Sam Adams Boycott: The Weekend

Today I'm drinking beer. If plans go my way, I'll have a few. That'll compliment the few I had to celebrate the end of the week yesterday.

Yesterday, on Day 4 or the Boycott, I had some Bridgeport Blue Heron Pale Ale.

Today, I'll have some Hammerhead from McMenamins.

By the way, when the Boycott ends, when Sam Adams Beer does the right thing, I'll buy a sixer of that swill and drink it. Not all at once, but I will reward the corporation for doing the right thing.

Another by the way: Sam Adams Beer has brewed blends named after various patriots, including our first president, George Washington. Given their celebration of political types, they should feel honored to have a candidate, whom they were named after (if not in spirit, in time) who is doing his patriotic duty of serving his community (whether you agree with his politics or not, public service is, in and of itself, a noble quality). They should feel embiggened that Sam Adams, the candidate, is running for mayor of Portland, and they should do their part to support such endeavors, instead of quashing them.

Boston Brewing, and Sam Adams Beer, I call on you to honor America, and honor our political process, and honor the spirits of the very Founding Fathers whose names you yourselves take advantage of for your own pocketbooks. Cease and desist your ridiculous demands of Mark and Dave and Sam Adams to do the same. Immediately.

Sam Adams Beer: Watching Wikipedia

No, I don't think they're watching Wikipedia. At least, not yet.

I've checked to see if it has been updated with this recent flap yet. In this day and age, these sorts of things end up in all sorts of places. Given that, as the Mark & Dave website notes, this story is now an international sensation (I saw a Guardian story, from the UK paper, discussing it, and they also mention Pravda and some other international mentions), it would seem it's reached a legitimacy threshold where a Wikipedia update is in order.

Of course, I'm not good at Wikipedia. Otherwise I'd be inclined to do it myself.

Anyone interested in updating the Sam Adams Beer Wikipedia page in a clear and factual way to highlight the corporation's current shenanigans, and skilled in the Wiki mojo, is encouraged to do so here. If I did it, there'd be enough snotty editorializing that it probably would get removed post-haste...

Sam Adams Boycott, Day 4

The boycott's still on, people. Sam Adams has not yet acknowledged the legitimacy of Sam Adams.

I was sitting at breakfast with some lawyer friends today, discussing the boycott. The discussion on their part turned to the legitimacy of the action taken by Boston Brewing to protect their brand from dilution. Which is why, though I am a lawyer, I hate lawyers. We're too good at over-analyzing these simple issues and legitimizing bad arguments in our own minds. As the Boston Brewing Legal Department has demonstrated, lawyers have little in the way of common sense most of the time.

Boston Brewing is stupid, and is acting like the typical middle school bully hitting up all the smaller kids for lunch money. The bully doesn't need the lunch money, has no really logical reason why the kid who was given said money by their parents shouldn't get to use it, and only does what he does because he's gotten used to being able to run roughshod over the other children on the schoolground. Like that bully, Boston Brewing, with a moment of gentle and serious introspection, would realize that it's an asshole and that, really, there's room in this world for a kid who was given lunch money by his mom and dad to use it legitimately to buy his own lunch, which in no conceivable way threatens the bully.

So, keep up the good work. And, by work, I mean continue to not drink crappy Sam Adams Beer, nor to give them your money, and make sure the word on the boycott spreads. I've been meaning to put up links to stuff going on related to this story and the protest, but I haven't been able to. Check the latest at Witigonen, which is keeping tabs of everything (including updated coverage, the online petition, and so on) and Mark and Dave's site, which is being updated everyday with new links.

Libertad! Keep the world free for people named Sam Adams to use their name in a website address!

Sam Adams, Damn the Man!

So I was perusing the boycott-related materials out there (the list grows, my friends), celebrating the fact that your's-truly leads all Google references for "boycott Sam Adams," and feeling good about things in general when I decided to see how things are going.

I poked on over to samadamsformayor.com to see if the guys had added anything new to the site, and was instead saddened to see this:





The boys haven't yet given up. However, this is very, very disconcerting. A corporate monolith has defeated free speech, or at least stifled it in the interim as justice gets figured out.


