HOW GOOGLE WILL BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF AT&T AND VERIZON

We have been AT&T customers for as long as we have had cellular phones/mobile phones. In fact, we were their customers before they were AT&T Mobile (McCaw Cellular, in the beginning). To their credit, AT&T has always given us top-notch customer service, even though the actual phone coverage was not always the best.

But I have jumped ship, and I am now a customer of Project Fi. That's Google. It is mobile phone service using VOIP (voice over internet protocol). And so far, it totally rocks my boat!

Let me explain.

Project Fi service has a very simple pricing plan - yep, just one plan for everyone. Basic service is $20 per month; that includes unlimited calls and unlimited texting. Data is charged at $10 per GB per month, and you can sign up for as many GB per month, at $10 per, as you want. I rarely use 1GB of data per month, so guess what? Project Fi credits my account for whatever part of 1GB I don't use. If I use 0.5 GB in a month, they credit my account $5. If I use 1.5GB in a month, they charge me an extra $5. Nice! And, of course, I was able to port my mobile phone number over to Project Fi.

But Project Fi has also solved a problem I have had for many years; what to do for mobile phone service when traveling out of the country. This has been a very major issue for me, and lots of other people who travel a lot. The answer is simple: Project Fi works in lots of countries! For example, every European country we have visited is on the Project Fi list. The only difference in pricing is that phone calls using the cellular network are $0.20 per minute. That's a helluva lot better than the $1.00 per minute AT&T charges me after I give them an extra $30 per month for Global Roaming. And for that $30 per month, AT&T gives me 120MB of data - I can use 120MB in a day, especially if I'm navigating with Google maps.

Keep in mind, Project Fi is VOIP. Here is how it works, and what that means for the customer (me). The Project Fi SIM card monitors the T-Mobile and Sprint cellular networks, as well as available wi-fi. It determines whether or not the available wi-fi is trustworthy. It switches the phone between these three choices based on which offers the best signal. So if I have a good wi-fi connection, my phone calls use that, and it's charged as data, not at $0.20 per minute. I haven't tried it yet outside the USA, but we will be in Europe again this summer, so I will be testing it. I do have to say that so far during our travels in the USA, it has worked almost perfectly everywhere. And it worked great at the Oregon coast in a location where AT&T is always iffy.

And customer service? The best! I have a terrific and simple Project Fi app on my phone that shows me exactly how much data I have used for the month, has my billing info, and has customer support - you request support and someone calls you almost instantly!

Is there a drawback to Project Fi? Well, first, at this time it only works with the newer Google phones, Nexus 5X and newer. I had a Nexus 5, so I bought a 5X. And btw, the Nexus 5X cost me $250, compared to a new iPhone that costs $650 or more.

The second drawback, for some people, is that it is Google; the Evil Empire. Yawn.

I don't know what the Project Fi business plan is. Will it be available for all phones in the future? Will the pricing remain very affordable? Time will tell. I do know that, for me, it is kicking the crap out of AT&T! I think the difference is that Google has looked carefully at mobile phone needs and how the established providers dish out service. The biggies have so many plans it is dizzying. And they rack up costs for everything. I have changed plans more times that I can possibly remember with AT&T. So Google very likely decided; let's offer cell phone service that is affordable and very simple - one plan for everyone. Does this work for everyone? I don't know; maybe a family with a bunch of teenagers can get a better deal with ATT or Verizon, but maybe not. Maybe Project Fi is a better fit for business people who travel, or for one customer, rather than a family.

All I can say is, thanks Google, you have solved some major issues I've had with mobile phone service, and I can check that box on my wish list.

---

REMEMBERING

I have a family tree printed in 1993 on many sheets of paper that were taped together to form a roll about 10 feet long. Cousin Mel Pollack made it, and my uncle Louis Fishman did an earlier draft by hand. 

I’ve been thinking lately about family history; maybe a lot of people my age do this as we watch the precipice getting closer. One thought has nagged at me for many years: what relatives of mine were killed during the Holocaust? 

Below is a list of names from the Pollack (Pulik) family tree, of families for which all or many of the members died the same year during World War 2. I don’t know the circumstances of these deaths, and so I am making an assumption that they were killed by the Nazis or Nazi sympathizers in Poland, Russia or elsewhere. 

Yetta (Yentle) Pollack (1909-1942) and children Shulamis Oberman (1934-1942), Henya Oberman (1936-1942) and Malka Oberman (1936-1942)

Kossel Pollack (1912-1942) and wife Chaya Suchman ( - 1943)

Chaim Lieb Pollack (1917-1942)

siblings Yossel Pulik (1907-1941); Berrel Pulik (1909-1941); Yentel Pulik (1912-1941); Siegel Pulik (1914-1941) - (brother Aaron Paul (Pulik) survived and wrote a memorial book (Yizkor Book) about the town of Motol where my father’s family lived before coming to the United States

Benjamin Pollack and wife Tzaitel and 6 children: Raisel, Yossel, Yentl, Schloime, Osher and Herschel; all died in about 1942

Chaike Fishman and husband Chaim Tevyansky, and 3 children: Zloty, Sorreh and Masheh Tevyansky; all died in about 1942

Reva Pulik (1874-1943) and husband Moishe Pruzansky (1872-1943) and 5 children: Sorren, Yudel, Tanye, Channah and Dora Pruzansky - all died in about 1942; (daughter Cyril Pruzansky (born 1908) survived and married Charles Glassman, I knew them and their sons Art and Jeffrey when I was a kid in Chicago)

Peril Pollack (1895-1943) and husband David Aizenberg (1892-1943) and daughter Chaske (1919-1943)

I don’t know, and can not imagine, the suffering these people went through before they died. I don’t know if they were murdered outright, tortured and murdered, or rounded up and sent to the death camps to be murdered. I do know that they, and all others killed in genocides, should be remembered. 

