(Blogger's note: much has been written, and many jokes are being told about the accidental shooting by VP Cheney. This is an unfortunate accident, and I, for one, would like to see and hear more concern about the shooting victim - I hope he recovers without any long-lasting effects. With this said, below is my contribution to the pile-on!)
A.P. (Avian Press) - New York. While the main-stream media focus on the handling of Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident by the White House, an important part of the story remains untold. Using information obtained from confidential sources, this reporter has uncovered the tip of a growing controversy that threatens the civil liberties - of wildlife.
VP Cheney's office has focused the story of the shooting on the accidental nature of the event, and the process of making the news public. This deliberate strategy has led reporters and the public away from the real story, a bird's-eye view of the unbridled power of the Executive Branch of the US government.
What we have uncovered so far are these facts: 1) VP Cheney's shot hit Mr. Harry Whittington, a prominent Texas attorney and Republican; 2) the intended victim, who we'll call Mr. Quail because his real name has not been revealed, was not injured by the shotgun blast; 3) Mr. Quail was, however, taken into custody by the Secret Service and his whereabouts remain unknown.
The ACLU (Avian Civil Liberties Union) has assigned a prominant left-wing lawyer, John Covey, to investigate the disappearance of Mr. Quail. There are indications that Mr. Quail has been deemed to be an enemy combatant, and has been flown to a secret facility that is disguised as a restaurant kitchen, for "de-briefing." "We know that "de-briefing" is a code word for interrogation by torture" stated Mr. Covey, who went on to explain that this type of interrogation typically involves plucking out the victims feathers, marination in strong spices, trussing, and applying intense heat to the body. "If the victim doesn't sing in a short time, his goose will be cooked" Covey said.
This reporter has also determined that the search for Mr. Quail by VP Cheney was part of an on-going covert operation being run from the Vice President's office, without oversight by any of the intelligence agencies. This is the reason that the Vice President did not have the required hunting tag from the State of Texas, he did not want public attention drawn to the covert operation. The covert operation is designed to infiltrate and kill the members of small cells of left-wing operatives known to exist under-cover (mostly under, we hate to say, bushes).
Based on the official story, it appears that Mr. Whittington was collateral damage in the Cheney War on Quail.* However, many questions remain unanswered. Is there a connection between the shooting of a right-wing lawyer and the capture of a left-wing operative? Was the shooting a cheap shot or a cheep shot? What is the relationship between bird flu and bird flew? Is it a coincidence that a Vice President under a Bush President attempted to kill someone with the same name as a Vice President under a previous Bush President? And why are individuals like the intended victim always found under bushes, anyway? These questions aren't just for the birds!
We hope to answer the above, and related questions, as our investigation continues.
* this line is credited to a letter-to-the-editor in The Oregonian
Whatever is on my mind: politics, the news, philosophy, poetry and satire. VISIT MY WEBSITE (click on The Some Times button, below) PRIVACY NOTICE/GDPR: SEE JAN. 4, 2019
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Sunday, February 12, 2006
AVIAN FLU: A NAGGING MEMORY
We've watched with great interest and trepidation the slow advance of avian flu in Asia and now Europe. Recently, the New York Times ran an article about the migratory patterns of birds, which included a map showing the major bird migration pathways on Earth (see URL at end). One point of the article was that the major migration patterns are north-south, and therefore transmittal of avian flu to North America from Asia and Europe is not highly likely. This article, however, brought a forgotten memory flooding into my thoughts.
In the early 1970's, as a graduate student of ecology at the University of California, Irvine, I helped organize a symposium series for the department. The United States had recently bombed Cambodia as part of the war in Viet Nam, and many of us were very active in the anti-war movement. I was aware that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the oldest and most prestigious professional science organizations in the United States, had been lobbying the government to look at the ecological and health impacts of herbicide spraying (Agent Orange and others) in Viet Nam. A very outspoken member of the AAAS on this issue was Professor E. W. "Bert" Pfeiffer, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Montana. I arranged for Dr. Pfeiffer to present at our symposium series.
Bert looked like a typical academic when I picked him up at the airport, with his tweed sport coat and tie. His presentation to the assembled students and faculty began by recounting how the AAAS had urged the government to look at herbicide effects, and how he and another AAAS members had finally traveled to Viet Nam to gather information. As his talk continued, he grew more agitated and empassioned, describing the magnitude of aerial spraying and the resulting damage to crops and forests (the U.S. had a massive defoliation campaign attempting to deny food to the enemy, as well as remove forest cover so enemy movements could be seen from the air). Bert also talked about the use of nerve gas and other chemical agents by the U.S., and finished his talk by calling for the indictment of President Nixon, Secretary of War MacNamara and others as war criminals.
Following the presentation, we had a reception for Dr. Pfeiffer, and a chance for questions and discussions. At one point, the discussion settled on the relationship between academia and the government, particularly whether or not academics should question the purpose of federal research grants from the Department of Defense. Dr. Pfeiffer told the following story:
Bert and other progressive academics obtained unclassified information about research grants awarded by the Department of Defense. They primarily had a long list of research project names, principal investigators and their institutions, and sometimes brief descriptions of the research. Bert said that the list was long and the research topics extremely varied. Many projects seemed not to have much relevence to national defense, but some chilling scenarios could be put together from the lists.
Although the relationships between research projects at different institutions could only be imagined, the very existance of the funded research raised interesting questions and implications. For example, the DoD grant lists had research projects concerning: influenza viruses, insect parasites of birds, insect vectors of viruses, and songbird migration patterns. Each project was at a different academic or government institution and had no apparent relationship to the others. But why, Bert asked, would the Department of Defense be funding these disparite projects? One could imagine, he explained, that certain insect parasites of birds could be infected with a virulent strain of influenza virus, and the parasites introduced into a population of song birds that migrates to a region of central China - the result, we could start a flu epidemic in China (or elsewhere) and nobody would know where it came from!
Now, I'm generally not a conspiracy theorist, but I have learned not to trust governments just because they tell us we should. The scenario described above sounds far-fetched, but on the other hand.....
I googled E.W. Pfeiffer today, and learned that he died in 2004 at the age of 88. The 2004 obituary on the U. of Montana web site read, in part:
In the early 1970's, as a graduate student of ecology at the University of California, Irvine, I helped organize a symposium series for the department. The United States had recently bombed Cambodia as part of the war in Viet Nam, and many of us were very active in the anti-war movement. I was aware that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the oldest and most prestigious professional science organizations in the United States, had been lobbying the government to look at the ecological and health impacts of herbicide spraying (Agent Orange and others) in Viet Nam. A very outspoken member of the AAAS on this issue was Professor E. W. "Bert" Pfeiffer, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Montana. I arranged for Dr. Pfeiffer to present at our symposium series.
Bert looked like a typical academic when I picked him up at the airport, with his tweed sport coat and tie. His presentation to the assembled students and faculty began by recounting how the AAAS had urged the government to look at herbicide effects, and how he and another AAAS members had finally traveled to Viet Nam to gather information. As his talk continued, he grew more agitated and empassioned, describing the magnitude of aerial spraying and the resulting damage to crops and forests (the U.S. had a massive defoliation campaign attempting to deny food to the enemy, as well as remove forest cover so enemy movements could be seen from the air). Bert also talked about the use of nerve gas and other chemical agents by the U.S., and finished his talk by calling for the indictment of President Nixon, Secretary of War MacNamara and others as war criminals.
Following the presentation, we had a reception for Dr. Pfeiffer, and a chance for questions and discussions. At one point, the discussion settled on the relationship between academia and the government, particularly whether or not academics should question the purpose of federal research grants from the Department of Defense. Dr. Pfeiffer told the following story:
Bert and other progressive academics obtained unclassified information about research grants awarded by the Department of Defense. They primarily had a long list of research project names, principal investigators and their institutions, and sometimes brief descriptions of the research. Bert said that the list was long and the research topics extremely varied. Many projects seemed not to have much relevence to national defense, but some chilling scenarios could be put together from the lists.
Although the relationships between research projects at different institutions could only be imagined, the very existance of the funded research raised interesting questions and implications. For example, the DoD grant lists had research projects concerning: influenza viruses, insect parasites of birds, insect vectors of viruses, and songbird migration patterns. Each project was at a different academic or government institution and had no apparent relationship to the others. But why, Bert asked, would the Department of Defense be funding these disparite projects? One could imagine, he explained, that certain insect parasites of birds could be infected with a virulent strain of influenza virus, and the parasites introduced into a population of song birds that migrates to a region of central China - the result, we could start a flu epidemic in China (or elsewhere) and nobody would know where it came from!
Now, I'm generally not a conspiracy theorist, but I have learned not to trust governments just because they tell us we should. The scenario described above sounds far-fetched, but on the other hand.....
I googled E.W. Pfeiffer today, and learned that he died in 2004 at the age of 88. The 2004 obituary on the U. of Montana web site read, in part:
Pfeiffer was a longtime faculty member who was known internationally for his studies on the environmental consequences of weapons of war, including the radioactive fallout from nuclear testing and the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam.
His obituary in the Washington Post last April read, in part: "Dr. Pfeiffer tirelessly warned about dangers associated with radioactive fallout from nuclear testing, long before most scientists considered it an issue. He also studied miliary use of chemical defoliants on the environment and warned the 'Winter Soldier Investigation' of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971 about their dangers."
NY Times article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990DE2DC1030F932A35752C0A9609C8B63
Saturday, January 28, 2006
COULD WE HAVE A DICTATOR IN THE USA?
