Weakly To Weekly

There has been self indulgent back patting sessions at the Daily Astorian and the East Oregon Publishing Company over their series on climate change and the environment. It seems disingenuous for a business that uses gross amounts of pulp, fuel and natural resources to call all the other kettles black. If the Daily Astorian wanted to walk the walk they should reduce their newspaper to a weekly publication. Consider all the paper they use and all the fuel they use to distribute this paper five days a week. This came to mind after looking at the Daily Astorian the other day. There was local news on the front page, maybe 1/10th of page 2 had any local content, 1/3 of page 3 had local content, and page 11 had 80% news. Summing it up there was slightly more than two pages of local news of which one quarter was fluff. I recently read through a copy of the Chinook Observer, a weekly paper which is owned by the same company as the Daily Astorian. This paper had substance and a good professional look about. It contained a weeks worth of news which seemed much more substantial than the Astorian and its scant daily effort even when all five days are combined. The Astorian can counter and say their readers need the news on a daily basis, where in actuality it is the Astorian that needs the daily ad revenue from five day a week publication. This paper is obsolete moments after they publish. Their online presence is more useful for up-to-the-moment news, though the effort of northcoastoregon.com, with a smaller staff and fewer resources out-scoops the local standard on a daily basis. The Astorian may also be afraid to disturb the steady stream of biased journalism and propaganda that they use to dictate their vision to the readers along with the manipulation they inflict upon the local political climate. The Daily Astorian will probably never reduce their production to save the environment or to put out a better publication. It is a shame. How long can they suffer a declining readership before they decide something needs to be changed?

Respectfully Submitted

Political blackmail has been discussed since there has been politics, essentially since man has begun living in tribes. Human relations, being what they are, power is hungered for often more than wealth. The meaning of wealth changes. Power is power and the weaker then human being is that seeks power the more often the tool that human will use is fear.

Much like an animal, the weak human has learned that fear is a tool that can be wielded by anyone of any stature, as long as one has no scruples. Just start our slow, using fear against the weak and defenseless, to get a feel for it. How far can you push people in fear before they they are cornered and lash out? What can you use to protect yourself against repercussions? Who do you look to as an ally (even if temporary)? Who do you target as an enemy? How long before you can take down bigger foe?

Using fear as a lever for respect is the way of the weak. The way of the strong is through earned. It is slow and often goes through a process of being earned and loosing it and being earned again. It is the hard road, where people misunderstand good intentions, where the percentage of failures far outweighs the percentage of successes. It is the way of those who, actually, are not striving to be respected, it is merely a bi-product of the life they are leading. It is what makes the good leaders.

Strong people earn respect not because they want it, nor see it as a tool to use to defeat an enemy, but as a natural part of life that is everyone’s just due. Strong people respect everyone. Low and high, poor and rich, minority and majority, all not only deserving of respect but also receiving it. Strong people do not say, “Everyone, except for …” They say, “Everyone, including …” Strong people look for a way for everyone, including the weak, to come out ahead, to prosper. Strong people know that a community is as strong as its weakest member and they don't rid of the weak, they help to make them strong.

As you put your pen to the ballot this weekend think about that. Do you vote for a weak person to lead, or a strong one? Do you vote for someone because of what they are against or because of what they are for? Do you vote because of fear or because of strength? Do you vote for someone to lead you into a future, or because they say they must guide you out of a past?

If there is only one name to vote for and you do not know the name, or if you do know it and know it to be that of a weak person, leave it blank. Let me repeat that. LEAVE IT BLANK. Do NOT write in any name. If the individual running for that position gets less votes than the number of ballots turned that is called an under vote and it sends a clear message to the candidate that ran that the people are not pleased with their conduct and they had better learn to do better as leaders and it sends a clear message to someone who was thinking of running for the position that they would have had a chance.

Use your ballot wisely, think about the future of the county. Tourist economy? Trade economy? Someone who is looking for a diverse economy? Should city folk run the county? Should the county have more say in the cities? Is the sheriff deserving of your vote, or of anyone’s vote? Do you know the judge? What do you know of that candidate for commissioner? Enough to vote for them? Leave it blank if you don’t know. Leave it blank if they didn’t convince you. Don’t vote out of fear. Vote for strength, not weakness.

One more thing, look at the ballots. See how many people are running unopposed? See how many get on water districts, fire districts, even some school districts completely unopposed? Now listen to the whining voice on the radio, complaining, complaining and complaining about this that and the other that is wrong, wrong, wrong with our cities and our county because of “cronyism” or the “good ole boy” system.

