physical violence which, despite concerted efforts by both the EU and its Member States, show no signs of fading into the past. Although many important rights are guaranteed legally, widespread and long-standing prejudice continues to hinder Jewish people’s chances to enjoy these rights in reality.

Anti-semitism in Arab/Muslim countries, including vicious attacks in the press and extremely racist television programming for children and adults, has increased greatly. 

Many Jews, including those in the United States, feel that the growing movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel (BDS movement), and boycotts of Israeli academics by European and American professional organizations, are anti-semitic at their core, and feed anti-semitism. 

President Obama, speaking at the annual  White House Easter Prayer Breakfast the morning after the Kansas killings, said:

“We have to keep coming together across faiths to combat the ignorance and intolerance, including anti-Semitism, that can lead to hatred and to violence,” the president continued, “because we are all children of God, all made in his image, all worthy of his love and dignity, and we see what happens around the world when this kind of religious-based or tinged violence can rear its ugly head.”

While I appreciate the President's words, I would say it differently, because not everyone is a person of faith, and, in fact, anti-semitism is not based on religion. I am an atheist, but I would be targeted as a Jew because my parents and grandparents were Jews and I identify ethnically as a Jew. The German Nazis and their collaborators didn't use religion as the basis for rounding up and killing Jews; anyone with a Jew in their ancestry was marked as a Jew. I always puzzle over the choices on a survey or application that ask for my ethnic identity; I'm not African American, Asian American, Pacific Island American or any other choice than "Caucasian." I don't see anti-Caucasionism rampant in the world.  

Hatred of Jews runs deep through history. It is the norm, not the exception, throughout the existence of the Jewish people. History is filled with anti-Jewish events: pogroms, riots, massacres, confinement in ghettos, and genocidal campaigns as recently as the Nazi attempt of extermination a mere 75 years ago. The Vatican, in 1965, decided that, in fact, the Jewish people should not be collectively held responsible for the killing of Jesus - a mere 1,965 years after his alleged death! (I sure hope I'm not expected to say thank you!) Many prominent people, including the former President of Iran, deny that the holocaust of World War II even happened. It is important - today - to understand this and work to end it. 

The killings in Kansas by a known Jew-hater are much more than a seemingly random act by a nut case. This incident is a symptom of a larger issue that most people just don't recognize or want to talk about. It's time we all pay attention, and as the popular saying goes: See something - Say something. 

OBAMACARE IS NOT THE REAL POLITICAL ISSUE OF OUR TIME

I'm really, really tired of all the hoop-de-doodoo about how terrible Obamacare is, and how the Democrats will lose power soon because of it. Really? Are We the People that stupid? I'm afraid we are.

Is there a reality in America that the majority of people can actually understand? Can people agree to be bothered by the facts, and not just believe the fictions espoused by the plethora of talking heads on digital screens?

How about a very short history lesson to begin being bothered by the facts?  I've selected below a few dates and federal legislative events from a very interesting timeline of medicare enactment:

1912 Social insurance, including health insurance, endorsed in platform of Progressive Party and espoused by its candidate, Theodore Roosevelt.

1935, August 14. Social Security Act signed into law; health insurance excluded.

1943 January. President Roosevelt, in his state of the Union message, calls for social insurance "from the cradle to the grave."

1944, January 19. The Social Security Board, in its eighth annual report to Congress, specifically calls for compulsory National Health Insurance as part of the social security system.

1947 May 19. President Truman, in another special health message to Congress, again requests a National Health Program. S. 1320 introduced by Senators Wagner and Murray; Senator Taft's bill also reintroduced (S. 545).

1962 May 20. President Kennedy addresses the Nation on the Medicare issue in a speech televised from Madison Square Garden.

1964, February 10. President Johnson sends special message, "Health of the Nation," to Congress, advocating Medicare.

1965, July 30. Medicare (as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1965) signed into law by President Johnson.

It took more than 50 years to get national health insurance passed into law, primarily for elderly people on social security. (Take a few minutes to go to the link and read through the timeline; it's fascinating history.) It took almost another 50 years to get a national health insurance plan, based on private insurance, passed into law in the form of the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare." This was a major accomplishment by a President of the United States.

