HATE THE JEWS - THE GAME EVERYONE CAN PLAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 November 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBAMACARE IS NOT THE REAL POLITICAL ISSUE OF OUR TIME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

THE AGE OF DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Game over.

OUR UNIVERSE: INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think? I would truly be interested.

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

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

SEPARATING HOMELESSNESS FROM MANAGEMENT OF OUR PUBLIC SPACES

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

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

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

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

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

The bus stop at the busiest intersection. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAYBE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IS THE PROBLEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salmon Chanting Bridge

Deep below the dark surface of the lower Willamette River, on a moonlit night, the ancient race of fish makes their way upstream towards their birth streams. Their ancestors have made this journey a number of times too numerous to record. Their migration is an ancient ritual, known to the first people of this land and all others in human memory.  Although they are not as numerous as they were in a previous time, these fish are survivors, driven by primal instincts and sheer will power.

This time there is something different about the journey; there is something big and new in the river as they count the structures that span the wide water. Here, between the eighth and formerly ninth spans, counting upstream from the Big River, is a different kind of span over the water. This span has 12 legs, 2 groups of 6 on each side of the river. These are fun to swim through! But the best part is the two soaring towers above the legs, and the long cables like webbing hung from the towers. And the lights; this span glows and shimmers above the water!

The ancient fish of the salmon nation smile as they pass under the new bridge. They are happy. They sing an old song taught down the generations, a chant to signify the approach of their journey's end that is picked up by all of the travelers. High above the water, on the new bridge that is quiet because there are no motor vehicles, the humans hear the ancient song of the salmon, the rhythmic chanting from a time long gone.

And the humans smile, knowing that they are on Salmon Chanting Bridge.
---

THE KOCH BROTHERS

The Koch Brothers (pronounced like "coke," but I prefer "cock."); who are they? These multi-billionaire brothers are the big money behind a lot of conservative causes, including the Tea Party. They are heavily invested in the fight to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), as one example of their involvement in American politics. In 2012, the brothers donated at least $200 million to Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce. The Board of Directors of another conservative group, Freedom Partners, is led by a long-time executive of Koch Industries. Freedom Partners claims at least 200 business members, each paying at least $100,000 dues. The group provided $115 million last year to the Center to Protect Patient Rights, another group fighting Obamacare. 

A quick look at the Koch Industries website shows a list of companies owned by the Brothers:

• Flint Hills Resources
• Koch Pipeline Company
• Georgia-Pacific
• Koch Fertilizer
• INVISTA
• Koch Chemical Technology Group
• Koch Supply and Trading
• Koch Minerals
• The Matador Cattle Company
• Koch Business Solutions, L.P.

These are each huge companies, many global in scope, and many based on the petroleum industry. 

It is interesting to contemplate how we are each linked to these Koch companies, and that contemplation is beyond the scope of this blog. However, as an example, I took a quick look at INVISTA. 

From the INVISTA website: INVISTA transforms daily life through its innovations in the nylon, spandex, polyester and specialty materials industries. You may find INVISTA's products in your clothing, carpets, cars and computers—just to name a few. Included in their product line, INVISTA manufactures these fabrics that you might have heard of (and might be wearing right now): Cordura, Coolmax, Lycra, Thermolite, and also Stainmaster carpeting and Dacron fiberfill. 

The Koch brothers are very successful businessmen, and they put huge amounts of their money into very politically conservative causes. There are also reports that the brothers are starting to buy media outlets; I'll let you think about that one.

Think about the $200 million ($200,000,000) that the Brothers donated to the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce last year to fight the Affordable Care Act. And by the way, this was just one of many, many donations the Brothers make to conservative causes. Consider that the 2013 federal poverty guidelines, the annual income that defines "poverty" in the United States, lists $15,510 for a family of 2 people, and $23,550 for a family of four. Census Bureau data for 2013 show that 46.5 million Americans are living in poverty; that's 15% of us! The $200 million spent by the Brothers to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, a law that would provide health insurance for people in poverty who previously couldn't afford it, represents the annual income of 12,895 2-person families living at the poverty line, or 8,493 4-person families living at the poverty line. 

