The Oregon Business Association has made endorsements in 27 Oregon legislative races; among these, and somewhat unusually for a pro-business group. are eleven Democrats. A few of these make sense: picking Cheryl Myers, a small business owner & entrepreneur over Patrick Sheehan, handmaiden to Kevin Mannix and the Tea Party, demonstrates that the OBA is, if nothing else, not stupid. But for every Democrat endorsed, at least 2 Republicans get their nod. Not surprising for a “pro-business” organization. And while the OBA includes the membership of some major businesses with Democratic leanings — Sokol Blosser Winery and the Yoshida Group, to name two — and while those Dems who got the Association’s endorsement are pointing this out to voters, I think Dems need to be careful before they get too excited about this group. And I have two words of warning:

Paul Ryan.

Wisconsin Rep Ryan is, in the words of Paul Krugman, “the Republican Party’s poster child for new ideas thanks to his “Roadmap for America’s Future,” a plan for a major overhaul of federal spending and taxes.” Many are hailing Ryan for being an innovative thinker; the OBA, rather benignly, calls him a “GOP rising star” as it introduces him as the keynote speaker for their upcoming “Statesman Dinner”. Prof Krugman has a different name for Ryan:

The Flimflam Man.

Krugman reports that the “nonpartisan Tax Policy Center … finds that the Ryan plan would cut taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population in half, giving them 117 percent of the plan’s total tax cuts” — yet would raise taxes on the “lowest” 95% of taxpayers. This is, as Krugman puts it, the “audacity of dopes”. Ryan has found a new way to sell old nonsense: cut taxes for the wealthiest few while cutting government services, but not taxes, for those who are in the most dire need. Krugman sums it up thus: “The Ryan plan is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future.”

Thirty years ago, as a charismatic, born-again Christian, two philosophies waged a battle for my religious allegiance. I did not realize this at the time, nor did I realize that the “winning” philosophy would push me out of Christianity. That is a danger of allowing yourself to remain open to thought, and one of my hopes for the future of the world: that more and more people will open their minds to thought, rejecting dogmatism and the anti-human actions that result.

I am hoping that, like me, the human race will think its way out of religious slavery.

I became a Christian at 14, a response to the pain, loneliness and emptiness I was suffering as the result of my parents’ divorce and my own self-loathing and the resultant inability to make friends. The youth group at the First United Methodist Church in Billings, Montana, where I grew up, welcomed me in, accepted me wholly, and helped to realize my truest need in life: redemption in Christ.

Except, as it turned out, what I really needed was redemption in me. I hated myself, and being a Christian never fixed that. How could it? As a Christian you are taught that you, as you are born and as you live your human life, are fit for but one thing: Damnation. That’s as good as any human being not named “Jesus Christ” will ever be: demon food. Not a good formula for repairing shattered self-esteem. I eventually gave up on being a Christian, not through a decisive act of self-determination; no, being the self-hater I was, I just slid away and kept sliding. It took years to even begin trying to find another means to “salvation”. What I did find wasn’t the magic formula of being born again; it was just a simple acceptance of life as it is, a Zen realization that what is, is, and however I try to interpret, manipulate or undo that reality, I will fail.

Which doesn’t have a lot to do with the two philosophies of thirty years ago other than to jump to the (current) ending before recounting the beginning.

As a Christian in my early 20s, I read many books. Among these were works by Francis Schaeffer and “Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger” by Ronald Sider. Schaeffer was an uber-conservative who campaigned fiercely against many modern secular evils; he was most prominent for working with C. Everett Koop to attack abortion rights (Koop later became Reagan’s Surgeon General and was a massive disappointment to those who thought he’d use that office to attack abortion; instead he focused on cigarettes and, being a children’s surgeon, children’s health). Sider was, and is, a liberal evangelical (Schaeffer died in 1984). At the same that Schaeffer was warning me about the dangers of secularism, abortion and other modern aspects of sinfulness, Sider was laying out biblical principles about God’s demand (this wasn’t optional) to care for the poor.

Those were my choice. Fight the evils of the world or reach out to the world with compassion and love. There was no middle ground. In the Christian world, these were mutually exclusive views of evangelicalism, something I know that baffles non-Christians.