The politically spun message we now hear all the time is that Obamacare is not working (see footnote (a) for a language note). In other words, the new national health insurance program didn't instantly, on day one, become a success, and was therefore a failure. Give me a break! Once again, let's confuse you with the facts. 

First we'll look at a graph showing ACA enrollment over time, below. These data go through mid-February 2014. The goal of 7 million enrollees by the end of March this year might or might not be met, but the trend line looks good.

Now let's look at who is enrolling by age group. This pie chart looks like enrollment is fairly evenly distributed across age categories. These data tell me that people at the beginning and end of their working lives (18-34 year olds and 55-64 year olds) are enrolling at higher numbers than people in the middle (35-54 years old), or kids (under 18 years old). That seems right to me. 

And what about people who need financial assistance to get health insurance? it looks like those folks who have enrolled and need the assistance are getting it.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives, including some Democrats worried about the coming elections, passed their 51st attempt to repeal or change Obamacare, as reported on Fox Business (that's right, I looked at Fox Business). A number of Republican-led states have tried to sabotage Obamacare by refusing to implement the Medicaid part of the new law. In other words, the Republican Party has done everything they can to promote the notion that the ACA is a failure, bad for Americans, bad for the economy, proof that Barack Obama is a socialist, and thus created a myth that they are counting on to put them in control of the government in the 2014 and 2016 elections. 

These are the same people who shut down the federal government because, well, because they could. These are the same people who have become noted for being the most do-nothing session of Congress. These are the people who vowed in 2008 to do nothing in Congress other than thwart President Obama at every turn. In other words, nothing at all to do with actually governing the country. 

Is the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, a failure. Absolutely not. Is it perfect in every way? Absolutely not. Should the successes or failures of the ACA be the sole basis for casting a vote in 2014 and 2016? I hope not, but I can't do anything about the epidemic of stupid in this country.


---
Footnotes:
(a) PLEASE people, let's stop using the word "disaster" as in "The Obamacare rollout was a disaster." Hurricane Sandy was a disaster. The earthquake and tsunami in Japan was a disaster. Hurricane Katrina was a disaster. The Obamacare rollout was a failure of technology workers to get it right. 

THE AGE OF DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT

Future historians will probably look at our time in America as the Age of Don't Trust Government. We've documented the Iron Age, the Machine Age, the Information Age and others, but this new phase of unfolding history is an Age based on attitudes rather than major advances in technology.

Let's start with a short list of examples in which a majority of the public in and around Portland, Oregon has expressed a basic distrust of government.

• a vote to not allow the City of Portland to add fluoride to drinking water - all credible science, medical and public health sources conclude that adding the proper amount of fluoride to drinking water has public health benefits; however, a misinformation campaign, supported by many progressive citizens, rejected the proposal by a large margin;
• a ballot initiative will ask voters to take the responsibilities for sewer and water services away from City of Portland Bureaus and place it instead with a newly created water and sewer public utility - missteps and misappropriations of money by City water and sewer bureaus have made headlines, and Portland's water and sewer rates are among the highest in the nation, and continue to climb;
• voters in Clackamas County, south of Portland, resoundingly said no to Clackamas County contributing funds to replace the Sellwood Bridge over the Willamette River - a large number of people in Clackamas County use the Sellwood Bridge for their daily commute to Portland; in fact, 83% of trips across the bridge begin or end outside of Portland. The Sellwood Bridge is owned by Multnomah County, and funding for the replacement of the old and unsafe structure came from Multnomah County, City of Portland, and state and federal transportation funds;
• voters in Clark County, Washington, across the Columbia River from Portland, have at least twice rejected funding an extension of light rail across the river, even though huge numbers of Clark County residents commute to Portland for work and shopping (Oregon has no sales tax, Washington does); 
• voters in Tigard, Oregon, just south of Portland, have passed a resolution that requires a public vote for any high-capacity transit project, such as proposed light rail or bus-only lanes, and further amends the City Charter to state opposition to high-capacity transit - Tigard has some of the worst traffic congestion in the region, with a 4-lane state highway going through the middle of town as a major arterial. Driving into or out of Portland through Tigard on Highway 99 is always a nightmare experience. 