The Koch brothers are the big money behind the Tea Party movement, those wonderful people who have shut down the federal government. Without the Koch money, the Tea Party might not have gotten off the ground. 

Think about this as you put on your Lycra running tights, your Coolmax t-shirt, your Dacron fiberfill winter vest, and your Cordura day-pack.

---

THE SHUTDOWN: WTF IS WRONG WITH AMERICA?

The world wants to know wtf is wrong with America. Simply said, the American government shut itself down. The results of this shutdown will be far-reaching, and Americans on the edge will be the most hard hit.

What is wrong with America? It seems that there are people in government who are anti-government. How does that make any sense? What do they hope to gain? How can this strategy have any positive results for anyone?

Part of the answer is that the United States isn't - united.  There is a sub-population that is anti government, and they have elected representatives who feed the flames of anarchy under the guise of conservatism. It's weird, totally weird. And we all suffer because of it.

Here is a very good segment of the Rachel Maddow show about the then-pending government shutdown. It is worth watching because it shines a very bright light on the shutdown, anti-government mentality of this minority that controls the House of Representatives.  The fact that these people are members of Congress is reason to be worried; very, very worried about the future of America.

Can the United States continue to be the united states? Are we still one country, or are we two or more populations separated by a widening chasm of political difference? The whole world is watching. And the whole world is wondering wtf is going on in America. So am I.

---

SYRIAN QUICKSAND

What can we do about the situation in Syria? What should we do about the situation in Syria? These two interrelated questions are burning into our collective brains. And the intensity of the burn is so much greater now that chemical weapons have been used against civilians. President Obama drew a red line; President Assad apparently stepped over that line, adding more than 1,000 people to the toll of more than 100,000 deaths.

We Americans are torn in multiple directions about this. Is there a moral responsibility to do something - anything? Is there a Superpower responsibility to take military action because we are the most heavily armed nation in the world, and a democracy? Should we only act if there is an American security reason? What if we kill civilians? What if we radicalize more young people into jihadism? What if the reaction to our action is Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and others launching missiles into Israel (playing the age-old game of Blame the Jews)? Can we really trust our own government to be telling us the truth about the poison gas incident? Remember WMDs and Iraq? How can we justify killing people to punish Assad for killing people? Why don't we just negotiate a peace deal in Syria? What happened to diplomacy?

And on, and on, and on, and on....

I have used the term "unintended consequences" in an earlier Facebook post on this topic. I used it to suggest a cautionary pause in the march to war. But every action has unintended consequences, including the action of inaction. We have watched, in horror, the unfolding of war and the devolution of society in Syria for more than two years. Our government has done relatively little, close to nothing (as far as is known by the public) over the course of the conflict. Now our President has declared that he intends to punish the Syrian government for crossing the red line of using chemical weapons, and he has sent a resolution to the U.S. Congress for their approval.

I support a military strike against the Syrian regime, unless there is a diplomatic path - and I mean one that looks realistic and starts immediately. Here's why...

There is an almost universal (only 7 nations have not signed and ratified) agreement that chemical weapons should be banned. Syria has not signed on to this convention, and has one of the largest stockpiles of these weapons in the world. And Syria has used them, recently killing over 1,000 men, women and children. This is a gross violation of international law, not to mention a moral outrage. If this action goes unpunished, it will make all arms conventions meaningless, and the world will move even more quickly into chaos at the hands of dictators (and terrorists). 

People in the USA are proud to say that we're number one. We're the last Superpower standing. We are mighty and powerful and not to be messed with. Well, that's fine, but it is hollow jingoism if we don't act when others won't. We have a moral obligation in the world because we are so powerful. We have sat back and watched genocide and massacres too many times without doing anything to try to stop it, or slow it down. We cannot, in all good conscience, let Assad get away with mass murder. I don't think there is a convention against civil war; hence we cannot legally weigh in on the side of the Syrian insurgents. But there is international law prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, and this is the opening we must use. 