During a lively conversation over dinner the other night, a friend asked if any of us thought that it would be possible for a dictator to gain power in the U.S. This question was in the context of our discussion about the Bush administration and FSA spying activities on U.S. citizens. The consensus was that our Constitution has mechanisms and structures to prevent such a take-over.
But the question got me thinking. What is a dictator, and how does one get into power? Could it happen here (in the U.S.?)
The Wikipedia definition of "dictator" contains the following:
In modern usage, dictator refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who governs outside the normal constitutional rule of law.
Dictators often acquire power in a coup d'etat, or by suspending the existing constitution. Ordinarily democratic nations may temporarily give dictatorial power to leaders during a state of emergency.
In states with democratic traditions, dictators frequently emerge in times of war, or during an economic or social crisis. Most notably, Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitlar in Germany, achieved office by democratic means and once in power gradually eroded constitutional restraints.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator)
While I don't think George Bush is a Dictator, I do think there are imaginable scenarios within which he, or a future President, could assume such a role. Consider the following:
1. The last two presidential elections in this country, particularly the 2000 election, left many citizens wondering if the election was really "stolen" through questionable balloting and voting tactics (e.g. Florida), and legal manuevering in the State and Federal courts. While not exactly fitting the definition of coup d'etat, the 2000 election was a constitutional crises of major proportions.
2. The recenly exposed spying by the NSA on U.S. citizens, conducted outside the legal framework of the Foreigh Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), is being defended by President Bush as within the executive powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief. Many legal scholars and government officials, including Republicans, do not agree with Bush on this legal point. In essence, Bush is saying that the constitutional protections do not apply in his War on Terrorism.
3. President Bush took the United States to war (invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation) based on lies, and there is strong evidence (the Downing Street Memo) that the decision to invade Iraq was made first, and the intelligence information ginned up to support the decision.
4. President Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, has supported the torture of prisoners, holding of prisoners, including U.S. citizens without due process, the transporting of prisoners to other countries for torture. All of these actions are done under the cover of the "War on Terror" and protecting U.S. citizens from terrorists and "evildoers."
5. The Bush adminstration has paid journalists to publish or "report" government propaganda.
6. In December 2005, the Congress passed an anti-torture amendment, which President Bush reluctantly signed. At the same time, however, Bush specified, in an e-mailed "signing statement" that he would construe the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch and as commander in chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on judicial power" with the objective of "protecting the American people from further terrorist attack." In other words, Bush will ignore the law if he sees fit to do so.
So, does all of this mean that George W. Bush is a dictator? No. But it gives us a glimpse of how a President can erode the authority and protections of the Constitution of our country and usurp a greater amount of power than we might want him (or her) to have.
And what will happen the next time there is a terrorist attack in the United States? What if terrorists set off a nuclear device, or unleash a chemical or biological weapon that results in very wide-scale loss of life and tremendous economic disruption? The President might declare a state of emergency in such a situation, declare martial law, suspend specific constitutional rights, etc., all in the name of protecting us from further terrorist attacks.
We are inching in that direction. It could happen here.
But the question got me thinking. What is a dictator, and how does one get into power? Could it happen here (in the U.S.?)
The Wikipedia definition of "dictator" contains the following:
In modern usage, dictator refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who governs outside the normal constitutional rule of law.
Dictators often acquire power in a coup d'etat, or by suspending the existing constitution. Ordinarily democratic nations may temporarily give dictatorial power to leaders during a state of emergency.
In states with democratic traditions, dictators frequently emerge in times of war, or during an economic or social crisis. Most notably, Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitlar in Germany, achieved office by democratic means and once in power gradually eroded constitutional restraints.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator)
While I don't think George Bush is a Dictator, I do think there are imaginable scenarios within which he, or a future President, could assume such a role. Consider the following:
1. The last two presidential elections in this country, particularly the 2000 election, left many citizens wondering if the election was really "stolen" through questionable balloting and voting tactics (e.g. Florida), and legal manuevering in the State and Federal courts. While not exactly fitting the definition of coup d'etat, the 2000 election was a constitutional crises of major proportions.
2. The recenly exposed spying by the NSA on U.S. citizens, conducted outside the legal framework of the Foreigh Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), is being defended by President Bush as within the executive powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief. Many legal scholars and government officials, including Republicans, do not agree with Bush on this legal point. In essence, Bush is saying that the constitutional protections do not apply in his War on Terrorism.
3. President Bush took the United States to war (invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation) based on lies, and there is strong evidence (the Downing Street Memo) that the decision to invade Iraq was made first, and the intelligence information ginned up to support the decision.
4. President Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, has supported the torture of prisoners, holding of prisoners, including U.S. citizens without due process, the transporting of prisoners to other countries for torture. All of these actions are done under the cover of the "War on Terror" and protecting U.S. citizens from terrorists and "evildoers."
5. The Bush adminstration has paid journalists to publish or "report" government propaganda.
6. In December 2005, the Congress passed an anti-torture amendment, which President Bush reluctantly signed. At the same time, however, Bush specified, in an e-mailed "signing statement" that he would construe the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch and as commander in chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on judicial power" with the objective of "protecting the American people from further terrorist attack." In other words, Bush will ignore the law if he sees fit to do so.
So, does all of this mean that George W. Bush is a dictator? No. But it gives us a glimpse of how a President can erode the authority and protections of the Constitution of our country and usurp a greater amount of power than we might want him (or her) to have.
And what will happen the next time there is a terrorist attack in the United States? What if terrorists set off a nuclear device, or unleash a chemical or biological weapon that results in very wide-scale loss of life and tremendous economic disruption? The President might declare a state of emergency in such a situation, declare martial law, suspend specific constitutional rights, etc., all in the name of protecting us from further terrorist attacks.
We are inching in that direction. It could happen here.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
FROM MUNICH TO DAMADOLA
Item 1. In a December, 2005 article "Up in the Air" in The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051205fa_fact), journalist Seymour Hersh discussed the future of the US war in Iraq. Based on extensive interviews with government/pentagon and other sources, Hersh described how US ground troops would be withdrawn starting in 2006, and US air strikes would be increased. These air strikes, aimed at targets identified by US or Iraqi ground sources, would be carried out by both manned and un-manned aircraft.
Item 2. The Steven Spielberg film "Munich" is a chilling look at the part of the spy game focused on assassination, in this case the Israeli retaliations targeting leaders of the Black September group who were responsible for planning the abduction and murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. This is a purposely brutal film that raises a number of important questions about government policy that are very relevant to the "war on terrorism" being waged today. Assassination is not as straight forward as it might seem, we find in the film. How do we know who the "enemy" really is? What do we do about innocent people killed along with the target? Is our cause more just than theirs? How are the agents of other governments, including our "friends" involved, and for what political reasons? Do our retaliatory actions result in more retaliations by the enemy? And in the end, does the elimination of enemy individuals do any good, or are they merely replaced by others who are as bad or worse, and their deaths result in more recruits to their cause?
Item 3. On January 13, 2006, the U.S. CIA, using an un-manned aircraft, destroyed one or more houses in the village of Damadola, Pakistan. The target was Ayman al-Zavahiri, the number 2 leader of al-Qaida. Initial reports were that no al-Qaida were killed, but that members of a family, including women and children, were the victims. A confusing series of news reports followed:
January 18 - 4 or 5 "foreign militants" were killed in the raid (source: the provincial government)
January 19 - 2 senior members of Al Qaeda and the son-in-law of al-Zawahiri were killed (source: two Pakistani officials)
January 20 - there is "no tangible evidence" that al-Qaida operatives were killed (source: the Prime Minister of Pakistan)
The CIA has no comment. Other US officials, however, were trotted out and had things to say:
"We apologize, but I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again. We have to do what we think is necessary to take out al-Qaida, particularly the top operatives." (Sen. John McCain)
"It's a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?" (Sen. Evan Bayh)
In other words, we'll just keep doing what we do, and if innocent people are in the way, we'll apologize, say it's regrettable, and that's that!
----
This is not a new issue; clandestine operations to eliminate specific "targets" have gone on throughout history. But that doesn't make it right. Just as it can be argued (and is, by many experts) that torture is not an effective interrogation method, so can it be argued (and it is) that assassination is not an effective method to fight terrorism.
And what constitutes "terrorism" anyway? If the U.S. drops bombs on a village and kills a bunch of civilians, thus terrorizing the local population, does this fit the definition? Now before you jump all over me on this one, try googling "define terrorism." Spend a few minutes reading a variety of cites - and I'm sure you'll see, as I did, that the definition of terrorism depends on who is defining it.
I hope this posting is food for thought. Do we, citizens of the United States, support state-sponsored assassination? Is it OK to drop bombs on villages, in our name, and brush off the deaths of innocent people with simple platitudes and shoulder shrugs? Will we easily condone the continuation of the Bush war in Iraq as an air war, in which bombs and missles are dropped/flown into houses because someone thinks an evil-doer might be inside?
Think about it.
Item 2. The Steven Spielberg film "Munich" is a chilling look at the part of the spy game focused on assassination, in this case the Israeli retaliations targeting leaders of the Black September group who were responsible for planning the abduction and murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. This is a purposely brutal film that raises a number of important questions about government policy that are very relevant to the "war on terrorism" being waged today. Assassination is not as straight forward as it might seem, we find in the film. How do we know who the "enemy" really is? What do we do about innocent people killed along with the target? Is our cause more just than theirs? How are the agents of other governments, including our "friends" involved, and for what political reasons? Do our retaliatory actions result in more retaliations by the enemy? And in the end, does the elimination of enemy individuals do any good, or are they merely replaced by others who are as bad or worse, and their deaths result in more recruits to their cause?