I interviewed a wonk from a think tank yesterday. Wonks have some advantages over politicians in their work, primarily that they can perform their jobs without considering the political aspects of what they study; ie, they aren’t running for office. They are free to examine data and formulate ideas without worrying about how many votes it would cost, in what ways would it stir an opponent and so on. The best wonks, of course, also consider those things but they can also step away into a more pure perspective and just look at the numbers.

And when you “just look at the numbers” you can, if you are willing, see options that the politicians may never view. Because you are looking at just a part of the world — the part that does not include everything involved in running for office — you can see a higher path forward. You can see the path that our better angels would tread. The path we wish our politicians would tread. You can, with a set of analyses and outcomes formulated without the fear factor that is political campaigning, see the right thing to do.

As did the policy wonk I spoke with yesterday. His suggestion is one I endorse: Let’s put forward repeals of Measure 5 and the kicker and make their proponents defend what they’ve done. Before M5, the property tax “burden” in Oregon was borne by businesses and corporations, which paid two-thirds of those taxes. Within a few years of passage of M5, it was homeowners who paid that two-third majority. Portland had a robust school system prior to M5 and the ability to make spending decisions because money, and therefore policy, was controlled locally. M5 took that away: funding and the ability to deal directly and productively with problems. M5 has been a boon for those with capital and it has wreaked havoc on everyone else in the state. Yet we never hear talk of its repeal. Why not? It was stupid in 1990, and it remains stupid today.

As the wonk said, make the the bad guys defend what they’ve done. To this I say, Hell yea.

Let’s start with the easy part.

On November 4, 2008, 7,001,084 Californians voted Yes on Proposition 8. This number matters not just because that meant Prop 8 passed, but because those who disagree with Judge Walker’s ruling invalidating the measure on constitutional grounds make the same argument over and over: “It’s not right for one judge to overturn the vote of 7 million Californians.” What these people never mention is the flip side of that vote: 6,401,482 Californians vote No on Prop 8. With 13.8 million votes cast, that’s a “winning” margin of less than 4.5%. Switch the vote of a little over 300,000 voters, and you have the opposite result.

That hardly constitutes an overwhelming mandate from the voters. It’s much closer to a split decision, especially with a voter turnout of 80% (and 340,000 voters who didn’t even mark a choice on the measure). To argue angrily that Judge Walker overturned the will of the voters is to stretch the truth of a single election beyond reasonable proportions. And given that polls since November 2008 indicate many of those who voted Yes now regret that vote, to argue the United States Constitution against an inconclusive ballot nearly two years prior is not a very bright rhetorical strategy.

Like that’s ever mattered at Fox, CNN or the rest of the mainstream media.

Let’s move to the less easy part, one that has less to do with facts.

But the facts don't support Walker's opinion. Throughout all of recorded history and across every continent on earth, the definition of marriage has always been a union between one man and one woman. It is society's recognition that marriage is unique among family arrangements. That's because it attaches mothers and fathers to their children and provides the framework for multigenerational family bonds.

That’s Michael White of the Oregon Family Council writing in the Oregonian. White is, of course, demonstrably wrong on these facts. While OMOW is indeed a wide-spread cultural norm, it has never been universal nor absolute. The variations are widespread, and include homosexuality, the raising of children by non-parents, societies run by matriarchs and societies where the rule is the dissolution of OMOW-based families on a regular, codified and socially accepted basis. The latter, of course, would be the United States with a divorce rate of over 50%.

White labels the judge’s decision a “campaign against marriage”. In fact, of course, Walker decision was against those who would limit, and therefore, weaken marriage. As Ted Olson, the uber-conservative lawyer who argued the case against Prop 8 in Judge Walker’s court told Fox’s Chris Matthews, the Supreme Court has on fourteen separate occasions determined marriage to be a fundamental right that cannot be limited on arbitrary bases such as skin color, religion and now, at last, sexual orientation.

I missed this story when it ran in the Oregonian; I read it this morning when the writer, Brent Hunsperger, quoted from a comment posted by a business owner saying she paid as much in credit card swipe fees as she did in health care costs for 160 employees.

That’s a statement to get your attention.

Unless you totally ignored the the health care debate, you know that rising costs have done as much as anything, apart from the vile behavior of the banks, to undermine the economy. One of the reasons the Obama health care plan, inadequate as it is, was so important is that it was the first step — ever — to change the destructive force of health care costs (and remember: it’s not the care that is so costly but the insurance, and having the latter is no guarantee you’ll receive the former). We still need a public option (hell, we need single payer) among other reforms not accomplished, but at least we’ve set the precedent: our government will act to bring down health care costs.