We all have an opinion on this, and many of us express it on social media. The pundits express their opinions in the public media. This is good, this is our democracy in action. But we have to be very careful not to let opinion become fact. We have placed our trust in our government to carry out the actions that only government can do. There are many professionals in government, and those with expertise in foreign policy, international law, political science, diplomacy, military science and etc. are making, and should be making, decisions that guide the actions of our country. (1) 

To those who say that Obama doesn't know what he's doing, that he is being played by the Russians and the Syrians, I say - really? To those who say (and I have heard this directly) that Obama is no different than G.W. Bush, I say - really? I'll take a President who moves cautiously and intelligently, who does not invent the basis for invading another country and starting a 10-year war, who is man enough to stand in front of a national audience and speak truth, even if it makes him look weak or diminishes his credibility in the eyes of those who hate him. Here are the facts: our President warned Syria that the use of chemical weapons would prompt a severe response from the United States; the Syrians gassed their own civilians; our President announced that the United States would act by launching a limited military response with the goal of punishing Assad as well as degrading his ability to deliver chemical munitions again; our President correctly asked Congress to approve his plan for a limited strike; Congress and the American public started to dither (as usual); our President and the President of Russia announced a plan that has a glimmer of hope to lock up Syria's chemical weapons. And this is where we are presently. 

I am saddened by the daily deaths and level of cruelty playing out in Syria. I am saddened by the powerlessness of the rest of the world to intervene. And I am saddened by the inability of Americans to stand up for what is moral and correct.

I support President Obama. I hope that his diplomatic efforts succeed. And in the end, even if Congress and the American public don't support it, I hope he uses his executive authority to do the right thing. 

And mostly, I hope the conflict in Syria ends soon for the sake of our Syrian sisters and brothers. 

(1) There is a clear distinction in my mind between the Obama and the GW Bush administrations. In my opinion, the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes because it invaded and occupied a sovereign country on false pretenses, and killed tens of thousands of people in the process. I was very outspoken on this blog and elsewhere about this during those eight years. The present administration is a very different reality.    

WHY DOES HOLLYWOOD MAKE COMIC BOOK/ACTION FILMS INTO SUCH JUNK?

Seriously. We just saw Man of Steel; oh barf. The beginning was hopeful; what is it like to be a little boy who is very different from everyone else? Actually a very sensitive treatment of the topic; OK, maybe this movie will be good.

And it was all downhill from there. Yes Hollywood, we know you can knock over a skyscraper using CGI; but isn't one enough? How many oil tanker trucks and locomotives have to be dropped on someone before it gets old? And fight scenes - OK, Supe and the bad dude in black can be rough and tumble, but didn't you learn that things need to come to an end?

How many millions of people were killed in this movie? Really, suspension of disbelief is the key to enjoying a comic book, but it doesn't take long before the audience is getting very uncomfortable because many, many innocent people are obviously being slaughtered here and, well, it just isn't OK.

This isn't fun. This is idiotic and senseless violence for the sake of idiotic and senseless violence. The real Superman would never have let this kind of murder and mayhem happen. The real Superman would have lured the villains away from the city so they could duke it out without committing mass murder. And the real Superman would have a lot more emotions than repeatedly clenching his fists and shouting as loud as possible. Come on, let's get real!

And need I say that I once again lost another small amount of hearing by sitting through yet another stupid action movie? Does it really need to be so loud? Do you movie makers equate loudness with quality, or is it that you think you can hide your bad movie-making skills behind a whole bunch of obnoxious noise? (And btw, my teenage grandkids agree with me on this one.)

I'm sorry Hollywood, but I think I'm finished with your comic book movies. Some of the early ones were quite good, but you've lost your way in the dazzling lure of big money and the computer generated graphics. The beauty of comic books used to be that the characters had, yes, character. There was intelligence behind the fists of steel. Violence was limited to bullets bouncing off of things, fists meeting chins (POW!!), and bad guys being rounded up and handed over to the cops. And the reader was allowed to use a thing known as the imagination; imagine that!