BERNIE SANDERS CAN STILL WIN, IF...

Senator Bernie Sanders knew from the beginning that his bid for the Democratic nomination for POTUS was a long shot. His early remarks, before he officially declared himself a candidate, were more about pushing the Democratic Party to the left by running, rather than actually winning. I think he was surprised, as were many of us, by the amount of support he has had from voters, especially the younger generation. For awhile, it looked like Bernie might actually have a chance to beat the Democratic establishment political machine; now that possibility is all but gone.

However, I still think Bernie can win. He can win if, and only if, the people who so vociferously support him stay in the political game during and after the 2016 election.

The Bernie movement is a political revolution. The movement is criticized by the establishment for being focused on one theme: the inequality of those with lots of money and those without. But the reality is that this huge (or yuge) and growing wealth gap IS the major problem in the United States, and it affects everything in our society. The projected outcomes of this expanding wealth gap are getting more obvious.

Big money rules everything. A recent post on my blog was about a research report that found corporations and their lobby groups are very successful getting legislation passed at the federal level, while citizens and citizen lobbying groups are not successful. In other words, the power in government is in the hands of big money; citizens have no political power.

Elections, such as the current race for the presidency, are based on big money. Sanders points to Clinton's ties to big money, which are many, as a symptom of the problem. A recent fund-raiser for Clinton and the Democratic Party hosted by the actor George Clooney was a big money event; seats at the main table cost over $350,000 each. Clooney himself told an interviewer that this is obscene; however, that's the way things work, and until campaign financing is changed, well, that's the way it has to be.  Until when? Well, until a political movement with Bernie Sanders' values gains political power.

And this is how Bernie can still win. If the Bernie supporters go away after his candidacy ends, if they turn their backs on politics out of disappointment or anger, then Bernie's efforts were for naught. "Bernie or Bust" isn't a political strategy, it is political suicide. Instead, a Bernie Movement, or let's call it building a Democratic Socialist Party in the United States is where the Bernie Revolution needs to go. Young voters need to work at the local level, state level, and federal level to build a political revolution that addresses and ends the rule of big money in this country.

This doesn't mean the end of capitalism and big business; it means the end of government of, by and for the super wealthy class. It means social justice. It means living-wage jobs doing meaningful work. It means housing available for everyone, and at affordable rates. It means working together as a society to slow down the rate of climate change. It means educational opportunity for everyone. In other words, it means Bernie Sanders' platform of common sense politics.

The dark side of this election cycle is the Trumpization of American politics. Donald Trump is, unfortunately, not just a quirk. Trump represents the resentful and fearful feelings of more than 10 million people who have voted for him to date in the primaries. And these people, and their brand of politics will not go away anytime soon. In fact, I fear that if a President Illary Clinton continues the business as usual establishment politics of the Democratic Party, something I predict she will do, the Trump people will only gain more strength. This is because the business as usual politics of the Dems does not address the core issues in our society that Bernie and Trump talk about, from very different perspectives, of course. A continuation of the big money politics in America clearly does not lift the majority of Americans out of the stagnation they have been in for so long.

So yes, Bernie Sanders can be the eventual winner in this election cycle if, and only if, the young voters who have been energized by Bernie stay in the game. The first thing they need to do is be certain our next President is Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump. Second, they need to hold Clinton's feet to the fire and not let her immediately jump back to the center, which she is already drifting towards, now that Bernie's challenge has been beaten back. Third, and most importantly, young people, and oldsters like me who still have breath in them, need to build on what Bernie started. Build a movement, a political party, united around core principles of democratic socialism, and slowly take back our government from the big money class.

Feel the Bern! And take to heart the words of Joe Hill (google him): "Don't mourn; organize."

---

IS IT SOCIAL, OR ANTI-SOCIAL NETWORKING?

Social networking: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and myriad others. These internet sites and applications fall under this rubric on the basis that they facilitate social interactions between people, and therefore, one would assume, draw us closer together. 

But I wonder.  Does Facebook really connect us with other people? Do we interact socially on Facebook more than we otherwise would? I tend to think not.

Look around you. If you go into a coffee shop, walk around a park, watch people everywhere you go, how many are interacting with people around them, and how many have their attention on a screen? I once sat in a large Starbucks with my cousin Gary arguing politics, debating great global themes, telling funny stories - all while sipping coffee. I looked around the immense room filled with customers at tables and stuffed chairs and couches. Gary and I were the only people actually talking to each other; the rest were each focused on a smartphone, tablet or laptop in front of them.  It would not surprise me if some of them were in a texting exchange with the person next to them! 

I’ve had a Twitter account for a few years, although I have still not figured out the purpose of and reason for Twitter to exist (with the exception of instances where masses of people can be organized or stay informed about unfolding events). When I occasionally open Twitter, I marvel at how much time certain people spend tweeting. Do they have time for anything else? 