Chins up, Mark and Dave. And, my boycotting brethren and sistren, let this prod you on in your quest for truth, justice, and the American Way.


Damn Sam Adams (Beer). Damn the Man!

Sam Adams Boycott, Day 3

On day 3 of The Boycott. I doctored an image I found using GIS from boston.com.

Since you're discouraged from buying the beer in a misdirected act of protest, please use this picture to show your support for the protest of Boston Brewing Company and Sam Adams Beer.

Stand up for good ol' American values. Stand up for Sam Adams' right to use his own name for a mayoral campaign, and stand up for the principles represented by the real Sam Adams! Tell Sam Adams Beer to shove it.

(By the way, looking around at various websites discussing this little row, I've seen a lot of people mentioning that they already boycott Sam Adams Beer because it sucks. I suppose that's just as good a reason...)

Sam Adams Boycott, Day 2

The boycott is getting some play. From my usual peeps (like Jack) and from people I've never met.

Sweet.

Today I was considering buying a Sam Adams to photograph some sort of poetic-justice sort of destruction. Mark and Dave have been playing listeners dumping and flushing the stuff. I figure there are other creative ways to show your disdain.

But then I realized, a sale is a sale to good ol' Sam Adams (the beer). To buy a protest beer, even to destroy it, is to add to their coffers. And, damn it, I won't let them win that easy.

I call upon all boycotters to actually boycott. No protest beers to destroy. No nothing. Do not buy Sam Adams. If you have some, take it back and pull money back from their pockets. Tell your local store to please stop carrying it. Tell them you won't come back until they stop.

This is a serious boycott, people, born of a ridiculous and humurous circumstance. Even if you don't care for Sam Adams (the candidate), you must stand up against the tyranny of Sam Adams (the beer).

P.S. I say we sue them to drop the name of the famous patriot before they destroy his rich legacy with their weak brew...

Another Jailblazer Moment?

So, a bar fight, a broken arm, and a Blazer in the mix. What else is new?

So little, and yet so much. In a town where the Jailblazer name became a standard part of the lexicon (although most of us have managed to rip it out of our dictionary in the last year or two), news that a Portland Trail Blazer was in the midst of a bar fight is almost old.

Being that I've often talked about how Darius Miles, the Blazer in question, is a general piece, and how I want him gone, and how I think he's the last bad apple in the ol' rotten barrel, I'll note that this news story is exceptional mostly for how little it convinces me that Darius has done anything wrong.

In a bar, during a bar fight? For shame!!!

Now, I've had my issues in the past with Darius and bars and fights. Of course, those were strip clubs and fights that he had a less-tenuous connection with. But for heaven's sakes, people, this is a fight in a sports bar, where the only incriminating evidence is that Darius was there. It would be easy to jump the gun, but for the fact that I've been to sports bars where I've seen fights break out, and I wasn't involved.

Darius has hired an attorney, Steven Houze, which is setting off bells at Bojack, but means nothing to me. In these days, and given his reputation, hiring an attorney is a good idea, even if it's bad PR. I figure that, given Darius' a-holery in the past and his obvious knack for drawing unwelcome attention, a finger or two may end up getting pointed his way, and he very well may end up being some sort of person of interest. Being ready for that isn't a bad idea.

I don't know why PPB is making such a point of throwing dirt at Darius, other than he's an easy target. I still don't like him, and I still think he needs to go, but in this case I'm holding judgment until there's an actual finger pointing at him regarding some actual misconduct.

Boycott Sam Adams

Not the Commissioner, but the beer.

Personally, I don't often drink it. Not that it's swill. It's okay. But it's just not in my wheelhouse.

But I won't be drinking it again, due to the idiocy of their corporation.

Mark and Dave, the afternoon drive guys at KEX radio, recently registered a couple of domain names for Commissioner Sam as he runs for mayor of Portland. One is www.samadamsformayor.com, and the other is www.mayorsamadams.com .

All well and good, right? Well, it was all well and good until the Boston Brewing Company, owners of Sam Adams Beer, got wind of it. After hearing that the domain names had been purchased, they knee-jerked a reaction and fired off a cease-and-desist letter as fast as can be. If Mark and Dave don't give up the domain names by October 29, something ominous will apparently occur.