Item 3. On January 13, 2006, the U.S. CIA, using an un-manned aircraft, destroyed one or more houses in the village of Damadola, Pakistan. The target was Ayman al-Zavahiri, the number 2 leader of al-Qaida. Initial reports were that no al-Qaida were killed, but that members of a family, including women and children, were the victims. A confusing series of news reports followed:
January 18 - 4 or 5 "foreign militants" were killed in the raid (source: the provincial government)
January 19 - 2 senior members of Al Qaeda and the son-in-law of al-Zawahiri were killed (source: two Pakistani officials)
January 20 - there is "no tangible evidence" that al-Qaida operatives were killed (source: the Prime Minister of Pakistan)
The CIA has no comment. Other US officials, however, were trotted out and had things to say:
"We apologize, but I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again. We have to do what we think is necessary to take out al-Qaida, particularly the top operatives." (Sen. John McCain)
"It's a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?" (Sen. Evan Bayh)
In other words, we'll just keep doing what we do, and if innocent people are in the way, we'll apologize, say it's regrettable, and that's that!
----
This is not a new issue; clandestine operations to eliminate specific "targets" have gone on throughout history. But that doesn't make it right. Just as it can be argued (and is, by many experts) that torture is not an effective interrogation method, so can it be argued (and it is) that assassination is not an effective method to fight terrorism.
And what constitutes "terrorism" anyway? If the U.S. drops bombs on a village and kills a bunch of civilians, thus terrorizing the local population, does this fit the definition? Now before you jump all over me on this one, try googling "define terrorism." Spend a few minutes reading a variety of cites - and I'm sure you'll see, as I did, that the definition of terrorism depends on who is defining it.
I hope this posting is food for thought. Do we, citizens of the United States, support state-sponsored assassination? Is it OK to drop bombs on villages, in our name, and brush off the deaths of innocent people with simple platitudes and shoulder shrugs? Will we easily condone the continuation of the Bush war in Iraq as an air war, in which bombs and missles are dropped/flown into houses because someone thinks an evil-doer might be inside?
Think about it.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
FIRST POST OF 2006
Rain. Lots of it. Hillsides and houses responding to the pull of gravity on the saturated soil of steep slopes. Street corner ponds formed where fall leaf covered catch basins are unavailable to stormwater runoff. Streams and rivers, cappuccino-colored and straining to be reacquainted with their floodplains, provide headlines for the local news.
It's winter. It's Oregon. You've got to love it!
It's winter. It's Oregon. You've got to love it!
Saturday, December 24, 2005
JUST SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS?
I recently saw an interview on CNN news with a woman who, with her husband, have started Operation: Just Say Merry Christmas. They sell, via the internet, a charming green and red bracelet that says: "Just Say Merry Christmas." Here's what their web site says:
It's quite simple. We live in a society where not everyone is Christian. Saying "Merry Christmas" to Jewish, Muslim, and Buddist friends and relatives just doesn't cut it. Saying those words to Christian friends is very appropriate. So what's the problem?
The problem is that, once again, the Christian right is trying to make sure that we all know that the U. S. of A. is, in their minds, a Christian country. After all, isn't Christmas a national holiday? Well, yes it is, and that's another topic altogether. They want the right to display their religious icons on public property. They want their religious songs sung in public schools. They hate the fact that there is a separation of church and state in this country.
It's perfectly fine with me if people want to say Merry Christmas to each other. I think it's great if they want to put out huge displays of nativity scenes in front of their churches. But don't call me an enemy of Christmas if I don't want to see nativity scenes on the lawn of the county courthouse or city hall. And when I'm out doing my Chanukah gift shopping, I'd rather shop at a store that greets me with "Happy Holidays" because I know they want my money, too.
Isn't it interesting that Christmas has become the largest commercial season of the year? And it's not just our Christian friends who are out there spending - most of us get into the gift thing in December. And the Operation: Just Say Merry Christmas folks? Well, the woman interviewed on CNN and her husband own a Christian book store, and she said that they have sold about 200,000 of these wrist bands, at $2 each. A quick look on the internet shows that if you order large quantities, you can get these things for pennies each. Ah yes, this has been quite a Christmas for mom and pop at the bookstore, and a telling look at "the true meaning of this Holy Season."
So, in the spirit of respect and courtesy to all, not political correctness, I'll wish you all a very happy holiday season, and a very wonderful new year.
"The enemies of Christmas have succeeded in making Christians feel as if we are bad and intolerant to wish someone a "Merry Christmas". This is political correctness run amok. We have reached an all time low point in our nation's history when human sensibilities are elevated above offending Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It is long past the time for Christians to stand firm in our faith."
OPERATION: JUST SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS is a campaign designed to encourage Christians nationwide and around the world to PROUDLY proclaim The Christ Child as the center of the Christmas Season once again.In an effort to help turn the tide, we have created this Christmas wristband to help emphasize once again that the central focus of this season is the Birth of the Christ Child. It is our hope that by wearing the wristband you will join us to remind others that to celebrate the true meaning of this Holy Season.....
JUST SAY "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"
Wow! It sounds like there are some evildoers out there waging war on Christians. I've seen some of these battles - large signs in store windows proclaiming "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings." I've done it myself, saying "happy holidays" to people I know. Am I, therefore, an enemy of Christmas?It's quite simple. We live in a society where not everyone is Christian. Saying "Merry Christmas" to Jewish, Muslim, and Buddist friends and relatives just doesn't cut it. Saying those words to Christian friends is very appropriate. So what's the problem?
The problem is that, once again, the Christian right is trying to make sure that we all know that the U. S. of A. is, in their minds, a Christian country. After all, isn't Christmas a national holiday? Well, yes it is, and that's another topic altogether. They want the right to display their religious icons on public property. They want their religious songs sung in public schools. They hate the fact that there is a separation of church and state in this country.
It's perfectly fine with me if people want to say Merry Christmas to each other. I think it's great if they want to put out huge displays of nativity scenes in front of their churches. But don't call me an enemy of Christmas if I don't want to see nativity scenes on the lawn of the county courthouse or city hall. And when I'm out doing my Chanukah gift shopping, I'd rather shop at a store that greets me with "Happy Holidays" because I know they want my money, too.
Isn't it interesting that Christmas has become the largest commercial season of the year? And it's not just our Christian friends who are out there spending - most of us get into the gift thing in December. And the Operation: Just Say Merry Christmas folks? Well, the woman interviewed on CNN and her husband own a Christian book store, and she said that they have sold about 200,000 of these wrist bands, at $2 each. A quick look on the internet shows that if you order large quantities, you can get these things for pennies each. Ah yes, this has been quite a Christmas for mom and pop at the bookstore, and a telling look at "the true meaning of this Holy Season."
So, in the spirit of respect and courtesy to all, not political correctness, I'll wish you all a very happy holiday season, and a very wonderful new year.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
HAVE I LOST MY MIND?
The comment I most often receive from family and friends who occasionally read this blog is: "Have you lost your mind???" Their concern is that the Men in Black will come knocking (or breaking through) my door because of the political things I write to this blog. This reaction, based on a growing nervousness about the lawlessness of the Bush administration, has recently been heightened with the news that President Bush has authorized spying on U.S. citizens without going through the appropriate legal procedures.
The Bush administration has demonstrated to the world that any dissenting voice must belong to a non-patriot, a traitor, or someone who is comforting the enemy. Even worse, if my writings are percieved to be those of a terrorist, or a suspected terrorist, or maybe someone who maybe resembles a terrorist, or maybe someone who is neither a terrorist nor resembles a terrorist but is someone who could be, maybe, mistaken for one of these...then I might get a free plane ride to some foreign country for a lengthy vacation during which I will be "debriefed," and may never be heard from again.
So maybe this should scare me away from writing anything political to this blog. Not so - this is exactly why it is even more important for me to keep posting my political rants. This is, after all, still the United States of America.
So, to the Men (and Women) in Black who are monitoring this site (and thank you for being among the few):
I am posting below, for your review, Amendments I and IV of the Constitution of the United States. Please read this carefully. Please forward it to your superiors, including Porter Goss, Ronald Dumsfeld, Darth Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush, and suggest that they read it, too.
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
AMENDMENT IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Stand up for democracy - speak truth to lies!
The Bush administration has demonstrated to the world that any dissenting voice must belong to a non-patriot, a traitor, or someone who is comforting the enemy. Even worse, if my writings are percieved to be those of a terrorist, or a suspected terrorist, or maybe someone who maybe resembles a terrorist, or maybe someone who is neither a terrorist nor resembles a terrorist but is someone who could be, maybe, mistaken for one of these...then I might get a free plane ride to some foreign country for a lengthy vacation during which I will be "debriefed," and may never be heard from again.
So maybe this should scare me away from writing anything political to this blog. Not so - this is exactly why it is even more important for me to keep posting my political rants. This is, after all, still the United States of America.
So, to the Men (and Women) in Black who are monitoring this site (and thank you for being among the few):
I am posting below, for your review, Amendments I and IV of the Constitution of the United States. Please read this carefully. Please forward it to your superiors, including Porter Goss, Ronald Dumsfeld, Darth Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush, and suggest that they read it, too.
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
AMENDMENT IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Stand up for democracy - speak truth to lies!