I use Facebook. In the past few weeks, I have purposefully not opened the Facebook app, and I don’t miss it. For me, the greatest benefit of Facebook is to keep in touch with people I otherwise would not see very often. I have also reconnected with people from my past. This is good. 

But here is my issue with Facebook: unless I open it at least several times a day, I will miss a lot. And so when I only open it once in awhile, there is a tendency to keep scrolling down in case I missed something important, or interesting. And yes, there are a number of posts that are important or interesting, but there are many more posts that are kitty cats, dogs, funny “posters” and witty sayings, and links - lot and lots of links to articles and videos and photos and……more time diverters. 

I have been guilty of posting this stuff; oh yes I have. I have posted hundreds of my photos because I want to share them. But what is the real purpose of this? Is it to see how many “likes” I get? How many comments I get? Do people like me? Am I popular? Do they compliment me? 

If this is what social networking is all about, maybe I don’t need it. Maybe the novelty has worn thin for me. Maybe, just maybe, I would do all the other things I keep wanting to do but just can’t - or don’t - find the time for. 

A few weeks ago I thought about making a cardboard sign on which I printed the words: “Let’s have a conversation!” and then holding it up while sitting alone at a table in Starbucks or some other neighborhood place. The idea, of course, would be to engage my neighbors, most of whom I don’t know, in a real conversation. Social Networking! No screens allowed! I still might try this.

The internet has spawned amazing technologies, including the smartphones, tablets, laptops and other computers and all the apps that go with them. Many times I feel it is too much. The Googles, Facebooks, Twitters, Apples of the world know too much about me, bombard me with too many ads, try to rule every moment of my life, ostensibly to improve my life. After all, if I didn’t have internet social networking at my fingertips, would I be doomed to a solitary and lonely existence? 

I’m wondering what the next paradigm shift will be in internetting (yes, I made up a word)? Will we continue to be used more and more as vessels of data to be sold and bought by ever-expanding corporations? Or will the geeks of the world figure out a more democratic internet that helps us use our time wisely between the real and virtual worlds? 

And yes, this blog is a virtual conversation. I would truly prefer to sit with other people, sipping coffee or wine, and have this discussion. Perhaps I can initiate a multi-party on-line video discussion group that would include people I know all over the world. Now that would be fun!

—-

TRUMP ASCENDENCY HEIGHTENS THE DEBATE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY

The ascendency of Donald Trump to the lead position in the race to be the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States has created surprising turmoil within scientific and theological circles. 

Scientists who support and lecture about evolutionary theory have recently begun to use Donald Trump as an example that, in fact, the science of evolution might not be correct, after all. And theologians who argue strenuously that everything in our world is the result of intelligent design have recently advanced the position that, in retrospect, Donald Trump clearly demonstrates that intelligent design is not a correct view of the world.

Professor Howard J. Krumbein, a leading evolutionary biologist, stated in an editorial piece that: “Recent research into the Donald Trump species has confounded our understanding of the origins of life and it’s biological diversity, to the point that new theories are being tested. The mounting evidence is that the Donald Trump species cannot be explained without incorporating an act of Divine intervention, or, as we say in evolutionary science, “bizarre tinkering.”

Meanwhile, in a major theological publication, His Most Reverend Dr. Gene S. Plicer has postulated that the many years of intelligent design explanations for the natural world have been focused on incorrect assumptions concerning the abilities of God. HMR Plicer stated: “We will in no way take the blame for this strange fellow - he is not ours, he is the evolutionist’s nightmare.” 

Whatever the source, Donald Trump continues to confound all reasonable and sane humans as to his origins. 

—-

HOLEY MUCK, BATMAN; STREETS IN THE CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON

This is our street.  

And these are our street.

The City of Portland, Oregon doesn’t have the money to fix our street. Or most other streets. It seems that the City of Portland spent a lot of the street maintenance money for other things, special projects and pet projects. And so the City of Portland needs $40,000,000 or more to fix the streets, and they don’t know where to get the money. 

Our mayor and the councilman in charge of the Bureau of Transportation proposed a special street maintenance tax last year. They got hammered by public and business opinion. So they retreated and regrouped and proposed a different kind of street maintenance tax. This one was even nuttier than the first, and they got hammered by public opinion, so they retreated again. Then they mumbled something about maybe a new gas tax, or maybe the State of Oregon would bail them out, or something. And then they were quiet. And now it is an election year, and everyone seems to have forgotten that our streets keep getting worse. 

As I rolled around the corner on my recumbent trike today, one of my tires hit a round stone and sent it flying at dangerously high speed - sproinggggggg! If you look at these photos of our street, you see all the rounded rocks that have eroded out of the decomposing concrete. These round rocks are all over the street as a result of being sproinged by car and truck tires. This seems very dangerous to me. 

When you drive around Portland in your automobile, or on your cycle, you often feel like your fillings will be jarred loose by all the potholes and washboard pavement and ruts and cracks. I wonder how much this costs me in terms of car maintenance? 

And then there is the muck. All the leaves that sit on the street, in the rain, getting rolled over by tires all the time until they turn into soggy muck. The occasional street sweeper goes by, but only around the parked cars - mostly down the middle of the street. And it misses the muck. Yuck. 

And the muck takes over. The muck fills the storm drain grates so the stormwater has nowhere to go. And the water sits there. And the muck sits there. And it really drives me nuts! 