The list is long, but these few examples illustrate the point that citizens flat-out don't trust government to know or do what's right for the public. The rallying cries seem to be "keep government out of my business" and "don't confuse me with facts." I will be the first to admit that every level of government, from local to federal, seems to have serious issues with inability to act, inability to reach consensus, mismanagement and often a deaf ear to reality. The answer to these issues, however, is not to insist that a no answer is the only answer to government programs, but rather to insist that government correct it's deficiencies and truly serve the people (I've always liked that slogan). 

Voters should not be the decision makers concerning public health, transportation infrastructure, public utilities and other items that are basic public needs. Citizens, as voters, should be the watchdogs of government, expressing through their votes what issues are important, and how government should process and reach decisions. And citizens need to be active in public affairs, attending and speaking up at hearings, public meetings, town halls and other opportunities to guide the actions of government.  Just saying no is not productive, it is destructive. 

I think too many people rely on someone else to do the work of exploring and researching an issue. People rely on a TV program, a radio talk show, or any internet site that has an appealing message to form their opinions about public issues. I tend to think that we suffer from a severe epidemic of intellectual laziness. Credible information is a few clicks away on a computer if you really want the facts; it's not difficult to learn the difference between credible, factual information and one-sided opinion. Sadly, a majority of voters seem to be too lazy to seek fact, and default to fiction.

I wonder how the Age of Don't Trust Government will play out. I hope it has a short duration, but I fear that it will hang on for too long, and the consequences will be pretty dismal. 

  

ITER: THIS IS COOL, THIS IS REAL, THIS IS VERY SCARY!

Years from now—maybe in a decade, maybe sooner—if all goes according to plan, the most complex machine ever built will be switched on in an Alpine forest in the South of France. The machine, called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or iter, will stand a hundred feet tall, and it will weigh twenty-three thousand tons—more than twice the weight of the Eiffel Tower. At its core, densely packed high-precision equipment will encase a cavernous vacuum chamber, in which a super-hot cloud of heavy hydrogen will rotate faster than the speed of sound, twisting like a strand of DNA as it circulates. The cloud will be scorched by electric current (a surge so forceful that it will make lightning seem like a tiny arc of static electricity), and bombarded by concentrated waves of radiation. Beams of uncharged particles—the energy in them so great it could vaporize a car in seconds—will pour into the chamber, adding tremendous heat. In this way, the circulating hydrogen will become ionized, and achieve temperatures exceeding two hundred million degrees Celsius—more than ten times as hot as the sun at its blazing core.

No natural phenomenon on Earth will be hotter. Like the sun, the cloud will go nuclear. The zooming hydrogen atoms, in a state of extreme kinetic excitement, will slam into one another, fusing to form a new element—helium—and with each atomic coupling explosive energy will be released: intense heat, gamma rays, X rays, a torrential flux of fast-moving neutrons propelled in every direction. There isn’t a physical substance that could contain such a thing. Metals, plastics, ceramics, concrete, even pure diamond—all would be obliterated on contact, and so the machine will hold the superheated cloud in a “magnetic bottle,” using the largest system of superconducting magnets in the world. Just feet from the reactor’s core, the magnets will be cooled to two hundred and sixty-nine degrees below zero, nearly the temperature of deep space. Caught in the grip of their titanic forces, the artificial earthbound sun will be suspended, under tremendous pressure, in the pristine nothingness of iter’s vacuum interior.

This is the beginning of an article in the New Yorker magazine. ITER is for real, and is now under construction in southern France. It's hard to imagine what this will actually look like once it is operation. If, in fact, we could get close enough to actually see it. This could be the future of energy for the humans on planet Earth...WOW! 

But this also scares the hell out of me. What are the risks? What happens if something goes wrong and it goes out of control? Is that possible? Have the scientists thought of every possible contingency? And what if they don't actually have the knowledge to know every possible outcome? I can visualize a scene in a movie where they start this reaction, everything goes along just fine, until one of the scientists, with a horrified look on her face, says quietly: "Uh oh...."  