Better bloggers than me are all over this. You can check out Isaac Laquedem, Jack Bogdanski, and Betsy over at Metroblogs, among others. Isaac in particular notes that it appears that Sam Adams is arguably in a more legally actionable position than Adams for some sort of election law violation. It's ridiculous, of course, but not as ridiculous as a beer company getting all nutted up over a guy named Sam Adams, running for mayor (and likely to win), using his name as part of a web address. Any responsible IP lawyer would have looked into things before firing off the letter, and (as it seems that KEX's attorneys have talked to them to fill them in on the context) likely would have dropped the issue once some light was shed on their apparent confusion.

Just stupid. So I call on whoever sees this to boycott Sam Adams Beer for being un-American and generally ridiculous, for having no sense of humor, and for generally sucking. And, while you're at it, tell them they suck and that they should drop this idiotic issue before they get even more negative press than they're already getting from it.

Viva La Revolucion!

Man vs. Wild Update: The Truth Hurts

In a recent interview, Man vs. Wild's Bear Grylls acknowledged that life has been hard since word of his cheating ways (on his show) became prominent a few months back. He downplays the scandal, but acknowledges that adaptations have been, and are, being made to rectify the situation.

On another front, he lets us know that next season's episodes will be two hours, as opposed to one.

That, I think, is a bad move. One hour is just enough, two is too much.

Anyway, there's the latest. Although the magic is gone, and Survivorman has grown on me, I still like MvW better.

SOAP Notes

A continuation of the SOAP Notes series...

October 16, 2007
Malachi 3, 4; Psalm 148; Acts 5.

S: Malachi 3: 8-10
"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. "But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.

and

Acts 5:1-6
Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

O: Both of these verses initially are about tithing. The first is an apparent damnation from God against those who do not tithe, who “rob me” The second is an apparent threat; Ananias held back from God, and he was killed. Upon further review, though, the verses may be generally about tithing, and also about obedience, but the real point of the verses its to talk about faithfulness. Faithfulness in the sense that we do what we ought, and faithfulness in the sense that we be full of faith. So, the verses really are about being faithful, in a true way, and about what being faithful will yield.

A: “Will a man rob God?” I do. Constantly. I am not faithful to God in so many ways. In my time, in my money, in my words, in my deeds, and in my thoughts. The concept of the tithe is simple. We yield to God a portion of what He’s given us, not because we have to do it, but out of recognition for what we’ve been given by Him. God has given me everything I have. My family, my friends, my home, my job, my health, my humor, my smarts (to the extent I have any). And in recognition for what I’ve been given, what do I offer back? Do I offer Him a portion? Do I offer Him anything?

I am like Ananias. He knows his duty, and he acts as if he’s fulfilling it. He does what he does for a variety of reasons. To look good to men while also taking care of his own desires. To put up a front to God. I know Ananias’ thoughts. “Some is better than none. God should be happy for what I give Him.” It’s the thought I have after going to a church service, as I justify how I spend the rest of my week. It’s the thought I have after giving $5 to the poor, while I take the rest of my paycheck home and plan my next beer run.

It’s a thought that bleeds over into so much of my life. My friends should appreciate what attention I give them, because if I gave them none they’d suffer. My wife should appreciate me cooking once or twice a week, because I don’t have to and I know she’d cook if I didn’t. My work should appreciate me staying in through the lunch hour, because even though I spend much of my day lolli-gagging, I’m under no obligation to give them that particular hour of my day.

The tithe is absolutely about recognizing, loving, and obeying God. But in so many ways the tithe is about addressing our simple human weakness, our selfishness.

What would change if I tithed to God? If I invest, trusting in him, what I give will be returned to me greatly. And, I am confident, that would bleed over. I’d invest time into friends and family and be amazed at how our relationships bloomed and grew. I’d invest effort into my work and be amazed at how putting time in made the job easier to do, and more rewarding. I’d give money to the poor and not only see people delivered from horrible lives, but see people instead of parasites.