Come on City of Portland. What the muck are you doing? Get it together. We pay taxes. Fix the damn streets and clean up the muck. 

LIVING ON THE STREET IS THE NEW NORMAL IN AMERICA

 Homeless, or what we now are told to refer to as houseless people, are now a major part of the Portland landscape. Tents and vehicles and sleeping bags and shopping carts and piles of stuff are under every overpass and also lining the sidewalk in sections of many neighborhoods. It's very sad, for sure. It's also very frustrating.

How and why did this happen? What should the city government do about this? Is this really how we want people to live who are down and out? Is this really what we want to see every day, everywhere we go in our once beautiful city?

In some ways, Portland is a mecca for people who are houseless. I talked to a woman recently who lives in a tent near the river and asked her why she is living outside. She said that she really doesn't want to live outside like this, and that she has been on the housing list for over three years. She also told me that when she has traveled, people all over the country say that they want to go to Portland because we are so nice here and don't hassle them the way other cities do. Great.

It is actually unlawful to camp on public property (sidewalk, street, park) in Portland, which includes in a sleeping bag, tent or vehicle. At least it was until last week, when our mayor and City Council instituted a new "temporary" measure allowing people to sleep on the sidewalk, but not with a tent, during nighttime, as long as their stuff is gone during the day. The city will also be identifying properties where people can set up their tent and live, and the city will provide some kind of toilet facilities, lockers for personal belongings, and maybe even showers. Camping in city parks is also unlawful, but a lot of people do it anyway, and it seems that this is also being condoned.

We have a tent city in Portland that has been occupying an empty lot downtown, with the owner's permission, for a few years. This camp is known as Right to Dream, Too (R2D2), and is self-regulated by the people who live or shelter there. They have rules, including no drugs or alcohol, there is a kitchen, there are lockers and toilets. People can stay for up to 12 hours, which is unlike any other shelter; although some people have lived there full-time for 3-4 years. The city has now voted to move the camp to a city-owned property in the eastside industrial district, and the city will provide toilets, showers, power and etc.

Tent cities - modern Hoovervilles. Is this Portland's answer to houselessness? It is Portland's temporary solution, we are told, until a better solution is in place. Great. And what is the better solution? I'm actually not sure.

In the meantime, Portland is in the midst of an incredible apartment and house building boom. Huge apartment buildings are springing up like fungi all over town. New homes are springing up in every neighborhood. The problem is that the rents and purchase prices are almost the highest in the nation. People working low-wage jobs can't afford these apartments. The new homes being built are in the $600,000 - $800,000 range, not what one would call starter or affordable homes. And a lot of these are being built where older, smaller houses have been bought and demolished by big development companies.

With all the new construction, you would think the city would require a certain percentage of affordable houses and apartments. But this isn't the case. In fact, Oregon and Texas are the only two states in America that, by law, prohibit local governments from requiring a percentage of affordable units. That sucks big time.

So we have a choice here in Portlandia, love it or leave it. Some businesses have decided to leave it and closed. Some people like us are trying to think about where to go.

The police are stymied, by the way. They are powerless to do much in this situation except try to ask people to be reasonable and use good behavior and try not to be in the way. A friend of ours who owns a restaurant nearby has to put up with a man living in one of the three doors to her restaurant. He sleeps in the covered doorway every night, and leaves his loaded shopping cart and other junk on the sidewalk next to the door all day. The cops have been out many times, but are helpless to do anything about it.

Around the corner from our home at a local restaurant. He was sleeping in on this day.

As for the how and why - well, this is a topic of discussion every day with everyone we know. The recession. Reagan booting people out of mental health care facilities and closing them. The list is long. But my aha moment recently was this, the reason we now have so many people living on the streets of America is the Republican-controlled Congress. Every measure that would help people stay off the streets has been defeated or discontinued. Funding has been cut for social welfare programs, health care, education and many other things. Yes, unemployment is down, but that is only a measure of the people who are looking for work, not those who have given up and are now living under a bridge or in a doorway.

I won't get into my rant about politics, politicians, big money interests, and this election cycle. But you know what I would say if I said it, don't you?

This situation is out of control. People should not be living on the street. This should not be the new normal in America, but it is.

---

ARE THE AMERICAN FAMILY DYNASTIES COMING TO THE END OF THEIR LINE?

Here is an interesting list concerning presidential elections in the United States:

1980 - George H. W. Bush elected Vice President

1984 - George H. W. Bush elected Vice President

1988 - George H.W. Bush elected President

1992 - William J. Clinton elected President, defeating George H.W. Bush

1996 - William J. Clinton elected President

2000 - George W. Bush elected President

2004 - George W. Bush elected President

2008 - Hillary R. Clinton was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President

2012 - 

2016 - Hillary R. Clinton is seeking the nomination as a candidate for President; John Ellis “Jeb!” Bush was a candidate seeking the nomination for President

There have been 10 elections in the past 36 years. There was a Bush (3 people) or a Clinton (2 people) running or elected in 9 of these 10 elections. 

In other words, two American families have dominated American national politics for almost the past 40 years! Only one word describes this phenomenon: dynasty. (The Bush family also includes senators and governors; and Barbara Pierce Bush, wife of George H.W. Bush, was a cousin of the 14th President of the USA, Franklin Pierce.)

Is it any wonder that American voters are rebelling against these established rulers? The success so far of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are certainly partially due to the Bush/Clinton fatigue many voters are experiencing. 