Are there boundaries on scientific inquiry that we just shouldn't go beyond? We see this in sci-fi movies all the time, but does it actually happen in real life? Maybe it already has in multiple instances; genetic engineering, nuclear weapons, biological warfare, and etc. 

One of my biggest regrets about my eventual death is that I won't be around to see how all of this turns out. If only I could travel into the future, like Dr. Who, and see how the decisions of my time play out centuries from now. Maybe there will be holy sites, the Temples of ITER, where great flaming globes, like eyeballs, suspended in the air between giant magnets, are worshiped by the tribal masses who bow down and offer sacrifices to this god that has existed throughout the eons of time. 

Oh Great and Glorious and Terrible ITER, we who are humble bow down to you and offer our first born as a pledge of our fealty.  Provide us with heat and light, oh Mighty ITER, that we might subsist in our humble and meager hovels. And please, oh Gracious Lord ITER, never interrupt our broadband so that we may continue to be on Facebook 24/7.  

ATTENTION ANTI-GAY PEOPLE: GAME OVER, GO HOME (PLEASE!)

Maybe I'm just getting soft, but I find that my former contempt for the anti-gay crowd in this country is turning more and more into something akin to pity. Well, maybe it's more of a sense that these folks are just simply pathetic.

From the newspaper today:
1. Detroit, Michigan. A lawsuit challenging the Michigan ban on same-sex marriage is being heard in a federal court. The defenders of the ban are bringing experts who will testify that it is bad for children to have same-sex parents. The other side will bring different experts who will try to debunk this claim. To everyone who knows families with same-sex parents, this is a non-starter; these kids are simply the same as any other kid, and the sex of the parents is not an issue (in fact, it might be an advantage in some ways).

2. Meanwhile, the wonderful legislature of the State of Arizona has passed legislation that would allow businesses to refuse to serve gays, based on religious beliefs of the business owner. The bill is on Governor Jan Brewer's desk for her signature - or veto - and she seems to be caught between her inherent far-right religiosity and pressure from the business community that the law would be bad for business. Damn right it would! I already refuse to spend money in Arizona or Florida because of their discriminatory and gun-toting laws, and many national organizations and businesses are shying away from Arizona for this reason. And besides, discrimination is not right, and should not be legalized; period!

3. Shall we move on to the State of Kansas? The Kansas House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow discrimination against gay people by businesses, based on religious belief. Maybe this is a case of Arizona Envy.

It is clear that the people behind these bills understand that the game is over. To date, 17 states now allow same-sex marriage. State attorneys general are deciding that they will not uphold same-sex marriage bans in their state. In Oregon, our Attorney General this week announced that her office will not uphold or defend the same-sex marriage ban added to our State Constitution a few years ago by popular vote because her office finds it to be discriminatory and therefore illegal. This is a decision prompted by a law suite brought by gay and lesbian couples challenging the constitutional ban.

The drum beat is loud and clear; the religious right is trying one more desperate last stand to stem the tide of freedom.

Why do these people have a problem with gay/lesbian marriage? They most often cite their bible as the reason. But really, what is it that bothers them? How does marriage by loving and committed couples threaten them? If they don't want to marry a person of the same sex, they have the choice not to. I actually think that a lot of it is based on the fact that there are organizations with paid staff that fight against same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general. Their incomes are based on this brand of hatred, and their job is to whip up "the base" to make as much noise as possible, and perpetuate their employment. Well, to these folks I would simply say, you'd better start looking for another job.

Game over.

OUR UNIVERSE: INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

I think it's time for some intellectually stimulating contemplation and discussion. Don't you? Good.

First, read this short article in the New York Times; then come back here. (Hint: is our universe actually a computer simulation?)

Did you read it? Great; now let the discussion begin.

The article discusses whether or not it is possible that our entire universe is actually a computer simulation built by some intelligent beings (maybe even humans on Earth in the distant future). Here is my take: I find this theory to be very interesting and attractive. It would certainly solve a lot of our great mysteries of the universe. Think about this: throughout what I will call the Scientific Age of humankind, we have been trying to explain the mysteries of life and the universe by postulating theories and doing research, including, by the way, creating mathematical models to simulate observable phenomena.