Sunday, December 18, 2005
IMPEACH BUSH FOR BLOW JOBS!
The precedent was set by the Congress of the United States when they impeached President William Clinton for lying about blow jobs in the White House. So let's discuss lying about blow jobs in the White House by the current President.
George W. Bush has lied to the Congress and the American people about numerous blow jobs in the White House:
- he blew the response to the September 11 attacks and the outpouring of support from around the world
- he blew, and continues to blow the "War on Terror"
- he blew the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq
- he blew American credibility in the world for government by law
- he blew the reputation of the United States for ethical and lawful treatment of prisoners
- he blew the U.S. economy
- he blew the systems of caring and support for the poor, the sick, children and elders
- he blew the response to Mother Natures big blow jobs in the Gulf States
- he blew the controls on secretive government intelligence agencies spying on American citizens
- and the list is endless....
President George W. Bush is the biggest blow job ever to occupy the White House. He has lied about everything listed above, and more, and he continues to provide lip service to these lies as they build towards a ruinous climax.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! Let's get rid of this President and his Axis of Weasels once and for all. Every citizen in this country should demand the immediate initiation of impeachment proceedings by the Congress.
George W. Bush has lied to the Congress and the American people about numerous blow jobs in the White House:
- he blew the response to the September 11 attacks and the outpouring of support from around the world
- he blew, and continues to blow the "War on Terror"
- he blew the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq
- he blew American credibility in the world for government by law
- he blew the reputation of the United States for ethical and lawful treatment of prisoners
- he blew the U.S. economy
- he blew the systems of caring and support for the poor, the sick, children and elders
- he blew the response to Mother Natures big blow jobs in the Gulf States
- he blew the controls on secretive government intelligence agencies spying on American citizens
- and the list is endless....
President George W. Bush is the biggest blow job ever to occupy the White House. He has lied about everything listed above, and more, and he continues to provide lip service to these lies as they build towards a ruinous climax.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! Let's get rid of this President and his Axis of Weasels once and for all. Every citizen in this country should demand the immediate initiation of impeachment proceedings by the Congress.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
ENVIRONMENTALISM GONE WILD
I saw or heard a few things last week that got me thinking about environmentalism as a good example of single-issue thinking. It's not, of course, the only example of this mind set.
Bumper sticker: Friends don't let Friends eat Farmed Fish
This sentiment stems, I think, from the fact that many fish farming operations pollute their environments because of feed and fish wastes that are discharged to or accumulate in surface waters. This is a problem. The other side of the coin, however, is the steady stream of scientific and news reports about the depletion of fish resources world-wide resulting from increasing fishing and deteriorating habitat. There is also some concern about the future impacts to fisheries of global climate changes resulting from human-induced impacts to the atmosphere.
Fish and seafood protein is an important source of nourishment for the human population on this planet. It seems obvious that the oceans won't be able to meet the ever increasing demands of our growing population, and farming of fish and seafood species will become an increasingly important component of the food supply. Think about it; humans used to subsist on wild plants and animals, but we now rely mostly on farmed plants and animals for our meals.
So, instead of keeping our friends from eating farmed fish, we should insist that the fish farming industry develop methods that are sustainable and do no further harm to the environment.
Radio and newspaper ads: You Can't "Stand Tall" to Protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when you Stoop to Vote for Oil Drilling in a Budget Deal
We can thank the Sierra Club for this ridiculous ad campaign against Oregon Senator Gordon Smith. Smith bucked the Republican Party and the White House when he refused to toe the party line that the ANWR should be opened to oil drilling. But in a tough vote last week, he voted for a budget deal that he thought would help protect social service funding, even though a rider was added to allow drilling in the ANWR. Smith explained this decision in an Op Ed piece in the Oregonian, stating that he is not a single-issue representative, and that he has to weigh all the issues and make tough choices. I respect Smith for his integrity and tough calls. But the Sierra Club is a single issue organization, and they are now spending big bucks on these ads. Drilling in the ANWR is not the real issue here. The real issue is the U.S.'s obscene consumption of petroleum and our reliance on foreign oil. I'm sure the Sierra Club is working diligently to change the energy policy of this country, so why are they wasting money on an ad campaign that isn't focused on the real issues?
News Item: Environmental Groups criticize Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for being "bought off" by industry.
Using money provided by industry groups, the Oregon DEQ developed new standards for turbidity in Oregon streams and rivers that will in some situations allow higher turbidity levels resulting from discharges. Environmental groups are claiming that this will allow more pollution of Oregon surface waters, and that industrial dischargers bought themselves a new license to pollute. Well, the truth is a bit different. First, the old turbidity standards for Oregon were unrealistic and could rarely be met.
I've had a number of consulting jobs for which my staff and I monitored turbidity levels and found that the standard could not be met the way it was written. I participated in a meeting with the DEQ in the early 1990's to discuss the standard, and I wrote a short paper examining why the standard needed to be changed so that it could be met by dischargers, including municipalities (yes dear readers, when you flush the toilet, your wastes don't magically disappear). So I, for one, am glad to see a new set of standards that can be realistically met.
But - hang on - industry paid for the studies and the staff, so doesn't that make the new standards bad? I suppose it does, if you believe that everything is a conspiracy. User groups funding government services is not a new concept, it is sometimes the only way to get things done (particularly in Oregon where most of our legislators seem to be stuck in Neanderthal mode). So instread of assuming the worst, and assuming that any change in the status quo must be bad, let's take a critical look at the whole picture and keep our minds open to change.
A final word to environmentalists and all the rest of us "ists" out there: let's try not to be single-issue focused. Let's look at all sides, at the big picture, and make informed decisions. And, last but not least, eat lots of fish - it's good for you (as long as it's not loaded with mercury, pesticides or other toxins)!
Bumper sticker: Friends don't let Friends eat Farmed Fish
This sentiment stems, I think, from the fact that many fish farming operations pollute their environments because of feed and fish wastes that are discharged to or accumulate in surface waters. This is a problem. The other side of the coin, however, is the steady stream of scientific and news reports about the depletion of fish resources world-wide resulting from increasing fishing and deteriorating habitat. There is also some concern about the future impacts to fisheries of global climate changes resulting from human-induced impacts to the atmosphere.
Fish and seafood protein is an important source of nourishment for the human population on this planet. It seems obvious that the oceans won't be able to meet the ever increasing demands of our growing population, and farming of fish and seafood species will become an increasingly important component of the food supply. Think about it; humans used to subsist on wild plants and animals, but we now rely mostly on farmed plants and animals for our meals.
So, instead of keeping our friends from eating farmed fish, we should insist that the fish farming industry develop methods that are sustainable and do no further harm to the environment.
Radio and newspaper ads: You Can't "Stand Tall" to Protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when you Stoop to Vote for Oil Drilling in a Budget Deal
We can thank the Sierra Club for this ridiculous ad campaign against Oregon Senator Gordon Smith. Smith bucked the Republican Party and the White House when he refused to toe the party line that the ANWR should be opened to oil drilling. But in a tough vote last week, he voted for a budget deal that he thought would help protect social service funding, even though a rider was added to allow drilling in the ANWR. Smith explained this decision in an Op Ed piece in the Oregonian, stating that he is not a single-issue representative, and that he has to weigh all the issues and make tough choices. I respect Smith for his integrity and tough calls. But the Sierra Club is a single issue organization, and they are now spending big bucks on these ads. Drilling in the ANWR is not the real issue here. The real issue is the U.S.'s obscene consumption of petroleum and our reliance on foreign oil. I'm sure the Sierra Club is working diligently to change the energy policy of this country, so why are they wasting money on an ad campaign that isn't focused on the real issues?
News Item: Environmental Groups criticize Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for being "bought off" by industry.
Using money provided by industry groups, the Oregon DEQ developed new standards for turbidity in Oregon streams and rivers that will in some situations allow higher turbidity levels resulting from discharges. Environmental groups are claiming that this will allow more pollution of Oregon surface waters, and that industrial dischargers bought themselves a new license to pollute. Well, the truth is a bit different. First, the old turbidity standards for Oregon were unrealistic and could rarely be met.
I've had a number of consulting jobs for which my staff and I monitored turbidity levels and found that the standard could not be met the way it was written. I participated in a meeting with the DEQ in the early 1990's to discuss the standard, and I wrote a short paper examining why the standard needed to be changed so that it could be met by dischargers, including municipalities (yes dear readers, when you flush the toilet, your wastes don't magically disappear). So I, for one, am glad to see a new set of standards that can be realistically met.
But - hang on - industry paid for the studies and the staff, so doesn't that make the new standards bad? I suppose it does, if you believe that everything is a conspiracy. User groups funding government services is not a new concept, it is sometimes the only way to get things done (particularly in Oregon where most of our legislators seem to be stuck in Neanderthal mode). So instread of assuming the worst, and assuming that any change in the status quo must be bad, let's take a critical look at the whole picture and keep our minds open to change.
A final word to environmentalists and all the rest of us "ists" out there: let's try not to be single-issue focused. Let's look at all sides, at the big picture, and make informed decisions. And, last but not least, eat lots of fish - it's good for you (as long as it's not loaded with mercury, pesticides or other toxins)!
Friday, November 18, 2005
"STAY THE COURSE" or "CUT AND RUN" ??
(Dear Readers: this post might be a bit long, so get another cuppa and settle in - thanks.)