The American political establishment is supported by the American economic establishment, and this has become the rallying cry of the disaffected. Think about it; Hillary Clinton is supported by the large financial institutions, among others, and Donald Trump is supported by a multi-billionaire - himself. 

This rebellion is breaking two ways. On the Republican side we have a member of the 0.1% in terms of wealth, who has never really been very active in the Republican Party and has never held political office, poised to win the nomination as the Republican candidate. On the Democratic side, we have a Democratic Socialist who has won elections to the House and Senate as an independent, who now has a shot at being the Democratic nominee. Wow!

On the Republican side of things, we see people who are angry about their situation in the world, and are eager to blame it on “big government,” the Establishment Republican Party, minorities, immigrants, non-Christians and other “others.” They trend way to the right, and are lead towards nationalism and fascism by Trump, Cruz and Rubio. The establishment candidate, and member of the Bush Family Dynasty, Jeb! Bush, dropped out of the race due to a lack of traction with voters. This gets uglier daily. 

On the Democratic side, a battle is waging between the establishment and dynastic candidate, Clinton, and the interloper Sanders. The battle for votes here is between establishment, business-as-Obama-usual politics versus - gasp - socialist themes and values. Some of the rhetoric, especially on-line, is getting ugly; however, it is not based on the fear and hatred in which the Republicans are wallowing. 

There is another interesting, and quite amazing, actually, facet to this race. The remaining candidates include: a woman, a Jewish socialist, two Cuban-Americans, an African-American, a white man, and a white man with a bizarre hairdo. We’ve never seen a group of candidates like this. 

I think, actually I’m hoping that this is the end of the Bush and Clinton dynasties in America, It is time to move on. This election is, in my opinion, a critical point in modern American politics. Do we swing way right or more left? I don’t think there is a middle ground possible any longer. 

—-  

ELECTION 2016 - MY PROGNOSTICATIONS

I assume that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee.

1. Michael Bloomberg decides not to jump in as an independent.

2. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee becomes the actual nominee.

3. Donald Trump wins the election for President of the United States by 15 percentage points. 

4. About half of the population of adults in the United States, those who have measurable intelligence, flee the country, seeking asylum in Denmark as political refugees.

5. Canada and Mexico build the border walls for President Trump to keep out the political refugees fleeing the United States, claiming "We don't want all those f-ing socialists!" 

6. The Danish socialist system collapses under the weight of all the overweight American refugees.

7. The United States of America continues to devolve into a polluted country with crumbling infrastructure, masses of people living on the street in Portland, Oregon, and all people who are not white Christians living in detention camps.  

8. President Trump and Vice President Hugh Hefner have weekly orgyistic galas attended by the upper 0.1% class. 

9. (Note: at this point, my prognostication becomes too cloudy to see.) 

10. sigh

---

WE'LL TAKE THE GUANTANAMO PRISONERS IN PORTLAND

President Obama announced today a plan to move the remaining prisoners from the infamous Guantanamo facility and close the jail. Republicans in Congress are already bloviating that they will never allow these prisoners on U.S. soil. Oy!

A facility to house these prisoners has not yet been identified. I volunteer the Wapato Jail in Portland, Oregon, owned and not operated by Multnomah County.

The Wapato Jail was built in 2003 at a cost of $58 million raised by a bond measure passed by voters. A part of the ingenious plan for this jail was to not figure out where to get the money to operate it, and so it has never been used to house criminals. It has been used occasionally to film movies or TV shows. The County spends between $300,000 to $400,000 per year to maintain the empty jail. Since 2003 that amounts to somewhere between $3,600,000 and $4,800,000. Are you astounded? I am.

The Wapato Jail is in a fairly remote location, as shown below. It is surrounded by the Smith and Bybee Lakes Natural Area in the Rivergate Industrial District of north Portland.

I don't think Wapato is classified as a maximum security jail, but it could certainly be modified to meet that classification for a lot less money than what the Multnomah County tax payers are spending now. In fact, if the County offered the facility to the Defense Department, federal money would likely be used to modify and operate it.

This sounds like a win-win to me. I'm going to make a few phone calls and encourage my elected officials to lobby for this.

---

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DEBATES ARE LIKE FACEBOOK

Son One, Wife and I were talking politics this morning (how unusual!) and Son One stated that, in his opinion, most voters do not want to hear details about policy. Instead, he continued, most voters respond to candidates based on personality traits, style, and broad statements of vision. He used Al Gore and John Kerry as examples of the wonky, intellectual detail guys, and Reagan and G.W. Bush as examples of the likable, vision guys (someone to get a beer with). 

I was thinking about this, and discussing it again with Wife over lunch. I came to the following conclusion: the candidate debates are like Facebook. 

Here is why. Most Facebook users don't spend much time on any single post - there are simply too many posts to scroll through every time one opens Facebook to dwell very long on any single post. Sure, we all click on something and watch a video (if it is short), or maybe look at an article (if it is short). But generally, I think we just want to see what our FB friends are talking about at any specific time, and move on. 

Answer this question honestly about yourself: how often do you click on a link in someone's post and read a lengthy article? And if you do that, how often do you click links in that article and read deeper and deeper on the topic and related topics? 