So if a business finds the costs of using credit and debit cards to be as high as health care, responsible citizens need to stop and take account. Especially health care activists. There are two reasons to right for health care reform: the destructive effect on the economy and the injustice of money being a barrier to what should be a basic human right.

The credit card fee issue is no different. According a study by the Fed, as quoted in Hunsperger’s article (and not everything the Fed does is an evil designed to give more power to banks), “rewards” cards are paid for by increased costs in products, and those costs are paid for by low-income consumers who get pay the increased costs yet do not receive any rewards or other benefits. What good does it do to rack up frequent flyer miles if you can’t afford to use them? There’s no such thing as free. The rewards are like the old Christmas Club accounts: the bank convinces you to open an account, they get your money and you get an interest rate below the normal savings account level.

Sucker.

Why anyone would take these offers at face value is beyond me. Reward cards are sold by banks to make money. If you think you are “earning” something for your card, you’re not. You’re agreeing to paying more for the products you purchase. You’re agreeing to having merchants shelling out huge amounts of their gross receipts, and sending it to out-of-state banks, so that you can save the extra one or two minutes it would take to write a check. But the facts show one thing very clearly: the time you save isn’t worth it. It’s just another concession to the power of the banks.

Recently, thousands of Americans joined in the campaign to quit their banks and join a credit union or community bank. The goal is a good one: take away the only thing that matters to the big banks: money. If you are one of those who realized joining a credit union makes sense — and it does; I belong to Unitus and under circumstances where a big bank would have jacked me tons of money, they have given me assistance and let me keep my own money — it’s time to take the next step: save the cards for real emergencies, not for making it easier to buy that latté or your groceries. Carry cash and a credit card, spend an extra minute, and fight back.

You hate the banks? Then put your money where your mouth is. Put away the cards. Or is convenience more important to you than gaining liberty from the banking cabal?

July 29. I’m starting this draft sitting in the gallery of Portland City Hall. In 20 minutes, the Council will receive public testimony on the report of the West Hayden Island Community Working Group. Following that, they will vote on Mayor Adams’ proposal to have the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability prepare a report on the feasibility of development of a single marine terminal on the island and the preservation of 500 acres of habitat. It’s a difficult issue, with concerns about jobs, the economy and the environment all needing thoughtful, responsible consideration.

So of course we are going to have a battle of over two competing either/or scenarios. Zero-sum politics.

The unions are here, several dozen workers all wearing stickers that say, simply, JOBS. For the unions, it is that simple. Understandably so. The economy has yet to recover, unemployment is awful, and any source of jobs is welcome. It’s the same mindset that leads the Oregon AFL-CIO and other trade unions to be major supporters of the biggest possible Columbia River bridge project. 12 lanes equals maximum jobs. Union leadership sees its only responsibility to the membership, and, for them, that means: what can we do to get the most jobs?

Opposing labor, hammer and tongs I’m sure, are environmentalists. The fragile nature of West Hayden Island, and what they say is an unproven case for the need for industrial development on the island, is leading them to oppose any development. They’d be happy for another 10 years of no-decision, leaving the habitat to its own devices. For them, even the smallest possible terminal development, which is pretty much what the Mayor is proposing for study, is too big.

There will be no common ground found between the two sides this evening. You don’t need a degree in political science or a crystal ball to figure that out. This is a public hearing and, as the old saw goes, these are attending by the “angry and the activist”. This is not a forum for discussion, debate and deliberation. If allowed, each side would try to shout down the other. [At the beginning, Mayor Adams forbid clapping, booing, even murmuring; he didn’t want anyone planning to speak to feel intimidated. I get the feeling he’s been through this before.] Given that the Council will pass the resolution, the no-development enviros are going to leave angry, cynical and ready for a longer fight. And given that the resolution does not commit the City to anything beyond studying a single terminal, the union folk are not going to be happy either; they will also leave in a bad mood, albeit less so than the “enemy”. [As it turned out, the hearing went over 3 hours so everyone left exhausted. Or early.]

Zero-sum politics.