The tithe is about turning us outward, about teaching us the simple rule that proper attention leads to amazing rewards. God, in these verses, wants us to tithe and to honor Him. But, I believe, these verses are just as much a call to stop worrying about what we’re getting out of life, and instead to start giving to it.

P: God, thank You so much for what You give me. You have provided so much, and I’ve thanked You by hording my riches. While complaining that I should have more, I refuse to invest my money, my time, my happiness, my strength, and my love into the people and the world around me, and even less to I invest in You. Forgive me, and help me to act on this realization of my wrongs. Thank You that, even as I fail You, You still will reach out to me when I reach back to You. Thank You that You never tire of investing in me. Amen.

As Portland Loses DFZ's, Gresham Barely Uses Them.

Recently, I lamented Portland's recent decision to get rid of Drug Free Zones, which appears to have been done for dubious reasons and which is, in my opinion, a bad idea. It's a topic which, quite frankly, hasn't been discussed enough since the announcement. I really don't understand why. But I guess that's neither here nor there.

Now we learn that the City of Gresham, which adopted Portland-like Drug Free Zones in August of 2006, may lose their's for lack of use.

According to the Oregonian, in the past year that Gresham has had a Drug Free Zone which is primarily in its Rockwood area, drug citations in the area have dropped an overall 24 percent, and the exclusion authority given to officers has only been used about 10 percent of the time.

"That's unacceptable, " noted Gresham Mayor Shane Bemis. And he's right.

Having been intimately acquainted with the creation of the Gresham Drug Free Zone, I was able to watch closely as a now-departed Gresham Police sergeant and other members of the GPD staff did a ton of leg work, working with experienced folks associated with the Portland DFZ program (including the City Attorney's office, the DA's office, and PPB officers) to gather insight into the process for putting a zone in place, for details of how they were working in Portland, and for an idea of why they'd be a good thing for Gresham.

Once the idea of what to do took form, the next step was to figure out where it should be done. Numbers were crunched and diagrams of Gresham drug crime were created. Although I no longer have the info available in an on-line format, the visual diagram was described at the time by myself and others thusly:

If you imagine each drug crime in Gresham as a red dot, most of Gresham looks like a kid with a case of acne. The Central City area looks like a bad rash. And Rockwood looks like someone spilled a can of paint.

The Gresham Outlook offers the numbers behind the visual.

Rockwood had 116 drug possession arrests compared to 38, the highest number of arrests of the other four areas. Also, arrests for delivering drugs in the zone were 30 percent higher than the highest number of such arrests in the other four areas.

In fact, the total number of drug arrests in the zone was only slightly less than all drug arrests in the four other areas combined – 140 compared to 142.

The numbers supported a DFZ in Rockwood, and so organizers next had to hammer an actual proposal. While it was very clear that the Rockwood area in general, and the area surrounding Burnside from about 172nd to abot 192nd, was the area most in need of help, an initial DFZ was set up in a somewhat smaller area, where the core of the drug activity appeared to be.

The Gresham DFZ thus took on this shape:



Implementing the DFZ was about more than just getting the idea to create one, and then actually doing it, though. A great deal of time was spent on the part of various leaders in Gresham in getting members of the community to buy into the idea. They were presented at various neighborhood association meetings and other events with much of the information I shared with you in my Portland DFZ post, along with anecdotal information about how the zones would work in Gresham and why the whole city would benefit. What was shared with them is the same thing I think now.

Gresham is at a crossroads. It is at a point where it'll become the next great thing, or else it will simply recess into a long funk as Portland's poor neighbor to the east. So much of Gresham's future depends on the health of Rockwood. Rockwood is the gateway to Gresham. When people travel to Gresham, they (for the most part) pass through Rockwood. Their perceptions of Gresham are largely shaped by the image in their mind from the trek through that portal into town.

When I worked in Gresham, I often travelled through Rockwood, and my image of Gresham was negatively impacted. While I was there, I met a variety of great people in a lot of great areas who were doing a lot of great things working towards a great future. And, yet, Rockwood was what was in the back of my mind.