Am I being too harsh (BAM!!)? I don't think so, but I'm open to your opinion, just as you have now been subjected to mine.
---

I CAN BE ARRESTED IN RUSSIA FOR THIS POST

Russian President Vladimir Putin turns out not to be a nice guy after all. In 2001, at their first meeting, then US President George W. Bush said "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul." I can only imagine what Mr. Putin thought about Mr. Bush; perhaps something like "I looked into his eyes and, holy Kremlin, what naiveté!!" 

Mr. Putin enjoys power, and in order to keep it he persecutes everyone and anyone he deems to be a threat. Under Mr. Putin, the new Russia seems to be more and more like the old Soviet. 

And so it is that President Putin has signed into Russian law some very severe anti-homosexual measures. These laws persecute gay people and supporters of gay people. One recent law signed by Mr. Putin bans the adoption of any Russian child by same sex couples, or even anyone who lives in a country that has marriage equality! Most recently, Putin signed a law that allows the police to arrest tourists and foreigners suspected of being gay or pro-gay, and hold them for 14 days. And yet another law defines "homosexual propaganda" as pornography, and can lead to detention and fines for people who advocate tolerance or educate children about homosexual issues. 

The 2014 Winter Olympics will be held in Russia this coming February. Although the Charter of the International Olympic Committee has anti-discrimination language, the Olympic Committee appears to be strangely silent on this issue.  One can only wonder about the potential danger LGBT athletes, fans, and visitors who are openly supportive of equal rights might find themselves in. We can only hope that Mr. Putin understands the concept of "the whole world is watching." 

I openly support the rights of LGBT persons. The anti-gay Russian laws, supported and signed by Mr. Putin, are evil. If I were to gaze searchingly into Mr. Putins eyes (and not get arrested on suspicion of being gay), I would likely find a deep, dark pool of evil. 

I plan to write to the Olympic Committee on this issue.  

TRAYVON MARTIN WAS MY GRANDSON...

...in fact, if you are a parent or grandparent in America, Trayvon was your son or grandson, too.  I have three grandsons. One just turned 18, the other two are almost 15. I have seen all of them wearing a hoody, walking down the street, carrying snacks and a drink. Tray (that's what I would have called him  - I have nicknames for all my grandsons) seemed just like my other grandsons, at least from the stories and photos of him that I've read and seen. A sweet kid, good with little kids, a quick and warm smile, likes to horse around with Opa (that's what my grandsons call me), and tall because, well, teenagers now seem to get taller than we used to.

I can't imagine knowing that someone with a gun was following my grandson because he "looked suspicious." Why would my grandson look suspicious? Because of his hoody? Because he was a tall, skinny teenager? Because he was carrying a box of Skittles? Why? WHY?

Trayvon was African American; I'm Eastern-European American. Trayvon was Black; my grandsons are White. And that is why. There is no other explanation.

Unfortunately, racism, specifically racial fear and distrust, is very much alive and well in America. The outrage in the Black community is always just below the surface, and runs deep. For good reasons.

I, too, am outraged, but my outrage is not based on direct and overt racism that I encounter every day. My outrage is based on what goes on within our society, the overt and covert, individual and institutionalized racism that grinds people down if their skin just isn't light enough. Grinds them down and often, way too often, kills them.

Many teenagers, a disproportionate number of them Black, are killed by gun every week in America. In that sense, the death of Trayvon Martin is just another disturbing statistic. But Trayvon's killing was so much more important because the law allowed it, both before and after the fatal shot was fired. George Zimmerman was allowed by the law to carry a gun. And the verdict in Mr. Zimmerman's trial tells us that Mr. Zimmerman was allowed by the law to kill another person. Both of these "allows" must be questioned equally. Neither of these "allows" should have been.

I am sad when I think of Trayvon; even more so when I picture my grandsons. I miss Tray. I miss the opportunity to know him, to read about him someday because he did something awesome, and just to know that he and every other Trayvon is alive and well and being a teenager. I will not let the Florida legal system or the media ruin the image of the Trayvon I know by somehow suggesting that it was his fault, that he was the aggressor, that he somehow was the criminal against whom George Zimmerman had to defend himself. No. Not for a second!

I am sad about Trayvon's family and friends. How do you carry on after someone you love is murdered? How do you carry on after the murderer is set free by the legal system? How do you not let the outrage that is always just beneath the surface boil over?