Remember these ballots, filled with all those people running unopposed. Cronyism and good ole boys? Or lack of people willing to put their names on ballots or on volunteer forms? Those whiners on the radio? Most have never run or volunteered. A few have tried one or two things and then dropped them because they didn’t get the instant respect they thought should be theirs.

The volunteers and elected officials that are there, year in and year out, are there because they did dare to put a name on the ballot or on a volunteer form despite nasty press and new, troublesome, ethics laws. They allowed themselves to be scrutinized by the media and now by you. Remember that much and vote for those who have EARNED respect, not those who have frightened you into giving it to them.

The Political Economy of Fear

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” wrote Benjamin Franklin. Attempting to gain security by sacrificing liberty is also a foolish action, is ACLU’s stance, because it only increases the potential for harm. A short while ago a very dangerous action took place right under the noses of the people of Clatsop County and very few chose to even blink.

Our United States Constitution guarantees each of us to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that we “shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The US Supreme Court (US v. Katz 389 US 347) has made it clear that this core privacy protection does cover government eavesdropping. The law takes account of the need for emergency surveillance but the need for quick action cannot be used as a rationale for going outside the law. FISA allows wiretapping without a court order in an emergency; the court must simply be notified within 72 hours. In cases of espionage. In cases of public safety. And always, at some point, public disclosure.

Ironically, in August of 2003 the City Council of Astoria, Oregon, became the 150th local government body in the U.S. and the eighth in Oregon to declare their city a ‘civil liberties safe zone.’ Astoria’s resolution directed Oregon’s delegation to U.S. Congress to work to repeal all laws that threaten civil liberties and requested the City Manager to instruct city employees to continue favoring practices and policies protecting rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

Even more ironic the very people who, so avidly and angrily, screamed for the Patriot Act to be renounced by our local governments cheered when a local agency revealed it had turned over a list of names of people to be interrogated by an Oregon Department of Justice (ODOJ) investigator not once but twice within the last year! But these people, these “lovers” of social justice, so hated the man being hounded they felt it was okay for his civil liberties to be violated. They not only looked the other way at this barbarous act they used its rancid drippings to inflame public sentiment against the man.

Numerous local media sources reported that an ODOJ agent had received a list of names of local people from the Sheriff specifically to interrogate regarding their interaction with one man. No media source could tell its readers who had filed the complaint nor what the complaint was regarding. The Department of Justice first denied an investigation had taken place and then said it wasn’t an investigation but merely an “inquiry”. It doesn’t matter what it was labeled, folks. The fact is the agent got a list of names of people to interrogate from one of our law enforcement agencies regarding a legal citizen and no one, apparently not even the citizen, to this day know why the agent was here! Despite the fact that the Department of Justice has stated that, “Someone asked us to investigate a complaint that proved to be unsubstantiated.”

Someone? Who??? No paper trail, even though state law says there must be one. How did the Sheriff know whose names to give to the agent? Apparently, no media thought to ask him. Think about it, if this were you. If you picked up the paper tomorrow and found out that the sheriff had given an agent a list of names of people to interrogate about you. Wouldn’t your first question be, “How come the SHERIFF has such a list?” Then the next question, “Who is charging me with what?” Personally, myself, I would be more worried about the sheriff having a ready made list of people to question about my associations, lifestyle and viewpoints that he promptly handed it over to another law enforcement agency and, apparently, there is no enforceable law to keep him from doing just that.

Oregon law states that no enforcement agency can collect or maintain information about the political, religious or social views, associations or actions of any individual, group, association, organization, corporation, business or partnership unless the information was collected in a criminal investigation or reasonable grounds exist to suppose that the person is involved in criminal activities. Not violations, not parking tickets, not a building code violation. Criminal activity as defined by law. The Sheriff has repeatedly stated that the commissioner was not being investigated by his department. Why hasn’t anyone asked the sheriff the obvious question: “Why did you have a list of people to give the DOJ agent?”

Where are the voices of outrage? Silenced. The attorneys in Clatsop County silently allow this to happen, frightened to speak or else be aligned (and maligned) with the commissioner who was thrown to the jackals? Where is the Astoria City Council now? Silenced. Afraid they will be the next to be “investigated” by one man, sitting in an office, with a direct line to the Attorney General’s office?

When you go, once again, to hear the orator recite Niemöller’s First They Came, can you honestly hold your head up high? What price did you pay for this recall? What price did you pay for the imagined “safety” of the river? What price did you pay for your silence?

It’s your fear now, bought and paid for. Own it.