For Gresham to grow and to prosper, they need to be attractive to investors. Home-buyers and business owners and employers. And as long as they're contending with a Rockwood that resembles urban blight, they're facing an uphill battle.

Gresham's citizens in general appreciated this. Rockwood's residents, the people who stood to be most affected by the ordinance, also understood that cleaning up Rockwood would mean making their streets safer to live on. The vast majority of people I talked to had nothing but support for the idea of the DFZ.

And the police were asked to buy-in as well. I know for a fact that several presentations were made to officers to discuss the Drug Free Zone, what it was about, why it was a good thing, and how (roughly) it would work. Although I wasn't around much after it was implemented, I know there was planned training to teach the officers how to use it, how to issue exclusions, and how to use the new tool of the DFZ to make the area safer. And I knew a number of officers who professed excitement.

The DFZ was presented to the Gresham City Council in July of 2006. A month later, it was enacted. When presented with the idea, I recall Councillor Craddick responding with a "hallelujah."

In the aftermath of the passage of the ordinance, the local fishwrap shared optimism. The only pessimism voiced in the public paper was from a gentleman who didn't feel that Drug Free Zones were the answer, but instead zones "free of illegal aliens." As if methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs aren't blind to skin color.

Against this whole backdrop, then, I am saddened by how little has been done. According to the Gresham Outlook, only 7 people have been excluded from the zone since it's inception, despite 70 being arrested for qualifying offenses. And I'm more saddened to see such an apparent disregard for the tool. As I may have explained in the Portland PFZ post, and as is mentioned in the Outlook article, the initial statistical result in the Portland zones (which was expected in Rockwood) was a spike in drug arrests. This isn't because more drug crime is happening, but because police put an emphasis on the area in order to start excluding people. The fact that the arrest rate has not increased, but dropped by 50 percent, is very disheartening indeed.

Gresham Police Chief Carla Piluso writes the drop off as due to the police being "so doggone busy." Because Gresham Police are so under-staffed, she argues, they aren't able to take part in pro-active contacts which generate drug arrests, instead dealing reactively with calls for service from citizens in need.

I don't entirely buy that, given that most initial drug arrests stem from stops for other things, like thefts, burglaries, vandalism, disorderly conduct, drunk driving, and other such crimes. I'm willing to bet that those arrests haven't trailed off.

Further, enforcement is highest in the Drug Free Zone. More crimes are committed there, many of them on public property. People are arrested constantly for criminal trespass in parking lots at apartments, for disorderly conduct while drunk on the streets, for violation of Tri-Met exclusions at the MAX stop, and for all sorts of other crimes. For a majority of people, the first drug arrest is a result of a stop for some other behavior, as police either end up searching you as you're getting hand-cuffed, or else search people after gaining consent during the encounter. When more police are in the area (because it's the highest-crime area of the city) having more contacts with more people, the drug arrest rate should be going up. So something else must be going on.

Gresham Police is offering assurances of stronger action on the DFZ in the next few months, both to justify its continuation and to legitimize its prior inception. I have no doubt that the area needs a DFZ. I'm surprised to learn that the people aren't benefitting from the strong, decisive action of the City's leaders in providing it. And I hope that GPD officers can step up, so that unlike Portland, the citizens of Rockwood can benefit from the right tool for the right job in the right place.

Beavers the Big News, While Ducks Take Care of Business

Wow. The Beavers continue to be the Giant-Killers.

Last year, they knocked off #1 USC early in the season, turning a bad season into a good one and surprising, oh, I don't know, EVERYONE. Then, this year, they went into the Cal Bears game as firm underdogs, but underdogs who everyone knew to be wary about. And, again, they shocked a highly-ranked unbeaten, downing the #2 Bears 31-28 in one of those "I knew it would happen" "upsets" that noone saw coming, yet noone finds shocking.

OSU has loved playing spoiler. Let's look at what they've done the last few years to solidify their status as one of the sure-fire spoilers of the NCAA.

2007: Defeated #2, undefeated Cal 31-28.
2006: Defeated #1, undefeated USC 33-31.
2005: Defeated #18 Cal, 23-20
2004: Took #3 LSU to overtime before losing 22-21.