Jeff Mapes reported in yesterday’s Oregonian on a business roundtable held by GOP candidate Chris “The Vacation Man” Dudley. While Mapes focused on Dudley’s avoidance of controversial policy initiatives, it was the nature of two of those suggestions that should raise a big red flag for Oregon workers:

Qwest Oregon President Judy Peppler complained that Oregon's family leave law is more expansive than in most other states and that this has discouraged some call centers from locating here. And Connie Hunt, a former chairwoman of the Oregon Restaurant Association, said restaurateurs should be able to count a portion of tips toward the minimum wage, as is allowed in most other states.

Dudley, as usual, ran from taking a stand on these issues, just as he did on the sales tax (John Kitzhaber, on the other hand, said earlier he would be open to looking at the sales tax — again — something one business leader told Dudley was necessary to drive down Oregon’s high income tax and attract new business.) But the promotion of these two ideas by two of the state’s more powerful business leaders is very troubling. We cannot allow the recession and on-going economic difficulties to be used as an excuse to roll back the rights of Oregon’s workers.

Minimum wage workers depend on tips to take their earnings from hand-to-mouth to almost livable. While Oregon may have one of the nation’s higher minimum wages, it’s still not a lot of money ($8.40 per hour — before taxes). In a city like Portland, with its high cost of living (average price of an apartment is nearly $800 a month), the minimum falls short of the true minimum needed for living — unless we think it is acceptable to tell those workers all they are entitled to is a crappy studio apartment in a bad part of the city while eating cheap food and putting nothing into savings.

Stealing part of their tips just to save the business owner money is more than just an insult. Hunt should be ashamed to make such a suggestion, but the Oregon Restaurant Association has never been a proponent of the public good. They also have a track record of being wrong on their fear-based predictions, too, as when claiming cost-of-living adjustments to the minimum wage (2002’s Measure 25) would lead to escalations in restaurant prices; it did not.

The attack on Oregon’s family leave law is especially heinous, but Qwest is that kind of company. Oregon’s family leave law may be more generous than some states, but it’s still not good enough. Sen Diane Rosenbaum will be re-introducing her paid family leave act in the 2011 session, and Oregonians who care about families, children and working parents should fight back against fear-mongering and corporate self-interest to support this law which should have been passed in 2009. Like the minimum wage, or child labor laws and other humane workers rights, paid family leave is essential not only for a strong work force but a strong community — and those two are necessary to grow a strong economy.

Paid family leave and the minimum wage are not expenses that hurt business. They are investments in people that lead to a strong society and a thriving economy.

From Western Horseman Magazine, August 2010, page 59:

“People get to a point where they’re just pestering the horse,” he says. “The horse gets confused about what he’s being asked to do, and stops responding as the rider expects. The rider gets after the horse, and a fight starts.”

To counter that tendency to overdrill, [Montana horse trainer Jon] Ensign encourages his students to set aside overly ambitious goals for each ride and instead emphasize small steps — little victories that can build upon on another. This approach, he says, helps ensure that a horse has adequate time to mentally process new experiences, and helps a student learn to recognize the best possible moments to stop work on a maneuver and either move on to a new challenge or call it a day.

“As humans, we’re greedy. We always want more, Ensign says. “If we could take our human tendencies out of this and see things from the horse’s side, progress in the saddle would come easier.”

…

The manaña principle … tomorrow (manaña) always holds the promise of further progress.

Manaña. Not just tomorrow, but an indefinite tomorrow, somewhere down the road. Jimmy Buffett put it this way:

Please don't say manaña if you don't mean it
I have heard those words for so very long
Don't try to describe the ocean if you've never seen it
Don't ever forget that you just may wind up being wrong.

Capt Buffett and the horseman are addressing different issues — being a friend and training horses — but at the heart is the same principle, one that we progressives need to take to heart: The whole world is not wrapped up in today. And the more we invest in making today The Most Important Day in the History of Forever and Ever, the less we’ll accomplish and the more angry, bitter and hopeless we’ll become.

And the more we’ll piss off and alienate the people who don’t agree with us. That’s a lot of people.

Manaña. Do what you can today, be honest about your commitment for tomorrow, and let today go with the setting sun. This day, this opportunity, is not your last. That noise telling you it is? That’s you screaming at yourself that you have to get everything fixed today or the world will end.

(The Buddha would add that you can’t tell the world what it needs to be anyway, today or tomorrow; it is what it is, regardless of your demands.)