The New Anger Movement

People have remarkable memories. Some memories and bitterness linger on for generations. Armenians to this day have strong dislike and or hate for the Turks. There have been factions in the Arab world who have a thousand plus years of hating their neighbors. The Jews have been the whipping post for generational hate as well. The French and the English have been at odds for years.

Closer to home, though World War II has been over sixty years, I still occasionally hear anti Japanese or German sentiment from Americans. Though slavery ended over a hundred and fifty years ago, there is still a residual bad feelings not only from relatives of the slaves that are six or seven generations removed from those horrors, but also from the relatives that are six or seven generations removed from the confederacy. The confederate flag is still flown with pride in many southern states in a pissed off defiance.

There is a generation who are still bitter that George Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, and they are bitter that he won the election four years later. There are people still bitter about Richard Nixon.

People carry the hurts and the scars of their childhood right up until the day they die. We carry anger for things that have happened to our families, friends and neighbors. Yet we wonder why election losers remain bitter. Every body is pissed off and it doesn’t go away when an election is over. Professional politicians say that they are able to shake it off and accept their loss, but somehow I think those polite days of politics are long over. Fanatical supporters carry the torch using the Internet as a weapon of slander and defamation. Failed campaigns take on a life of their own with the monsters that reside within the faithful. “Game over / move on” is a lost concept and has been replaced by spite, revenge and ill will that is sometimes carried to the grave.

This new unforgiving nature calls like a crow for a new field of psychology; political anger management psychological therapy. There are so many who are in need of this therapy. A key to the therapy would be to get the opposition to better understand any possible benefits of opposing proposals. One doesn’t need to embrace the concepts, but they should use reasoning to see that the concepts will do some good somewhere down the line as they were envisioned.

Polarization of a Community: Us vs Them

As one watches the destruction of one’s community the need to know who is at the core of it materializes. Who is it pulling the strings that is triggering this to all happen? Who benefits the most to have an elected official thrown out of office? Who benefits from public humiliation? Who benefits from the hatred dripping from once kind mouths that shriek at those who oppose their viewpoint? Who stands to benefit from spreading lies that someone’s a crook, someone else a thief, another corrupt? Who does their best work with lies, innuendo and gossip?

The process called polarization causes neutral parties to take sides in a conflict. Individuals on either side of the conflict take increasingly extreme positions that are more and more opposed to each other. As parties move toward these opposite "poles," they define themselves in terms of their opposition to a common enemy. Slowly at first and then more rapidly "distorted perceptions and simplified stereotypes emerge" while trust and respect diminish. Parties refuse to negotiate and assume more rigid positions.

Polarization is caused by a number of related psychological, sociological, and political processes. Damaging the relationship between the adversaries, as conflict escalates, is the emergence of enemy images and stereotypes. Important lines of communication and interaction that are normal to peaceful relationships are cut off, and trust diminishes. The more each party involved attributes their grievances to the other side, they more often they likely to reduce the number of non-conflictual relations and interactions that they have with the other party.

Adversaries become increasingly isolated from each other, and all inter-group communication is channeled through more antagonistic lenses. As the parties begin to have fewer and fewer ties to individuals from the other group, they begin to feel freer to employ more severe actions against that group. There is a tendency of the participants to “win” the bystanders to their side, often forcing people to chose with the "with us or against us" mentality, aggravating group isolation and polarization. The conflict intensifies as more people are drawn into the conflict.

Those who would normally urge moderation and attempt to mediate the conflict are recruited by participants in the controversy, and forced to take sides. The moderate position is not tolerated with their proponents ostracized at best, or seen as traitors to the cause at worst. Further segregation, as the process continues, results in relationships with outsiders becoming increasingly hostile and competitive.

The polarization of this community is heart wrenching. Watching once good friends turn their backs on one another, families raked over the coals, and people's reputations destroyed is more than a community should stand for. Smart, intelligent people allowing themselves to be led, to be pulled apart and destroy their own community. Who will be left standing? That’s what we should be asking ourselves.

What If?

What happens if they get their way?

Let us consider what will happen if CCFOG gets a toe hold in local politics. Let’s say they successfully unseat Richard Lee. They will demand and probably get someone to replace him who may appear moderate on the surface, but will pupate into a Commissioner they desire. They will then pursue removing Ann Samuelson, which they (CCFOG Members) have already started trying to remove her from the School Board in Jewell, thus tarnishing her accomplishments. Not that any accusations of any wrong doing have any basis in reality. It is a propaganda war where the first shot is often the one that is noticed most.