Let us not forget Trayvon Martin. Let all parents and grandparents keep his name and his image close in our hearts, just like our own kids and grandkids - because he was one of them, one of ours. We should all be outraged that the law allowed our child to be murdered. Trayvon is alive in our hearts; let's make certain that Trayvon is alive in the fight to end racism in every ugly form, including the law. Trayvon Martin's boyish smile is the sign we hold high for all to see, for all to grieve, and for all to fight for.

---  

THE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL: READ MY OPINION

I don't have anything new to add to this conversation, but I feel compelled to put my opinion into the virtual stream of consciousness swirling around this topic.

The trial is over, Mr. Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of murder in the second degree. Like it or not, our legal system has cranked out a decision and this phase of the story is over. The facts now are:

1. a 17-year old boy, Trayvon Martin, is dead; shot and killed by an armed citizen;
2. Mr. Zimmerman, the shooter, has been found not guilty of the crime of murder, and is free;
3. Mr. Zimmerman can once again, if he so chooses, legally walk the streets with a gun; 
4. unless the U.S. Department of Justice brings a civil rights action, or the parents of Trayvon bring a civil suit, the story is over. 

But is the story over? No - not by a long shot.

You see, every day - every day - people are killed by gun in this country. And every day - every single day - legal injustices are done to someone somewhere in this country. If you study the issues you will find ample and overwhelming information about gun deaths and the injustices of the legal system. People of color and/or poor people are most often the victims. This statement alone doesn't convey the magnitude and seriousness of the problem. 

Racism is alive and well in America, and it's not just the George Zimmermans in our society. Racism has been institutionalized in this country to the point where it is difficult to see it and pin it down, but it is pervasive in our institutions. The American justice system, since the start of the Reagan War on Drugs, has become a system of mass incarceration of Black and Latino people, mostly young men.(Note 1)  It should not be a surprise that Mr. Zimmerman was found not guilty; the Florida law is on his side. He has the right to "stand his ground" and protect himself, including the use of deadly force. 

The death of Trayvon Martin is tragic, but it is not unusual; unfortunately, it is the norm in America. Yesterday, July 14, 2013, at least 41 people were killed by gun in America. The day before yesterday, July 13, 2013, at least 46 people were killed by gun in America. Since the Newtown killings on December 14, 2012,  at least 6,210 deaths by gun have been reported. (Note 2) This is a massacre. 

George Zimmerman was carrying a loaded gun the night he killed Trayvon Martin. I'm willing to bet that if he had not had a gun, Mr. Zimmerman would not have gotten out of his car, and would not have followed and confronted Trayvon Martin. A gun changes every potentially violent situation into a potential deadly situation. Mr. Zimmerman's gun changed a Neighborhood Watch Program into a Neighborhood Death Program. 

America - Americans - need to come to grips with racism and gun control. We need to dismantle the institutionalized system of racism from top to bottom; this will not be easy. Many Americans think that we made great strides as a result of the Civil Rights movement. We did, in many ways, but unfortunately the old racism has been replaced by a new racism under which young Blacks and Latinos, mostly men, are swept up in a legal system designed to take them off the streets and turn them into second class citizens. Wars on drugs and wars on immigrants are cover for blatant societal racism, and we have to fight to end these faux wars and repair the tremendous damage done to these brothers and sisters in our communities.

And we absolutely need to end the epidemic of gun violence and death in America by establishing very firm control of the sale and possession of guns. A Neighborhood Watch volunteer has absolutely no business carrying a gun. In my opinion, there is no reason for anyone to carry a gun, unless they are going hunting or target shooting. 

The killing of Trayvon Martin has captured the spotlight, but unfortunately, like so many other very important issues, I'm afraid it will soon be forgotten as our attention is directed to other things by the news media. What will it take to move forward from each tragedy and make needed change in this country? I don't know, but I'm trying to figure it out. 

---

Notes:

(1) An excellent book on the topic of institutionalized racism in America is The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. 

(2) see the interactive gun death database at: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

NOT JUST APPLE: CORPORATIONS ROTTEN TO THE CORE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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