Scientists "discovered" that the structure of genetic material is a double helix of material called DNA that has chemical compounds coded on it in various sequences. In other words, scientists deciphered a portion of the code for the computer simulation we are in. Every time mathematicians, physicists, chemists, biologists and others are able to explain how something works, they have deciphered another portion of The Code (capitalization used purposefully).

We have computer simulation games aplenty in our society; think video games, educational games like Sim City, and etc. In fact, what is Facebook but a type of simulation in which the Facebook algorithms use a variety of data sources to come up with things pushed our way based on who we are and what we like? It doesn't take that large a leap of imagination to think about a simulation model built by super intelligent (compared to us) beings using quantum computers (or some other kind of super computer that we can't even conceptualize).

In this simulation model, the creators input millions of basic routines (or apps they wrote did the assembly) that dictate the basic relationships between what we call physics, chemistry and biology, all based on a standard mathematics. They then hit "run," or start the simulation - what we call the Big Bang. Events unfold based on the basic relationships and rules of the model: stars form, planets around them, life appears under the right set of conditions and evolves according to the rules of the model. The simulation cranks along, and at any point in time (what is time? another discussion) the creators can take a "look" at how things are going.

I sit here writing this and look around me, thinking about who I am and why I am. I can explain this on the basis of evolution; however, I can also explain it based on my being a very minuscule routine in a very ginormous computer model. Why am I balding? Evolution tells me that it's a result of genetics; simulation theory tells me it's because the outcome "balding" is part of a complex computer code. Same thing, right? The modelers did not input the fate of every one of us; they input all of the possible variables and the routines that respond to every eventual interaction of variables; the result is an infinite number of "individuals" appearing in the simulation.

But hold on a minute; I'm real, I can feel things, smell and hear things, have emotional responses to things, experience pain and eventually death. Sure, but how do I know all of this is "real" or just the progression of highly interactive computer routines? I don't.

Of course The Matrix movie comes to mind here (one of my all-time favorites). But so do the concepts people have of god. If we are, in fact, just part of a computer simulation, does that prove intelligent design and the existence of god? Hmmm, it could, if we accept that god is a bunch of geeks sitting around in a laboratory somewhere writing computer code, and by intelligent design we mean the constructs of a complex mathematical model. Wow, that could very well blow a few minds!

I'm going to keep an open mind about this. This actually helps me put life in perspective, albeit a very different perspective.

What do you think? I would truly be interested.

========================================================================

Note: there is a disconnect created when I post to this blog and put the link on Facebook. Most people who comment do so on Facebook; however, some readers of this blog aren't on Facebook, and their comments posted to the blog are missed by the Facebookers, and visa versa. So maybe the answer to this is if I ask you, gentle readers, to comment here on the blog, and then comment on Facebook that you have commented on the blog. It's an extra step, but maybe it will be more inclusive.

SEPARATING HOMELESSNESS FROM MANAGEMENT OF OUR PUBLIC SPACES

I'll begin this post with a statement, because I know what some people will think if I don't clarify.

This post is not against homeless people. I support every effort to help people get off the streets and into housing and employment, or to get whatever assistance they need. 

This post is about management of public spaces. Public spaces in the city include sidewalks, streets and parks. In our neighborhood of southeast Portland we struggle with issues of management of public spaces. We are not the only neighborhood of Portland with these issues; however, the press and the city government focus on these issues in the downtown core and generally do not acknowledge that these are city-wide problems.

Our neighborhood includes an arterial street, SE Hawthorne Boulevard, that supports many businesses, mostly small businesses.  Hawthorne, particularly what I call the middle section, is a vibrant street with many small shops, restaurants, coffee houses and a large bookstore. There are also a couple of supermarkets, a movie theater-pub, live entertainment venues (music and acrobatic theater). It's a terrific neighborhood in which to do business and live, but we're having problems. Most of our neighborhood problems are related to management of public spaces, or, more accurately, lack of such management.

The summer of 2013 was, for most of us, the worst summer in many years because of the street scene. Below are a few images to illustrate the issues.