Riding this wave, momentum builds for Burr Allegaert, a major contributor to measure 4-123 and a member of CCFOG, who is running against Patricia Roberts in District 2. Candidate Dirk Rohne, known for a Josh supporter gets a bump in Knappa. After they take down Samuelson the finally go after Hazen.

This is the way it is mapped out, but they will accomplish what they want with a simple three to five majority on the Board. What happens next is that the stipend will be restored to Josh. Though his workload has dropped he will get more staff to not handle what they already don’t have. It will be a good day for the County Police as well.

Next, Scott Derickson will made very uncomfortable and he will probably be forced to seek employment else where. Though the BOCC is not an agency that should regulate or impede business they will throw up road blocks to stop all aspects of the LNG industry, which will land them in major trouble with the federal government and will be brought to court by the LNG industry, ending up wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal battles that they can not possibly win.

The planning department can continue making up their own policies on a whim and serve or not serve anyone they wish. If you hope for approval there will be a line for you to wait in to kiss the ring.

Joe Gamm will be given a courtesy office in the 800 Exchange Building and exclusive rights to the news. Forrester will be able to print anything he wants. If it's not true, he can make it true with a few phone calls. The people will be lulled into a false sense of security because the Daily Astorian will tell everyone that everything is OK.

The BOCC will once again enter the dark ages it was in under the Westbrook administration where the public had little say and little time in which to say it. Questions were never addressed and citizen concerns were ignored as per instructions of Blair Henningsgard the then council. You will hear the name Baghwaddi Podar again. A FOG of bitterness, revenge and retaliation will come over the county until the voters return to their senses in future elections.

This recall campaign is unreasonable and unacceptable. The charges against Lee are made by a group who has been out for Lees blood for a long time. Lee has not been charged or even investigated for any crime, though one of two people with the capability in the county did ask the DOJ to investigate and the Sheriff stated that he didn't do it.

There is a black hole at the center of these unreasonable spiral arms of this recall campaign. The spiral arms need to be careful not to be sucked into this black hole because if they ever want to be taken seriously in this county again, distance should be gained, quickly.

What Is Justice?

What concerns society is conduct, not opinion: if only our actions are just and good, it matters not a straw to others whether our opinions are mistaken.

Sir James Frazer, Psyche's Task [1909]

When Socrates is convicted of rejecting the gods of the city and corrupting the young he makes a compelling argument for justice. He explains why he must stay in prison and accept the death penalty, rather than escape and go into exile in another Greek city. He puts forth his idea that he has acquired an overwhelming obligation to obey the Laws of Athens because they have not only made his entire way of life possible it is to them he owes the fact of his existence. Through these Laws it made it possible for is father to marry his mother thereby making their children legitimate. Once born these same Laws required his father to care for and educate him. The way in which he flourished throughout his life has been due to these Laws.

What was most important to Socrates, though, was the fact that the relationship between the individual and the Law was not coerced. Once the individual had grown up and was able to judge for himself how the city conducted its business he could chose whether to stay or to take his property and leave. By staying this implied an agreement both to abide by the Laws as well as accepting the punishments that they mete out. This is a good description of an implicit contract, implied by his choice to stay in Athens even when he was free to leave it at any point. He determined that the Laws were just when he was flourishing. He felt he couldn’t now contend that the Laws were unjust when he was no longer flourishing.

When someone chooses to live somewhere with complete knowledge of the conditions under which they live and when they have complete freedom to leave, they have entered into the type of implied contract that Socrates felt he had entered into. A just man is, in Socrates' viewpoint, one who recognizes his obligation to the state by obeying its laws. Because the state is morally and politically the most fundamental entity it deserves the deepest respect and highest allegiance. Knowing this just men act accordingly. Socrates goes on to argue in another essay that justice is more than merely obeying laws in exchange that injustice won’t be done as a consequence. The just man has a well regulated soul which makes him a happy man. This leads to a win-win situation in which the individual is receiving a benefit (happiness) and society is receiving a benefit (just men who do not commit injustices). True justice is more than the simple reciprocal obedience to law. Justice begets just men which begets more justice.

Justice is a two pronged process. It is not just doing something merely for the expected recompense but something which requires the effort of well-regulating oneself. It goes beyond doing just things but truly being a just person. When one accepts to live somewhere, to do a specific job, and has the freedom to leave true justice requires not only abiding by the Laws of where one lives or works but in self regulation. One not only acts just, one is just.

This is justice. Obeying the Laws in of the place where you chose to live when you had the choice to leave and regulating yourself to be law-abiding. This combination leads to both happiness and justice. It is with just people we create a just society, we do not force a just society onto the people.