How any team looks past OSU confounds me. The Beavers may not be perennially ranked, but they are not a team to be taken lightly in any season.

Meanwhile, the Ducks avoided a rehash of last year, when they lost a heart-breaker to Cal and then went into a shame spiral, by coming off of a bye week to absolutely man-handle WSU by a final score of 53-7. This is one of those games where Oregon should've won, but every Ducks fan in the land was nervous because the Ducks of the last couple of seasons have had trouble pulling it together after a tough loss.

The game featured two players going down, WR Cameron Colvin (who's UO career is certainly done with a broken right ankle) and over-used backup RB Jeremiah Johnson, who suffered an ACL tear and is thus out for the season.

I don't think this spells the end for the Ducks. Colvin, who was highly-touted when he was signed to a promise sheet, has been sporadic at best for the Ducks. His highlight this season is a dropped ball leading to Oregon's shouldn't-have-happened loss to Cal (I don't believe in laying it all on one guy, but that play was a make-or-break for a team that needed that catch to survive).

JJ has been a stable performer, and appears to be the Duck's smash-mouth touchdown-type back. He's the back-up to lead RB Johnathan Stewart, who hasn't been used enough and who now will have the opportunity to highlight his talent more.

Neither loss is a good one, but the Ducks have the tools to succeed. A schedule that looked entirely winnable at this point now holds a little more intrigue, and probably one extra loss, but the Ducks will make a decent bowl for the first time in a few years. Maybe even the Rose Bowl.

And this is looking like a great year to score some Civil War tickets. Better get on it now...

Barack Obama, Domestic Terrorist

I'm a Republican.

More often than not, the Republican Party at least pretends to represent my views. I'm pro-life, sorta pro-death penalty (certainly an oxymoron), Christian, fiscally conservative, interested in low taxes and personal responsibility and smaller government, and so on.

Of course, more and more often I find that both parties are now essentially the same, except during campaign season when people try to move to the political poles to draw hard-line party votes, while at the same time making some sort of outlandish stand here or there to draw attention.

Anyway, Democratic Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama recently announced that he was no longer wearing an American flag lapel pin, saying essentially (as I understand it) that wearing the pin acted as some sort of faux patriotism and served as some sort of endorsement of America's post-9/11 actions. Or something like that.

I don't necessarily agree. I've known people who've worn American flag lapel pins for years (more than 6 of them) and do so as a symbol of their pride in our country, or because they find it stylish, or for all sorts of reasons. And I don't get the sense that wearing the pin now is any more an endorsement of our country's "War on Terror" than is a fireworks show on the Fourth of July. Both are displays of national pride, but they say nothing more than that.

But whatever. Everyone's free to have an opinion and to voice it. While I don't personally agree with Obama's reasoning, I think of him as a man of principle, and I believe that he believes what he's saying, and I respect him for acting on his beliefs and defending them in polite, articulate, and (poorly) reasoned discourse. He has an idea, he's sharing it in the marketplace of ideas, and that's all well and good.

On Friday I was watching Fox News at breakfast with some friends, and there was a discussion of this topic between a couple of talking heads. Some red-faced uber-conservative felt the need to accuse Obama of being a "domestic terrorist" for the stance he was taking, as he was undermining America, undermining our troops, trying to support un-American ideals, and so on.

What an effing imbecile. I thought it was telling when even the Fox News guy, at the end of the interview, had a look like "what the hell was that?" on his face. To accuse someone of being un-American for exercising their franchise, voicing their opinion, and acting in concert with their beliefs is to misunderstand America.

The red-faced imbecile was posing the same reactionary argument that serves for the on-going impetus of our current war. To voice concern over the war is un-American and unpatriotic. To raise your opinions is to support the terrorists. To express concern over how the troops are deployed, are dying, are supplied, or are otherwise led is to undermine the morale of our soldiers while feeding the enemy. To act out like an American, and to use your voice as Americans must, is to help the terrorists win.

Patriotism has its place. Jingoism is ludicrous, but it's what the current Administration foists on us while trying to beat us into submission to the inevitable fate of our country, which is to fight whereever, whenever, as long as our political leaders think it advances some purpose that mystifies their constituents.