Well, things are getting interesting on Capitol Hill. The debate of the day concerns the occupation of Iraq - should we "stay the course" or "cut and run?" The Axis of Weasels has brought in a damage control team to figure out how to win the war - no, not the war in Iraq, the public relations war being waged in the media. I just wish these guys would put as much effort into figuring out what to do with the mess they've created in the world.
A few quotes would be good here (thanks to Knight Ridder News Service):
The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. President Dubya, Nov. 11, 2005
We must be careful not to give terrorists the false hope that if they can simply hold on long enough, they can outlast us. Ronald Dumbsfeld, Nov. 15, 2005
Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. Darth Cheney, Nov. 16, 2005
Excuse me while I take a laugh break - this is just too much!
Well, I'm not a "politician," so I guess I can make all the charges I want and not be in the cross-hairs of the Bush team. The reality, as we all know, is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with the "global war on terror;" in fact, this ill-concieved global blunder on the part of the U.S. has strengthened terrorism by providing a real-time training ground for jihadists where they can kill Americans (and everyone else in the neighborhood) or be killed trying, thus assuring their place in heaven.
Sending "the wrong signal to our troops" is exactly what the Bushies have been doing all along. And who has been using the war for "political plays" since it started? That's right, Team Bush. a central piece of the Bush re-election strategy was the war - I mean, after all, we have The War President in office (hey - turn down the fanfare, I can't hear myself think).
As for "giving terrorists false hope" - heck, those guys know that as long as Dumbsfeld is on the job, their careers are on solid ground. After all, he's the guy most responsible for sending in too few troops, who were equipment-poor, with no real strategy. (I guess sometimes you can't have the winning strategy you wish you had, you have to just go with the losing strategy you have.)
So, let me get to the point here: do we stay in Iraq or do we leave? My opinion: I don't know, but...
If you are really concerned and interested in this question, pick up a copy of the December 2005 The Atlantic magazine (maybe you can read it on-line). "Why Iraq has no Army" by James Fallows is a thoroughly researched piece of journalism that makes a compelling case for staying in Iraq, but changing the course. His thesis is that we need to change our military strategy to emphasize training the Iraqi forces. He provides details, based on interviews with U.S. military personnel and other knowledgeable people, about why our training efforts have failed so far, and what needs to be done to correct this. Fallows thinks that we can't simply pull out without risking a civil war and other consequences that would be worse than the present situation.
Then read "If America Left Iraq: the case for cutting and running" by Nir Rosen, a journalist who spent 16 months reporting from Iraq after the invasion. Rosen presents a compelling case for pulling out as soon as possible. The presence of American troops in Iraq, Rosen asserts, keeps the insurgency alive, and sets up a political tension between Sunnis and Shiites. Civil war in Iraq is already under way, he claims, because of the American presence. The role of al-Qaeda and foreign jihadists is an insignificant part of the insurgency, and the foreign jihadists are barely tolerated by the native insurgency as long as they are useful. Without American troops in the country, Rosen claims, the insurgency would end, and the foreigners would be rooted out.
So - which is it? Stay or Run? What's needed on Capitol Hill is a serious debate about staying in Iraq or leaving soon. If we stay, what's the Plan? How will we make this thing work? If we leave, how do we do that and what's the Plan?
The charges and counter charges raging in the headlines this week are nothing more than a red herring. The politicians are wasting time playing name calling, finger pointing games. The American public should demand - and in fact, I am demanding - that our elected representatives and the Administration have serious discussions about how to fix the Iraq mess. Both sides of the aisle need to tone down the rhetoric and get to the business at hand.
And if I believe they will do the above, somebody sell me a bridge!
Well, things are getting interesting on Capitol Hill. The debate of the day concerns the occupation of Iraq - should we "stay the course" or "cut and run?" The Axis of Weasels has brought in a damage control team to figure out how to win the war - no, not the war in Iraq, the public relations war being waged in the media. I just wish these guys would put as much effort into figuring out what to do with the mess they've created in the world.
A few quotes would be good here (thanks to Knight Ridder News Service):
The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. President Dubya, Nov. 11, 2005
We must be careful not to give terrorists the false hope that if they can simply hold on long enough, they can outlast us. Ronald Dumbsfeld, Nov. 15, 2005
Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. Darth Cheney, Nov. 16, 2005
Excuse me while I take a laugh break - this is just too much!
Well, I'm not a "politician," so I guess I can make all the charges I want and not be in the cross-hairs of the Bush team. The reality, as we all know, is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with the "global war on terror;" in fact, this ill-concieved global blunder on the part of the U.S. has strengthened terrorism by providing a real-time training ground for jihadists where they can kill Americans (and everyone else in the neighborhood) or be killed trying, thus assuring their place in heaven.
Sending "the wrong signal to our troops" is exactly what the Bushies have been doing all along. And who has been using the war for "political plays" since it started? That's right, Team Bush. a central piece of the Bush re-election strategy was the war - I mean, after all, we have The War President in office (hey - turn down the fanfare, I can't hear myself think).
As for "giving terrorists false hope" - heck, those guys know that as long as Dumbsfeld is on the job, their careers are on solid ground. After all, he's the guy most responsible for sending in too few troops, who were equipment-poor, with no real strategy. (I guess sometimes you can't have the winning strategy you wish you had, you have to just go with the losing strategy you have.)
So, let me get to the point here: do we stay in Iraq or do we leave? My opinion: I don't know, but...
If you are really concerned and interested in this question, pick up a copy of the December 2005 The Atlantic magazine (maybe you can read it on-line). "Why Iraq has no Army" by James Fallows is a thoroughly researched piece of journalism that makes a compelling case for staying in Iraq, but changing the course. His thesis is that we need to change our military strategy to emphasize training the Iraqi forces. He provides details, based on interviews with U.S. military personnel and other knowledgeable people, about why our training efforts have failed so far, and what needs to be done to correct this. Fallows thinks that we can't simply pull out without risking a civil war and other consequences that would be worse than the present situation.
Then read "If America Left Iraq: the case for cutting and running" by Nir Rosen, a journalist who spent 16 months reporting from Iraq after the invasion. Rosen presents a compelling case for pulling out as soon as possible. The presence of American troops in Iraq, Rosen asserts, keeps the insurgency alive, and sets up a political tension between Sunnis and Shiites. Civil war in Iraq is already under way, he claims, because of the American presence. The role of al-Qaeda and foreign jihadists is an insignificant part of the insurgency, and the foreign jihadists are barely tolerated by the native insurgency as long as they are useful. Without American troops in the country, Rosen claims, the insurgency would end, and the foreigners would be rooted out.
So - which is it? Stay or Run? What's needed on Capitol Hill is a serious debate about staying in Iraq or leaving soon. If we stay, what's the Plan? How will we make this thing work? If we leave, how do we do that and what's the Plan?
The charges and counter charges raging in the headlines this week are nothing more than a red herring. The politicians are wasting time playing name calling, finger pointing games. The American public should demand - and in fact, I am demanding - that our elected representatives and the Administration have serious discussions about how to fix the Iraq mess. Both sides of the aisle need to tone down the rhetoric and get to the business at hand.
And if I believe they will do the above, somebody sell me a bridge!
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
"WE DID NOT HAVE TORTURAL RELATIONS WITH THOSE PRISONERS"
News Flash: In a statement oddly reminiscent of that by President Bill Clinton during the run-up to his impeachment, President George W. Bush made a defensive statement denying that U. S. personnel use torture on prisoners. Readers will remember President Clinton's insistent denial of having sexual relations with "that woman." The Bush statement, however, unlike Clinton's was almost instantly recognized as a bald-faced lie because of the concurrent actions of Vice President Dick "Darth" Cheney to place a provision in pending legislation that would allow torture of detainees in U.S. prison camps, jails, and other holding and interrogation facilities. With Bush's popularity and believability at an all-time low, his statement can only be seen as a result of extreme defensiveness in the face of the many failures of his administration.
In what the Administration most certainly saw as another blow to their credibility, the members of the former September 11 Commission issued a report of progress made by the Administration on recommendations made by the Commission a year ago - and their report is not good news for the Bush team. Although the Commission members had high praise for progress on a couple of goals, they were very critical of the lack of progress on many more. Among the goals that were reported as "unfulfilled" was that of developing a common approach with U. S. allies on the treatment of captured terror suspects. The Commission stessed that the Geneva Conventions regarding armed conflict should be applied to military prisons and secret detention centers. Commission member Richard BenVeniste referred to Iraq as the next terrorism training ground after Afghanistan, stating, "How much this trend has been fueled by the highly publicized reports of brutalization, humiliation and desecration cannot be measured accurately, but the flames of extremism undoubtedly burn more brightly when we are the ones who deliver the gasoline."
I guess when it comes to torture, it depends on what is is.
In what the Administration most certainly saw as another blow to their credibility, the members of the former September 11 Commission issued a report of progress made by the Administration on recommendations made by the Commission a year ago - and their report is not good news for the Bush team. Although the Commission members had high praise for progress on a couple of goals, they were very critical of the lack of progress on many more. Among the goals that were reported as "unfulfilled" was that of developing a common approach with U. S. allies on the treatment of captured terror suspects. The Commission stessed that the Geneva Conventions regarding armed conflict should be applied to military prisons and secret detention centers. Commission member Richard BenVeniste referred to Iraq as the next terrorism training ground after Afghanistan, stating, "How much this trend has been fueled by the highly publicized reports of brutalization, humiliation and desecration cannot be measured accurately, but the flames of extremism undoubtedly burn more brightly when we are the ones who deliver the gasoline."