The bus stop at the busiest intersection. 

The City built an extra-wide sidewalk and bike shelter that is primarily used as a hang-out by street people.

Need a place to dump your garbage? How about the public sidewalk?

The City required a stormwater swale and landscaping for a small commercial parking lot. It is used as a storage space for bedrolls and, in this case, a couch, and as a trash dump by street people.

A closeup of the stormwater swale - garbage dump. The property owner has to clean this up.

Keep in mind that I'm not picking on any individuals; everyone has a story about who they are and why they are here. What I'm talking about is using public spaces in ways that are respectful of everyone else using those spaces, and of the space itself. There are many different types of people in the group we generally refer to as "the homeless." Many of them, probably most of them, would rather not live on the streets. There are, however, those who choose to be on the street as a lifestyle choice; and yes, I know this because I've talked to people who make that choice.

The impact of the behavior shown in these photos is felt by everyone who lives in or visits our neighborhood. Some merchants have told me that customers have let them know that they don't like coming here anymore because of the street scene. Many parents don't like walking their children on Hawthorne anymore because of the open drinking, pot smoking, garbage, big dogs and sometimes aggressive panhandlers. Store owners and managers have told me that they frequently have to clean up human feces left in front of their store during the night. They also regularly pick up the garbage left by street people and sometimes have to wake them up and ask them not to block the doorway. Many merchants also object to people setting up tables or blankets on the sidewalk and selling jewelry, drawings or other items; these also block our very narrow (substandard width) sidewalks.

We also have an issue in the residential part of the neighborhood. People who are referred to as "travelers" use our residential streets as a RV park for the camper vans and old school buses in which they live. They live in these vehicles parked on the public street, and hang out on Hawthorne during the day. This brings noise, trash, drug dealing and partying into the residential neighborhood.

Portland has become a mecca for street people, especially during summer when many travel here to hang out and enjoy the vibe. The City has tried numerous times to control the street scene by passing ordinances that regulate how sidewalks can be used. These regulations typically have tried to give police the tools needed to move people along if they are blocking the sidewalk, being aggressive towards others, or for having other generally unwanted behaviors.  This has not worked well. Court rulings have found the City regulations in violation of the Oregon Constitution or state laws. Advocates for homeless people have battled with the City and downtown businesses, taking the position that the City should do more to help people on the street, and that these laws discriminate against the homeless.

In my view, it's too easy, and very disingenuous, to take the position that every attempt to get the street scene under control is an attempt to discriminate against homeless people. I'm a middle class person who lives in a home. If I chose to spend my days sitting and sleeping on the sidewalk on Hawthorne I should expect the police to ask me to move on. Yes, I have a home I can hang out in and truly homeless people don't. I support government stepping up the efforts to get every homeless person and family into housing; this has been proven to be the most important step in assisting the homeless. I would gladly pay my share of taxes to make this happen. But the lack of enough housing doesn't mean we should simply allow any and all kinds of behavior in our public spaces.

I'm tired of the street scene, the trash, the people using my residential street as a RV park, the negative impact to local businesses, and the negative impact to my property value. I'm tired of people thinking that I live in a run-down and dangerous area because of what they see when they visit me. I'm tired of feeling invaded every summer by people who want to abuse the privileges of citizenship and just "do their own thing." An acquaintance of mine who sells the newspaper Street Roots in our neighborhood put it this way: "There are people who are givers, and people who are takers. We need to get the takers to move on, and focus on helping the people who want to contribute to our neighborhood."

I know that advocates for the homeless will dismiss this post as that of someone who is a heartless and mean person who doesn't like people who are homeless. To these people, my desire to maintain a certain standard of livability in my neighborhood is a position to be ridiculed. These folks are missing the point.

We have organized our neighborhood to work with city government on these issues. We're not overly optimistic because we've tried this before, as have many others, and things have continued to get worse. There needs to be a solution to this problem. Certainly the majority of Portlanders can get to agreement on a set of standards of behavior for the use of public spaces. There are City ordinances that regulate the use of public spaces, but these are usually not enforced because the City has decided not to enforce them.  In my view, there are two separate issues at play: one is how we use public spaces - and by "we" I mean everyone. The second is the issue of homelessness and how to address it.