I imagine that, for many voters - perhaps a majority? - when they watch a candidates debate, they aren't interested in the details of a policy question, they simply want to hear a sound byte from each candidate, and then respond in a positive or negative way to the candidate's style and demeanor, and whether or not they "got" the other candidate(s) with a memorable zinger. If a candidate goes too deeply, that is, starts clicking on links to get more and more into the topic, voters probably start to nod off, roll their eyes, look at their smartphone.....you get the idea. 

In this year's Democratic candidate debates, I hear and read criticisms of Sen. Sanders that "he doesn't have any policies; he never gets into the details; he doesn't go into how he will accomplish all the things (visions) he keeps spouting off about." And from Sec. Clinton supporters I hear that "she really knows her stuff; she has the details; she actually has policies and talks about them." I assume, and I would be surprised if I'm wrong, that the Sanders campaign strategy for the debates is to be more like Facebook, and less like a real policy and details debate. They know that voters, particularly younger people, are social media users, and will likely respond better to scrolling through the issues than stopping and doing a lot of clicking. 

I spend more time on Facebook than maybe I should. One reason is that I do a lot of clicking. Some of my FB friends post very interesting things, and I take the time to read articles, watch extensive interviews, etc. I have watched a number of the debates (both Dem and Rep), but I don't count on learning very much from those. And so I have spent time clicking around and reading the details on the Sanders and Clinton websites. The policy and issue details are there, if anyone cares to actually look for and read them. 

One other comment about the Facebook analogy - the Republican debates. These so-called debates are also very much like Facebook. Few, if any of the "posts," i.e. candidate statements, get into the details - a lot of it is meant to be adorable puppy dog and kitty cat pictures. Although, very little of it is what I would call adorable! And then there is also the on-line ALL-CAP shouting, WITH DONALD TRUMP LEADING THE WAY WITH INSULTS, SHOUTS OF "YOU'RE A LIAR," SHOUTS OF FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER (THE MEXICANS/ARABS/MUSLIMS/TERRORISTS ARE COMING TO KILL US AND RAPE OUR WOMEN AND TAKE ALL OF OUR JOBS!!!!) 

I don't expect the typical American voter to look for the details, to do a lot of clicking deeper and deeper into a policy topic. Maybe I'm wrong - I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so. I think many of my friends and relatives do look more deeply into issues; however, my circle likely encompasses people who are by nature more intellectually curious than the average American voter. (Maybe I'm being a progressive snob here - I would like to know if I am.) 

---

WHY I'LL VOTE FOR BERNIE.

I’m going to use this post to explain why I will vote for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. Keep in mind that, as a progressive-realist and pragmatist, I will vote in the general election for whichever candidate is the nominee for the Democratic Party. This vote will not be because I always and only vote Democrat, but because every one of the Republic candidates at this time would be the worst of all possible choices. 

With the above caveat, here is my reasoning about Senator Sanders. I have posted twice before about Bernie, and here are those links if you missed them or want to refresh: Part 1 and Part 2. 

I am, and have been for a very long time, a socialist. Perhaps I am a Democratic Socialist, as is Bernie. If that means that I’m not a flaming, radical revolutionary intent on bringing down capitalism and the US government as we know it, then yeah, that’s it. I don’t see socialism and capitalism as mutually exclusive, in the way the old-style Communists did. I am also a capitalist, in the sense that I have owned a business that made profits, I have money invested in the stock market, and so on. I don’t see these two political and economic ideologies as mutually exclusive. I do understand the dangers inherent in pure capitalism as well as in pure socialism. I also know that there are good forms of both, and in a sense, there is a blend that can work in positive ways. (The B corporation movement is a good example of this.) 

I identify very closely with who Bernie Sanders is, what Bernie says, and what Bernie stands for. I know Bernie, not that I have ever met him, but because his origins and identity are so similar to mine. But more importantly, what Bernie stands for are the same things I stand for. 

This election will be the only election in my voting life, past and future, in which a self-described socialist is a contender for the nomination of one of the two major political parties in the United States. And Bernie has a chance to be the Democratic Party nominee. 

Anyone who says Bernie has no chance to be the nominee has not been paying attention. Anyone who says Bernie can’t win the election against the Republican nominee has not been paying attention. Anyone who thinks Bernie doesn’t have enough experience to be President should look at his record, and maybe compare it to that of Barack Obama when he was a candidate for President. 

The main reason, however, that I will vote for Bernie is that I think the 2016 election might be the last shot we have in the United States to swing our political system to a better direction. The big problems of our time are directly related to the huge inequality of income and wealth distribution, and the tremendous grip the wealthy and the corporate world have on our political system. This inequality and oligarchic control have led the United States down the path of government for the few instead of the many, with dire consequences for the vast majority of our population. No candidate for the 2016 election other than Bernie Sanders has a campaign based on this political and economic reality (and we don’t expect any Republican candidate to ever have that position!). Hillary Clinton has moved in that direction out of necessity in order to try to stand toe-to-toe with Bernie, but her movement in his direction is simply campaign rhetoric, not born of her political history. 

I am concerned that President Sanders will have trouble with Congress. In addition to the same trouble President Obama has dealt with for the past seven years, President Sanders will potentially have a new set of problems within his own party. As a Democratic Socialist, President Sanders will not have a Democratic Socialist Party behind him, and he will need to rely on the support of the Democratic Party. The big question is: will the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate get onboard with the ideas and programs of President Sanders? This remains to be seen.