I guess when it comes to torture, it depends on what is is.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
200 YEARS LATER
We went to the preview event for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Exhibit at the Oregon Historical Society the other night. The exhibit is a one-of-a-kind compilation of objects, written and graphic materials from a variety of private and public collections that document the amazing exploration that reached the Pacific Ocean 200 years ago.
It was early April of this year when Dave and I paddled up the Columbia River from Cathlamet on a perfect early spring river day. A grey sky, slight breeze, and occasional light rain accompanied us as we followed the tide upriver past the struggling river town. The land-water interfaces of big rivers tell many stories to those who choose to travel at the water's pace. Stories of commerce, stories of river life, and stories of history cling tenaciously to rotting pilings, sinking derelict vessels, and rotting wood shacks miraculously held afloat by algae-covered logs felled long ago in long-gone forests.
There is one reach of the river upstream of Cathlamet where the highway moves away from the river atop a high rock bluff and all of the usual and obvious signs of civilization disappear. A high waterfall cascades from the bluff, full from spring rains. Cedars, alders, ash and willow somehow manage to thrive near the water's edge, their branches pruned to a common height above the river according to the vertical range of the tides and seasonal water. The sound of river under the kayak and water-drip from the paddle is suddenly noticeable, until the waterfall overwhelms all other sounds with its constant roar.
I was momentarily overwhelmed by the realization that this is what the explorers of the Lewis and Clark expedition, and the native people they encountered, saw and heard every day, and the thought shackled me with anchor lines, pulling at me to linger longer, to stay for as long as possible in this time before time.
As we left the waterfall reach, and entered another section where the highway ran along the shore, I was gripped with a dread feeling of nostalgic despair - and this is truly the only way I can describe it. In the time-speck of two hundred years, this magnificent river ecosystem has been altered almost beyond recognition by and for humanity.
Don't misinterpret this feeling I had. I'm very much a realist, and I understand that the human animal changes its surroundings to suite its needs. But try as we might, we are still part of the natural world, and we still carry imprinted in our genetic code an understanding of what came before. To its credit, nature is a tenacious force; plant and animal species that evolved in this system for millennia prior to the modern time remember the old ways, and struggle to carry on as before. The derelict boats and sinking shacks along the river edge also seem to understand and embody this natural persistence., and yes, there are even those among us humans who remember the old ways.
It was early April of this year when Dave and I paddled up the Columbia River from Cathlamet on a perfect early spring river day. A grey sky, slight breeze, and occasional light rain accompanied us as we followed the tide upriver past the struggling river town. The land-water interfaces of big rivers tell many stories to those who choose to travel at the water's pace. Stories of commerce, stories of river life, and stories of history cling tenaciously to rotting pilings, sinking derelict vessels, and rotting wood shacks miraculously held afloat by algae-covered logs felled long ago in long-gone forests.
There is one reach of the river upstream of Cathlamet where the highway moves away from the river atop a high rock bluff and all of the usual and obvious signs of civilization disappear. A high waterfall cascades from the bluff, full from spring rains. Cedars, alders, ash and willow somehow manage to thrive near the water's edge, their branches pruned to a common height above the river according to the vertical range of the tides and seasonal water. The sound of river under the kayak and water-drip from the paddle is suddenly noticeable, until the waterfall overwhelms all other sounds with its constant roar.
I was momentarily overwhelmed by the realization that this is what the explorers of the Lewis and Clark expedition, and the native people they encountered, saw and heard every day, and the thought shackled me with anchor lines, pulling at me to linger longer, to stay for as long as possible in this time before time.
As we left the waterfall reach, and entered another section where the highway ran along the shore, I was gripped with a dread feeling of nostalgic despair - and this is truly the only way I can describe it. In the time-speck of two hundred years, this magnificent river ecosystem has been altered almost beyond recognition by and for humanity.
Don't misinterpret this feeling I had. I'm very much a realist, and I understand that the human animal changes its surroundings to suite its needs. But try as we might, we are still part of the natural world, and we still carry imprinted in our genetic code an understanding of what came before. To its credit, nature is a tenacious force; plant and animal species that evolved in this system for millennia prior to the modern time remember the old ways, and struggle to carry on as before. The derelict boats and sinking shacks along the river edge also seem to understand and embody this natural persistence., and yes, there are even those among us humans who remember the old ways.
Friday, November 11, 2005
DARTH CHENEY and the AXIS OF WEASELS
Once upon a time, in a galaxy uncomfortably close to here, the evil Emperor Dubya and his cadre of covert planners, known as The Axis of Weasels, led the former forces of good to the Dark Side. A leader among them was the dark Lord known as Darth Cheney, a master of the dark arts. The Lefti Knights and all others who were anything but Dark Siders were powerless against Darth Cheney and his brethren, falling like cord-wood before the Spin Sabers wielded by the Axis. Spin saber wielding was one of the darkest of dark arts, and the Axis had among it's brethren a Master of Spin, a small, yoda-like creature known as MachiaRovea. One by one, those who clung to the good side of the Force fell victim to the machiarovean Spin of the Dark Siders, castigated as traitors, accused of being soft on, or abandoning the War on Terror, ridiculed in the media until not one among them was left standing with any credibility. In this darkest of dark times, not one leader could be found who would stand and speak truth to lies. Instead, the remnants of the good side of the Force vowed to be more like the Dark Siders, a self-proclaimed brilliant strategy designed to win voters, particularly those "of faith." May the Farce be with us.
A simple fable for our times, perhaps. Fortunately, the Axis of Weasels appears to be crashing and burning by their own dark designs. Their play book, a blending of fairy tales (The Emperor has no Clothes) and prophetic novels (1984), is failing them. "We do not torture!" proclaims the Emperor while his top henchman, Darth Cheney, works to institute as law a green light for the use of torture.
Enough already. Let's work hard to hasten the fall of the Axis of Weasels. Let's get back to the core values that we all believe in, starting with democracy and truth. And let's remember to tell this fable to our children and grandchildren as a warning that democracy can't be taken for granted - it has to be protected from those who would destroy it.
A simple fable for our times, perhaps. Fortunately, the Axis of Weasels appears to be crashing and burning by their own dark designs. Their play book, a blending of fairy tales (The Emperor has no Clothes) and prophetic novels (1984), is failing them. "We do not torture!" proclaims the Emperor while his top henchman, Darth Cheney, works to institute as law a green light for the use of torture.
Enough already. Let's work hard to hasten the fall of the Axis of Weasels. Let's get back to the core values that we all believe in, starting with democracy and truth. And let's remember to tell this fable to our children and grandchildren as a warning that democracy can't be taken for granted - it has to be protected from those who would destroy it.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Blog Spam - oh brother!
I've been writing to this blog for almost a year, and I mostly write for myself. Oh yes, I've had a few comments, mainly from relatives, but recently my heart rate has quickened because I've actually had comments posted from people I don't know. This is great - I've been discovered! And...these commentors tell me that I can now earn $10-$50 dollars per hour FROM HOME! Using my computer! This is great, and another benefit of the computer age. Thanks, anonymous commentors, you've made my day.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Hurray for Open Source!
Oregon has become a home for development of open source software and hardware. The recent announcement by google of a $350,000 grant to Portland State and Oregon State Universities for open source development is one more indication that this movement is strong and growing in the Pacific Northwest.
As a computer user, I'm thrilled that the alternatives to Microsoft are growing and have become real options. A few years ago, during the anti-trust case against Microsoft, I was browsing around on the U.S. Justice Department web site, looking at developments in the Microsoft Anti-trust Case. I took the opportunity to send an email (you know, all of these sites have a "contact us" link) to the people working on the case about one of my main peeves about Microsoft, from my view as the owner of a small business. I related that many clients, particularly federal agencies, required reports from contractors to be submitted as Microsoft Word files, often specific versions of the software. This was one of the main reasons I migrated my company from WordPerfect to MS Word, at considerable expense. My question to the Anti-trust team concerned the role of the federal government in creating and supporting the Microsoft monopoly by requiring use of the software.
As you might imagine, I never received a reply from the Justice Department team (maybe it was because I was using Eudora instead of the Microsoft email software?).
So right on open-sourcers.
As a computer user, I'm thrilled that the alternatives to Microsoft are growing and have become real options. A few years ago, during the anti-trust case against Microsoft, I was browsing around on the U.S. Justice Department web site, looking at developments in the Microsoft Anti-trust Case. I took the opportunity to send an email (you know, all of these sites have a "contact us" link) to the people working on the case about one of my main peeves about Microsoft, from my view as the owner of a small business. I related that many clients, particularly federal agencies, required reports from contractors to be submitted as Microsoft Word files, often specific versions of the software. This was one of the main reasons I migrated my company from WordPerfect to MS Word, at considerable expense. My question to the Anti-trust team concerned the role of the federal government in creating and supporting the Microsoft monopoly by requiring use of the software.
As you might imagine, I never received a reply from the Justice Department team (maybe it was because I was using Eudora instead of the Microsoft email software?).
So right on open-sourcers.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
2,000 POINTS OF LIGHT: EXTINGUISHED
The 2,000th American military death in Iraq was marked by headlines yesterday, a milestone that nobody in this country is celebrating. The Associated Press also reported yesterday that most credible estimates of Iraqi deaths since the U.S. invasion is 30,000, and I think these are mostly civilians.