Progressives hate hate hate incrementalism. Of all the sins of neo/liberalism, the small-step-by-small-step approach to government is among the worst. Incrementalism, in the eyes of the more fanatic, is a sellout to the forces of evil, a perpetuation of institutions and practices of injustice and inhumanity that bring death and suffering to millions. Put that way, of course, not doing everything we can do right now makes us accomplices in these crimes against humanity. But that’s not how the world is actually functioning, even for those on the side of the angels.

Take the issue of civil rights for GLBTQ Americans. For many of us, this is a no-brainer: any law, regulation or sanctioned practice that condones or enables restrictions on those rights is wrong. Period. No discussion. The inability of gays and lesbians to marry in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples? There is no justification for that. We must end that and other injustices.

But when? Today, of course, is the blithe and heart-felt answer. The response to that, of course, is how? What are you going to do today to change the laws? If injustice has to end immediately, then what can be done to make the change immediate? In this case, the answer is pretty simple: Nothing. In Oregon, an election will be needed to overturn Measure 36, but this won’t see the ballot for two more years. Even if it passes, it only resolves the issue in Oregon. Federal law still blocks the recognition of “gay” marriage across state borders and by the U.S. government.

Got a plan to change that immediately? Yea, I didn’t think so.

We have an over-abundance of issues requiring immediate resolution for the sake of justice, peace, even the planet’s survival. I do not want to be the one telling people who are suffering as the result of laws, institutions or proscribed practices that their condition does not warrant the immediate marshaling of all possible forces to make the necessary changes today. “You must continue to suffer while we craft careful changes to law and implement them bit by bit.” That sounds as horrible as it would be.

And that’s exactly what incrementalism is not.

Chris Dudley’s gotten himself into a bit of hot water by hiding the dual purpose of his family “vacation” — skipping a major debate with John Kitzhaber by saying he had a family vacation planned when, in truth, the vacation itself was planned to allow him to attend the Republican Governors Association meeting in Colorado. While most Oregonians are probably paying little attention to the matter — I can hear the moans of “ick. politics!” around the state — this really is more important than “politics”.

Unless, of course, you don’t care if the next governor is someone whose word you can trust.

Many commenters have noted that if Dudley had been upfront, said he was skipping the debate to combine a family vacation with a major political event, everyone would have been fine with that. The publishers, whose debate he skipped, would still have been ticked off, but the realities of a campaign’s requirements would have tempered that. Unfortunately, Dudley decided he wasn’t going to bother to tell anyone about the political event part of his vacation.

Because, of course, there was no way anyone back in Oregon would ever find out what he was doing in Colorado.

Oh dear. In addition to distrustful of Oregonians, it looks like “dumb” needs to be added to the list of Dudley’s sins here.

What is troubling is how unnecessary this was. If he had just gone on vacation and done the Governors’ event at the same time, no one would have cared. But by using a “family vacation” as cover for the political event, he demonstrated a variety of disrepects for numerous people. Whether or not voters care about that debate, and I’m guessing precious few did, that Dudley felt it was acceptable or necessary to deceive people this way is shameful. Yes, it was a relatively small deception given the nature of what many politicians have done. But deceit it was.

A lie, in fact.

This was not a white lie, either, the kind you tell for ethically sound reasons. This was a lie told to deceive. Though less reprehensible, it is exactly the same kind of lie Sam Adams told when the Breedlove scandal first reared its ugly head. Dishonesty is not measured in black-and-white absolutes. The difference between Dudley’s and Adams’ lies is in magnitude, not in substance. Lies told for selfish reasons are vivid displays of a person’s character. And while no one will call for Dudley to set aside his nomination for governor, the likelihood is that this will cost him votes.

It should.

Policy and politics aside, Oregon needs a governor who will tell hard truths, no matter the cost he may face. John Kitzhaber has been doing that throughout his campaign; he hasn’t ducked the tough challenges, even leaving open the possibility of another go at a sales tax. He’s traveled the state, meeting and talking with thousands of citizens, answering their questions to the best of his ability. I’ve seen him do this, at the very least giving an ear to the complaints and concerns of citizens who manage to corner him at an event. He’s told the state up-front: You’re not going to like what we need to do, but if you elect me, I’ll do whatever it takes to get the state back on course.

That’s another thing Chris Dudley has not been honest about, either. We know almost nothing about what he might do as governor. He’s as empty of substantive policy proposals as he is on vacation and travel plans. If we cannot take his words about how he’s spending a weekend, how can we trust his word on his policy plans?

Simply put, we can’t.