Some of you will now be thinking: “This last statement by Fishman is the best reason to vote for Clinton, because the Democrats will certainly be behind her all the way!” Well, yes, many Democrats might be more aligned with Hillary’s brand of politics than with Bernies, but this is a big reason to vote for Bernie! Look at it this way; a vote for Clinton is a vote for business as usual, and look where business-as-usual has taken us. I am not convinced that President Hillary Clinton will move us in the direction we need to move if we have any hope to drastically change how this country works. I do have hope that President Bernie Sanders will give it his very best to radically change how this country works. And that, in my opinion, is our best chance.

I wrote a post here in June, 2005 titled: “Now is it time for the Revolution?”  I was reacting to the first four years of Cheney/Bush, but that question is perhaps even more germane now. I’m serious - we are in very deep shit, and it’s getting deeper every day. The levels of hate, fear, distrust and anger in the United States are palpable; the divide between us is possibly wider than ever before. And now so many of us are armed to the teeth! 

I don’t expect to change any minds with this post. If you are reading these words, it means you read this far, and at best you will give it some thought. Thanks for getting here. And please vote, no matter who your candidate might be. 

—-

A MESSAGE TO THOSE GOOD OLD BOYS

A Message to those Good Old Boys

The good old boys, with guns and bluster, have liberated the land for the people.

The good old boys, with righteous patriotic rhetoric, have dealt a blow to over-reaching government.

And the good old boys, with snicker bars and vanilla creamer, have defended the constitution.

The only problem is, the good old boys are wrong.

The people already own the land these squatters have liberated.

The government manages that land to benefit everyone, including the neighbors.

And the Constitution of the United States is just fine without those good old boys.

The Bundy Bunch are criminals, not patriots.

The Bundy Bandits are outsiders meddling in other peoples business. 

The Bundy Bozos are a three-ring circus with no cotton candy.

Just who do you good old boys think you are?

The National Wildlife Refuge was established to protect the land and wildlife from people like you.

Real ranchers and farmers want you to go away so they can get back to important things.

How can we, the people, help you back to the real world, instead of your fantasy video game?

What will you do when I show up at the gate?

What will you do when I demand that you give me back my land; the land my government manages for me?

What will you do when I bring 500 people with me who also demand you return their land to them?

Are you ready to kill us? 

You want a cause to fight for? There are so many.

But the fight you have started is not one of them.

How about Black Lives Matter? Because they do.

How about feeding hungry children? Because there are so many in our united states.

How about ending the epidemic of deaths and injuries by guns? Because more than 30,000 lives every year is way too many.

How about lifting people up from poverty? Giving every person a place to live? Ending hatred and bigotry? Spreading good?

Not your problem. Too busy defending everyone from the Boogeyman. Such self importance is a heavy burden to bear! 

So pack it up, good old boys.

You said your piece. You got your two weeks of media attention. Now you need to go away.

And when you pack it up, be sure to take your vanilla coffee creamer; they might not have any for you in prison.

p. fishman - january 2016

MILITIA ACTION IN OREGON: LET'S BE THOUGHTFUL

The internet is buzzing with commentary about the self-styled militia that has taken over the office of a national wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon. In my opinion, we need to be thoughtful, and careful about what we say.

There are two popular themes I want to discuss: are these folks terrorists, and is the non-response by the authorities racist? 

The terrorist question is perhaps the easier of the two, and the one in which my peril of being accused of not being politically correct enough is less. Based on definitions I found on a FBI website, I think the action of these people is terrorism, specifically domestic terrorism. Here is the definition (footnote a):

Definitions

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). 

The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives

Seems very clear to me that these folks are committing an act of domestic terrorism.  I do not, however, agree with those who are lumping these people with the likes of ISIS, Al Queda or other terror groups who are in the news all the time. The armed people in eastern Oregon have not beheaded, raped, crucified, murdered, tortured anyone. I think they have threatened violence if the authorities try to remove them from the federal property. 

So in my opinion, we should be careful not to get too carried away with the moniker of terrorist for these people, and instead talk about how their action is classified. Unfortunately, when most of us hear the word “terrorist” we immediately think of radical Islamists. There have always been terrorists in the United States, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nation, but only recently have they been associated with ISIS or other radical Islamist groups. 

Now let’s move on to the question of racism. I, like many others on the various social media, have had thoughts and have made comments about the assumption that, if these militia people were Blacks or Muslims, they might all be dead or in jail by now. We see too many instances where people of color and people who are Muslim are immediately suspect if they have a weapon. The fact that a SWAT Team or anti-terrorist force or any other heavily armed law enforcement personnel have not shown up at the wildlife refuge begs the racism question. 

But is the non-response really racist? Well, in my opinion, I say a qualified no. Let’s keep in mind that these armed people have taken over a small federal building in the middle of, well, nowhere. I only say “nowhere” because the vast majority of people have absolutely no idea where the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is located. It is rural - very, very rural. 

Here is a google earth view, including an insert of the building that has been taken over. 

This is not the middle of a dense urban neighborhood. These armed people pose no danger to anyone, because there isn’t anyone anywhere near them. The building they have taken over had no people in it because it was closed for the weekend. I doubt that the Harney County Sheriff Department has a SWAT Team, or anything like it. Harney County has a land area of 10,226 square miles, and a population of 7,146 people. Cattle outnumber people in the county by 14 to 1. The County Sheriff website has a page for “Sheriff’s Posse;” however, it only lists the contact information for the Sheriff. 