For me, the most difficult question is "are these deaths worth it?" I don't support the war in Iraq; I haven't since before the invasion. But I have always "supported the troops," as the mantra goes. These are not contradictory positions. The people serving in the military don't make the decisions about going to war, they carry out the orders passed down from above. Every person who chooses to serve in our military deserves our respect and gratitude. In times of real need, when our security and safety are threatened, these are the people who will be on the front lines. I also support the use of our military for international peace-keeping, or for ending genocide, if these kinds of decisions are logical and supportable.
The problem with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is that the decision to go there was not logical and supportable. There was no compelling reason for this war: Iraq was not involved in the September 11 terrorism, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, Iraq did not pose a threat to our security and safety. This was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. So yes, our administration has wasted our most precious resource, the lives of our military personnel and the well-being of their families. And these deaths have not been worth it.
Would I tell a grieving military family that the death of their loved one wasn't worth it? This question haunts me, and I don't know the answer. Would I tell Iraqi's that the death and suffering they continue to experience is worth it? Again, I don't know. In the long-term, I hope the Iraqi people achieve some form of democracy and peace. I don't think the U.S. military can pull out now; we have to somehow figure out how to finish what we've started. This means that we have to accept the growing death toll on both sides - a difficult thing to accept.
I've thought a lot about the 2,000 U.S. deaths and the 30,000 Iraqi deaths, and I grieve for them and their families and friends. I only hope that we learn from this mistake, and that we never again allow a President to go to war without a logical and supportable reason.
For me, the most difficult question is "are these deaths worth it?" I don't support the war in Iraq; I haven't since before the invasion. But I have always "supported the troops," as the mantra goes. These are not contradictory positions. The people serving in the military don't make the decisions about going to war, they carry out the orders passed down from above. Every person who chooses to serve in our military deserves our respect and gratitude. In times of real need, when our security and safety are threatened, these are the people who will be on the front lines. I also support the use of our military for international peace-keeping, or for ending genocide, if these kinds of decisions are logical and supportable.
The problem with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is that the decision to go there was not logical and supportable. There was no compelling reason for this war: Iraq was not involved in the September 11 terrorism, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, Iraq did not pose a threat to our security and safety. This was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. So yes, our administration has wasted our most precious resource, the lives of our military personnel and the well-being of their families. And these deaths have not been worth it.
Would I tell a grieving military family that the death of their loved one wasn't worth it? This question haunts me, and I don't know the answer. Would I tell Iraqi's that the death and suffering they continue to experience is worth it? Again, I don't know. In the long-term, I hope the Iraqi people achieve some form of democracy and peace. I don't think the U.S. military can pull out now; we have to somehow figure out how to finish what we've started. This means that we have to accept the growing death toll on both sides - a difficult thing to accept.
I've thought a lot about the 2,000 U.S. deaths and the 30,000 Iraqi deaths, and I grieve for them and their families and friends. I only hope that we learn from this mistake, and that we never again allow a President to go to war without a logical and supportable reason.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Party D or Party R? More Choices Needed
I kept shaking my head in agreement this morning as I read David Brooks' column in the NY Times (Oct 9, 2005). Mr. Brooks' assertion is that the two political parties in this country are old, tired, and uninspiring. I couldn't agree more. As I watch the Bush administration crumble under the weight of it's own incompetence, arrogance and lies, I'm hard-pressed to think of someone on either side who inspires me with their ideas and competence. The fact is that both parties are out of ideas, too tied up in cronyism and money, and have nothing new to offer.
We live in a new world in many important ways. Globalization and terrorism are two new major factors driving world politics. We need real political leadership with different ways of thinking. It's telling that, in the midst of the exposure of Bush Republican decay, the Democrats don't have anything to say.
I agree with David Brooks: it's time for an insurrection right here at home (see my previous post: "Now is it Time for the Revolution?").
We live in a new world in many important ways. Globalization and terrorism are two new major factors driving world politics. We need real political leadership with different ways of thinking. It's telling that, in the midst of the exposure of Bush Republican decay, the Democrats don't have anything to say.
I agree with David Brooks: it's time for an insurrection right here at home (see my previous post: "Now is it Time for the Revolution?").
Thursday, October 06, 2005
City of Portland Stormwater Fee - a Homeowner's Opinion
The City of Portland, Oregon charges property owners a fee for stormwater. The City used to offer a discount on this fee for property owners who disconnected their downspouts or installed other runoff reducing measures. The discount program was discontinued several years ago, but the City Council voted to re-institute it. There is now a proposal by Commissioner Adams for a new stormwater discount program.
Following is a letter I recently sent to Commissioner Adams about this program:
Dear Commissioner Adams (Sam): Like many Portlanders, we have been patiently waiting for the stormwater fee discount program to begin. For us, the principle is more important than the actual money.
We moved into a new duplex townhouse in SE Portland (Hawthorne area) in 2002. According to the builder, he was required by the City to install a stormwater infiltration system that added $7,000 - $8,000 to the construction costs. With this system, virtually 100% of the stormwater that falls on this property stays on the property and infiltrates into the ground.
We consider the City stormwater system to be a utility. Consider this; if we installed solar panels and small wind turbines on our house and generated all of the electricity we use, we would not pay the electric utility anything for electricity. Similarly, if we captured rain water in a cistern and didn't use any City of Portland water, we would not be billed for water usage. The same would be true if we had composting toilets (no sewer hookup needed), produced our own methane for cooking from compost (no natural gas from Northwest Natural),and only wrote letters to communicate with people (no telephone bills). So why do we pay a stormwater fee if we generate no stormwater runoff from our property?
If the City wants to tax us in order to generate revenue needed to manage stormwater city-wide, fine - we have a small impact on stormwater runoff quality from city streets because we drive an automobile. But don't charge us a fee for stormwater based on our owning property, because our property does not contribute runoff to the City stormwater system. (In fact, I often sweep the gutter in front of our house, and occassionally do the entire block because the City street sweeping program is inadequate - so maybe the City should pay me for this service!) The idea that we should pay a discounted rate for a service we don't use is not logical.
Thanks Sam - that's our point of view.
Following is a letter I recently sent to Commissioner Adams about this program:
Dear Commissioner Adams (Sam): Like many Portlanders, we have been patiently waiting for the stormwater fee discount program to begin. For us, the principle is more important than the actual money.
We moved into a new duplex townhouse in SE Portland (Hawthorne area) in 2002. According to the builder, he was required by the City to install a stormwater infiltration system that added $7,000 - $8,000 to the construction costs. With this system, virtually 100% of the stormwater that falls on this property stays on the property and infiltrates into the ground.
We consider the City stormwater system to be a utility. Consider this; if we installed solar panels and small wind turbines on our house and generated all of the electricity we use, we would not pay the electric utility anything for electricity. Similarly, if we captured rain water in a cistern and didn't use any City of Portland water, we would not be billed for water usage. The same would be true if we had composting toilets (no sewer hookup needed), produced our own methane for cooking from compost (no natural gas from Northwest Natural),and only wrote letters to communicate with people (no telephone bills). So why do we pay a stormwater fee if we generate no stormwater runoff from our property?
If the City wants to tax us in order to generate revenue needed to manage stormwater city-wide, fine - we have a small impact on stormwater runoff quality from city streets because we drive an automobile. But don't charge us a fee for stormwater based on our owning property, because our property does not contribute runoff to the City stormwater system. (In fact, I often sweep the gutter in front of our house, and occassionally do the entire block because the City street sweeping program is inadequate - so maybe the City should pay me for this service!) The idea that we should pay a discounted rate for a service we don't use is not logical.
Thanks Sam - that's our point of view.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
GEORGE W. BUSH - RESIGN NOW!!
Once again, George W. Bush has demonstrated, beyond a doubt, that he is incapable of leading the United States of America. The result is a crushing national shame, and a feeling of bewilderment about how the events following Hurricane Katrina could happen here. A real leader would not have remained on vacation as this huge storm approached the Gulf coast. A real leader would not have gone first to California to make a political speech designed to lift his sagging poll numbers. A real leader would have personally made sure that federal emergency services were ready to go, and not have, apparently, relied on a chorus of yes-men. We need a real leader.
George W. Bush, his Vice President, his Cabinet, and his gang of arrogant, self-serving advisors need to pack up and crawl out of Washington D. C. back to whatever rat hole they crawled out of in the first place. Enough is enough!! The awkward, embarrassing early reaction to the events of September 11, 2001 were the first straw. The outright lies that fed the rush to invasion and occupation of Iraq were another straw. The massive give-aways to the power-elite of this country, the abandonment of public education, the environment, health care, and every other social program, were additional straws. But the inexcusable inaction to this major disaster was the last straw - these "folks" have to go!
I implore every citizen of this country to write letters to the editor, write or call your elected representatives, talk to friends and family - George W. Bush and his "compassionate conservative" team have to resign for the good of this country. Period. End of discussion.
George W. Bush, his Vice President, his Cabinet, and his gang of arrogant, self-serving advisors need to pack up and crawl out of Washington D. C. back to whatever rat hole they crawled out of in the first place. Enough is enough!! The awkward, embarrassing early reaction to the events of September 11, 2001 were the first straw. The outright lies that fed the rush to invasion and occupation of Iraq were another straw. The massive give-aways to the power-elite of this country, the abandonment of public education, the environment, health care, and every other social program, were additional straws. But the inexcusable inaction to this major disaster was the last straw - these "folks" have to go!
I implore every citizen of this country to write letters to the editor, write or call your elected representatives, talk to friends and family - George W. Bush and his "compassionate conservative" team have to resign for the good of this country. Period. End of discussion.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
BICYCLING IN PORTLAND OREGON
There have been numerous news articles and opinion letters in the print media lately about bicycling in Portland. Unfortunately, several bicyclists have been killed this year by motor vehicles, and there is a lot of introspection about the reasons. Are bicyclists reckless? Are motorists too aggressive and uncaring in relation to bicyclists? Is the street system too dangerous for bicyclists to share with motor vehicles?