In our society, we need to attack the root causes of homelessness and guarantee that every person has a place to live and a means of supporting themselves or getting the assistance they need if they cannot do it alone. But to those people who are part of the negative street scene because they want to live off the grid or outside the norm and take advantage of everyone else, I want them to get a loud and clear message: that's great, but keep moving because you can't do that in Portland, Oregon.

Your comments are welcomed; please keep them civil.
---

MAYBE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IS THE PROBLEM

As the drumbeat of criticism over the failed rollout of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on-line system continues, it is important to look at a different perspective. Here are a few items to consider:

1997 - The City of Portland, Oregon Water Bureau entered a contract with an IT contractor to develop a new billing system. The cost would be $6 million, and it would be ready within a year. In 2000, the Bureau decided to go live with a flawed system, and there were billing problems with 40,000 customers. The final cost was more than $10 million, and the Bureau estimated that it lost $20 to 30 million of revenue as a result. In 2004 the Bureau scrapped the system and started over, issuing a new contract to an IT company to develop software.

2008 - A new City of Portland payroll and internal operations IT system was 10 months late and $19 million over budget. Once it was put into operation city employees experienced numerous problems with their pay and benefits. Not to worry, said the City, "there is a learning curve and anyone who has implemented a system this big knows it takes 18 months to stabilize, and we're only at six."

2013 - The Oregon Employment Department spent $6.9 million on a software project that never worked, and now has to spend another $1.2 million to patch up the old system. In addition, the State might have to pay back the federal government $1 million granted for the failed project.

2013 - The Oregon Health Exchange website is a failure, and the State of Oregon vows it will hold the contractor, Oracle, accountable for missed deadlines and shoddy work. The contract dates back to 2009, when the Oregon Health Authority entered into a time-and-materials contract with Oracle to modernize the Authority computer systems. Oracle was paid over $60 million on that contract, and was paid another $40 million for the Cover Oregon health exchange work. The contract includes a warranty that states Oracle "warrants that service will be provided in a professional manner consistent with industry standards," and "Oracle does not guarantee that the programs will perform error-free or uninterrupted or that Oracle will correct all program errors." Wow! No wonder the Oracle CEO, Larry Ellison, is the highest paid CEO in the USA at $96 million a year!

The examples above are a very, very tiny window into the world of computer software. Massive failures, and time and cost overruns are probably more the rule than the exception. We hear about these when the client is a public agency; we don't hear about them when the client is private industry.

So why is anyone surprised that the web site for the ACA was flawed at rollout? The failures of the website are very unfortunate, but the flaws are not fatal and will be fixed. Was this a problem with private contractors or the government itself? Very likely both. Does this mean that President Obama is a failure? Give me a break! Does this mean the ACA will be a failure? Absolutely not, in spite of the dreams and underhandedness of the Republican Party.

I think that IT, information technology itself, is the problem. Consultants always promise the world, and often have a hard time delivering it. I know this because I have been a consultant for 30 years, and many clients ask for the impossible. Unfortunately, many consultants say that they can do the impossible because they want the contract, and most actually believe in themselves enough to think that they can do very difficult things, bordering on impossible. I once was asked by a client in a contract interview if I honestly thought what the client wanted could be done for the budget they had. Because I'm honest, and because the client was a friend, I looked him in the eye and said that no, it could not be completed for that budget. He gave the contract to the consultant who said yes. I never checked to find out if it panned out.

We have come to rely on IT more than we should. I've heard people say, in regards to the flawed ACA website, "They should have hired private industry to do it, just look at Facebook and Google." Well, we don't hear about the failures at Facebook and Google, unless they roll out something new that is flawed and pisses off their users. Does anyone remember the Apple map app for the iPhone, or the recent iOS update for iPhone and iPad?  I'm certain that these IT giants have had, and will continue to have massive failures that never see the light of public, and they are wealthy enough to absorb the costs.

So people, chill out. The end of the world is not upon us, the ACA website will work sooner than later, and all will be well in the world; or at least, as well is it can be living within The Matrix.