Comparing the “non-response” at Malheur to the immediate and heavily militarized responses we see when there is a gunman or a mass shooting in an urban area is apples and oranges (people and cattle?). I also think that saying there would be an immediate and heavily armed response if these folks were African American, or Muslim is, for this situation, without a basis. 

The Sheriff and others have commented that a number of agencies are working together on a strategy to deal with these self-styled militia folk. They have told people to stay away from the wildlife refuge. This could play out in a number of ways, including a violent confrontation. However it ends, I think the people involved in the takeover will be arrested, at least those who are alive, and charged with any number of crimes. 

Earlier I wrote that my opinion on the question of racism is a “qualified no.” Let me explain. I know that there is a deep current of racism in my country, the United States of America. There are racist people, and many of our institutions and systems are racist in practice. This is not a surprise to most people who read the news and news analyses. 

I think it is too early to find any racial undertones in the response (non-response) of the local authorities. But this situation should be watched carefully by all of us to see how it develops, and whether or not we think the eventual actions of the various government authorities are different because the militia are a bunch of good-old white boys. 

These are my thoughts; what do you think?

Footnotes:

a. Source:  https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

GUNS, MILITIAS, REVOLTS - OH MY!

So many juicy topics to choose from today. So let’s combine a couple of related topics about guns and militiamen/women and the concept of revolt in the USA. Sounds like fun.

I often post provocative things on Facebook and this blog. Yesterday I posted one item about guns, and another about the takeover, by self-described militia, of a federal Wildlife Refuge headquarter building (kind-of a small house) in eastern Oregon. These are related topics. 

First, the question I posed about guns. I read about, and once witnessed people who walk around in public places carrying loaded semi-automatic rifles as a demonstration of their Second Amendment right to bear arms (this is in states where open carry is legal). The legal question I posed was this: if I witness these people, and I feel threatened and afraid for my safety, do I have the right to call the police and demand that they make the gun-toters leave? This is an especially relevant question today because of the recurring mass shootings by people with semi-automatic weapons. Yes, if it is legal, these folks have a right to openly carry weapons; however, given the climate of fear and apprehension in this country about mass shooters, isn’t this behavior the same as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire?  

I know what the gun rights crowd will say, but I think it is time for the gun control crowd to start exercising our right to feel safe in public places. I propose that any time we see people open carrying these kinds of weapons in a public place we call 911 and say that we feel unsafe and fear for our safety. 

Some of my FB friends have posted another thought I’ve had: what if the gun-toters happen to be African American? And I will add, what if they are Muslim, with beards, dressed in long gowns and skull caps (to be very obviously Muslim), and demonstrating their Second Amendment right? Think about it, in America, a group of white guys dressed in military garb and carrying semi-automatic weapons walking around a park or mall or other public place vs. a group of obvious Muslims doing the same. Which ones do you think will end up dead very quickly? 

One of the examples of how this plays out along race lines in our history is when the Black Panthers decided to arm themselves. Gun ownership was legal, and they did not try to hide the fact that they had guns. The end of this was when the police raided Black Panther offices and homes, killed (murdered) some of them, and arrested many. 

So now let’s get to the insurrection in eastern Oregon. The quick summary is that there was a demonstration in Burns, Oregon about father and son ranchers who were convicted of arson for setting at least two areas of federal range land on fire. This is a federal crime, and they were sentenced to 5 years in prison. The men announced that they would show up Monday to start their prison terms, but anti-government types held a demonstration for the purpose of claiming that the federal government should stay out of local issues, should not own range and forest land, and etc. A small group of demonstrators - they claim to have about 150 people - then split off and took over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. You can easily find the video clips of these guys spouting off about taking the country back for the people, opening the Wildlife Refuge for grazing, farming, mining and other activities for the people, and etc. 

These guys (maybe some women, too) describe themselves as militia members, some of them dress in military clothing, they carry rifles and assault weapons and pistols - in other words, they are a group of armed people who have taken over government property. 

Obviously these people are violating numerous laws. I’m guessing that they are not violating any law about guns, just laws about their behavior, such as trespassing, threatening violence, etc. 

This is an interesting case to watch. Will these militiamen be considered terrorists, and be prosecuted as such? Keep in mind that they have made statements that they plan to stay where they are “for years” and will fight anyone who tries to get them out. This could become a lengthy stalemate in which the authorities try to starve them out rather than get into a gun battle with them. 

I think it is important to listen to the messages these folks put forward. They are very anti-government - federal government - and claim that America is off-track and needs to find it’s footing again. In their minds, the feds have taken away everything that they need to practice their form of livelihood; the feds own large acreage of range land, large areas of timber land, control mining activities. In other words, the natural resources in the USA should be open and available to anyone who wants to use them, with no regulation, no control by Big Government, no oversight of environmental quality, etc. 

AND, by god, they have a constitutional right to back up their message with their guns! 

Ah, Oregon, beautiful Oregon. A vast sea of rural conservatism with tiny islands (Portland, Eugene, a few others) of liberalism. 

And I can’t wait to hear what Trump, Cruz and the others have to say about this one! 

—-

Note: You might remember Clive Bundy, the Nevada rancher who started a standoff with federal officials. Well, his sons are the ring-leaders of the new Oregon Rebellion; and no, they do not live in Oregon.