I've been commuting by bicycle for the past three years - almost daily since May of this year. My commute takes me from a SE Portland neighborhood into the downtown area and back. I ride rain or shine, light or dark. I have developed certain opinions about bicycle commuting in Portland, Oregon.
1. The most dangerous element for bicyclists is other bicyclists. I can't count the number of times I've had close calls or potentially dangerous situations because of other cyclists. The most dangerous type are the speed freaks who don't care about other cyclists. These are the guys (and they are mostly guys) on bikes built for speed, wearing all "the gear" who have to be faster than everyone else. Being fast is not what makes them dangerous - it's not letting other cyclists know that they are passing. There is no ring-ring of a little bell, no "on your left" before they pass - they sneak up behind you and whiz past - on the left or the right - without warning. Woe be unto you if you wobble into their way, or decide to slide over because you know there might be others who want to go faster. I've almost collided with these rudeniks, and I would have probably been thrown out into the traffic whizzing along next to the bike lane.
2. Then there is the death-wish crowd. These are young people who think that the rules of the road don't apply to them. I'd like to tell the guy who sped through the stoplight at NW Couch and NW First the other day that the MAX train runs through that intersection while the light is red, even if he chooses to ignore automobiles. A red octagonal sign on a post with the letters S-T-O-P means stop, and yes, that means bicycles, too. (We all tend to cheat on this one by doing a rolling stop while we look both ways - but I'm talking about the folks who speed right through as if the sign weren't there.) And hand signals - there are, in fact, standard hand signals that let other drivers, including cyclists, know what you intend to do. Pointing to the ground next to your bike with your right hand doesn't tell me anything - although, maybe it's better than no signal at all.
3. A subset of the death-wish crowd is the people in black. They are the ones bicycling down Hawthorne Boulevard at night wearing all black clothing with no lights, no reflectors. They typically don't wear a helmet. They sometimes ride against the traffic. Need I say more?
4. Headphones! I was in front of our house one nice summer day when a young woman went riding by on her bike singing along with the music in her headphones. She waved at me and flashed a big smile as she went past. Then she ran the stop sign at the corner and crashed into the side of a car going through the intersection. Luckily she was OK. Her bike was still usable. The door of the car was bashed in, but the driver was so worried about the young woman, she didn't seem to notice the dent in her car. I ran over to see if everyone was OK. Once I was assured that no one was injured, I strernly admonished the young woman for listening to music while riding her bike, and asked why she wasn't wearing a bike helmet. I basically told her - nicely - that she was an idiot, and a very lucky idiot at that!
5. Motorists. I find that the vast majority of motorists are aware of bicyclists, and very careful and courteous. I thank them for that (I am also a motorist on occassion). One major exception is drivers talkng on their cell phone. Hang it up - please! Lately, however, I've had two drivers yell at me. Both times I was on Hawthorne Boulevard heading east where there is no bike lane. One of them yelled at me to get off the road; the other yelled at me to use the bike route. Well, there are signs along middle-Hawthorne telling motorists that the street has narrow lanes that they need to share with bicyclists. I'm sorry that I'm not as fast as they are, but I have just as much right to use the road as they do. I usually prefer the side-streets that are designated bike paths, but sometimes Hawthorne is a better choice. By the way, each of these two motorists was driving a pickup truck - I wonder if that has any significance?
6. City of Portland infrastructure. Portland has done a good job of identifying bike routes, and providing bike lanes in some heavily used areas, such as lower Hawthorne. I have, however, my list of problem spots. These include pot holes, bad intersections, places that need bike crossings, and one-way grids that leave bicyclists out of luck. I'll communicate this list to the City soon. I recently had a digital conversation with Roger, the City Bicycle Coordinator, about a problem spot on my commuting route; which is a problem for other commuters, also. I had talked to the City about this a couple of years ago, and Roger assured me that it is on the list. Unfortunately, the fix will be about $40,000, and there is no money for it. Shortly after this conversation, the City raised the rate and extended the schedule for parkig meters downtown to raise money for more light rail. Great - but what about other alternative methods of transportation, like the lowly bicycle? Why not designate a small percentage of this lucrative fee increase to improving conditions for bicycle commuters?
7. Last, but not least, my tips for good biking summed up in a word: communication. Communicate with the bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians with whom you share the road or bike path. Make eye contact so you know that they know that you are there - don't assume that a driver sees you. Make noise when about to pass someone - a bike bell or a simple "on your left" will do - then thank them as you pass. When a motorist motions you to go through the intersection before them, wave a thank you at them. Use hand signals to let your intentions be known, and learn the standard signals. A little courteous communication goes a long way.
Keep your wheels rolling, and safe biking!
I've been commuting by bicycle for the past three years - almost daily since May of this year. My commute takes me from a SE Portland neighborhood into the downtown area and back. I ride rain or shine, light or dark. I have developed certain opinions about bicycle commuting in Portland, Oregon.
1. The most dangerous element for bicyclists is other bicyclists. I can't count the number of times I've had close calls or potentially dangerous situations because of other cyclists. The most dangerous type are the speed freaks who don't care about other cyclists. These are the guys (and they are mostly guys) on bikes built for speed, wearing all "the gear" who have to be faster than everyone else. Being fast is not what makes them dangerous - it's not letting other cyclists know that they are passing. There is no ring-ring of a little bell, no "on your left" before they pass - they sneak up behind you and whiz past - on the left or the right - without warning. Woe be unto you if you wobble into their way, or decide to slide over because you know there might be others who want to go faster. I've almost collided with these rudeniks, and I would have probably been thrown out into the traffic whizzing along next to the bike lane.
2. Then there is the death-wish crowd. These are young people who think that the rules of the road don't apply to them. I'd like to tell the guy who sped through the stoplight at NW Couch and NW First the other day that the MAX train runs through that intersection while the light is red, even if he chooses to ignore automobiles. A red octagonal sign on a post with the letters S-T-O-P means stop, and yes, that means bicycles, too. (We all tend to cheat on this one by doing a rolling stop while we look both ways - but I'm talking about the folks who speed right through as if the sign weren't there.) And hand signals - there are, in fact, standard hand signals that let other drivers, including cyclists, know what you intend to do. Pointing to the ground next to your bike with your right hand doesn't tell me anything - although, maybe it's better than no signal at all.
3. A subset of the death-wish crowd is the people in black. They are the ones bicycling down Hawthorne Boulevard at night wearing all black clothing with no lights, no reflectors. They typically don't wear a helmet. They sometimes ride against the traffic. Need I say more?
4. Headphones! I was in front of our house one nice summer day when a young woman went riding by on her bike singing along with the music in her headphones. She waved at me and flashed a big smile as she went past. Then she ran the stop sign at the corner and crashed into the side of a car going through the intersection. Luckily she was OK. Her bike was still usable. The door of the car was bashed in, but the driver was so worried about the young woman, she didn't seem to notice the dent in her car. I ran over to see if everyone was OK. Once I was assured that no one was injured, I strernly admonished the young woman for listening to music while riding her bike, and asked why she wasn't wearing a bike helmet. I basically told her - nicely - that she was an idiot, and a very lucky idiot at that!
5. Motorists. I find that the vast majority of motorists are aware of bicyclists, and very careful and courteous. I thank them for that (I am also a motorist on occassion). One major exception is drivers talkng on their cell phone. Hang it up - please! Lately, however, I've had two drivers yell at me. Both times I was on Hawthorne Boulevard heading east where there is no bike lane. One of them yelled at me to get off the road; the other yelled at me to use the bike route. Well, there are signs along middle-Hawthorne telling motorists that the street has narrow lanes that they need to share with bicyclists. I'm sorry that I'm not as fast as they are, but I have just as much right to use the road as they do. I usually prefer the side-streets that are designated bike paths, but sometimes Hawthorne is a better choice. By the way, each of these two motorists was driving a pickup truck - I wonder if that has any significance?
6. City of Portland infrastructure. Portland has done a good job of identifying bike routes, and providing bike lanes in some heavily used areas, such as lower Hawthorne. I have, however, my list of problem spots. These include pot holes, bad intersections, places that need bike crossings, and one-way grids that leave bicyclists out of luck. I'll communicate this list to the City soon. I recently had a digital conversation with Roger, the City Bicycle Coordinator, about a problem spot on my commuting route; which is a problem for other commuters, also. I had talked to the City about this a couple of years ago, and Roger assured me that it is on the list. Unfortunately, the fix will be about $40,000, and there is no money for it. Shortly after this conversation, the City raised the rate and extended the schedule for parkig meters downtown to raise money for more light rail. Great - but what about other alternative methods of transportation, like the lowly bicycle? Why not designate a small percentage of this lucrative fee increase to improving conditions for bicycle commuters?
7. Last, but not least, my tips for good biking summed up in a word: communication. Communicate with the bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians with whom you share the road or bike path. Make eye contact so you know that they know that you are there - don't assume that a driver sees you. Make noise when about to pass someone - a bike bell or a simple "on your left" will do - then thank them as you pass. When a motorist motions you to go through the intersection before them, wave a thank you at them. Use hand signals to let your intentions be known, and learn the standard signals. A little courteous communication goes a long way.
Keep your wheels rolling, and safe biking!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)