Oh, dear, I'm raising my voice. I guess that I, too, am now a domestic terrorist. Like Barack Obama, I suppose that my very words provide aide and refuge to Bin Laden and his ilk. My speaking my conscience dishonors my troops, as they paradoxically are supposed to be out there fighting so that people all over the world can enjoy the same freedom to speak their conscience that I supposedly have.

This recent slandering of an American, for behaving like an American should, must not be tolerated. The real domestic terrorists are those that would brow-beat us into relinquishing our rights and responsibilities as Americans, instead forcing us to walk lock-step with Somebody Else's ideals. Even if I don't agree with Barack Obama, I support his stand on the grounds that he's taking one. Our troops die so that he can. He is the patriot in this dialogue, and his patriotism is to be applauded, not reviled.

SOAP Notes

Every couple of weeks, I get together with a group of guys for a Bible Study. The format for the study is pretty simple. We read from a set of scripture (usually a chapter or two from two or three books of the Bible) and then write about what we read. Then we share what we wrote, and discuss what we've talked about if we care to.

The format for the writing is called SOAP. It's an anagram, of course. "S" stands for scripture, as in the scripture that we focussed on in our writing. "O" is for observations, as in what we observed the verse to be about. "A" is for application, a discussion of how the verse applies to our lives, or how it impacts us. "P" is for prayer, where we write out a prayer that the verse inspires us to pray.

Tonight I brought my computer along, and since I get verbose when I type, I wrote a lot. JLowe said that I should post it. So here it is. This may, or may not, become a recurring feature.

Verses read: Zechariah 13-14; Psalm 147; Luke 15

S: Psalm 147:4 “He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.”

O: I sometimes have trouble determining what is to be taken literally in the Bible. Some say that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. Nothing is allegory, nothing that’s not a parable of Jesus is a parable of its own. Personally, I think there’s a great deal of allegorical teaching in the Bible. Anyway, this verse, taken literally, says that God knows the number of the stars, and has a special designation in His mind for each one. While I believe this is true, the verse is meant to say so much more.

A: This verse is a big one, very big considering it’s only 12 words long. It stands for many ideas. First, and most obviously, is the idea that God knows everything. God knows the number of the innumerable stars in the universe, and He knows about each and every one. Calling them “by name” suggests a familiarity with them. He doesn’t do what we do, look at each and say, “Ooh, look at that star over there.” He doesn’t do what our greatest astronomers do, look at them and say “there’s star Z-467 Alpha, which is 345 million light years away.” He knows each star. He knows the moment it was created, what it’s made of, how many atoms are in it, how hot it burns, the various cycles it goes through, where it’s headed, and where it came from. He knows when it will cease to burn, how it will end its days, and what will happen to it after it has long gone dark. He knows the planets around it, their revolutions and orbits, their spans of days and years, their atmospheres, the things upon them which are sustained by them and the star above. He knows what every angle of the sky looks like from every other place in the universe, and how it looked 100 million years ago, and how it will look 100 million years from now.

Another meaning: God created the stars in the sky. He “determined” their number. He calls them by name. These are not the actions of an observer, but a creator. “Determine” is such a pregnant verb next to a smaller concept like “count.” God’s not counting the stars. He set the number. He’s not learning the names. He gave them.

Another thought: Nothing there is an accident. Nothing was unplanned. This verse speaks of an intentionality. God didn’t pull the number of stars out of a hat. He determined it. He planned it. He decided it. He thought about, planned, and implemented it. The number of stars, like every other fact and law and design and scheme and element and property and whatever else there is in the scope of creation, is significant to God, has a purpose to God, and matters to God.

This verse in its literal form says that God knows the stars. This verse in its entirety, though, tells me that God, the Creator of the Universe, cares about them. Everything in our creation is important to God, and part of His plan. None of it was taken for granted, or done as an afterthought. How dare I, therefore, take it for granted, or treat it as an afterthought?

P: God, Your creation is amazing. Your glory is evident in all of it. So often I walk through my life in a haze, failing to notice You in everything around me. How often I miss the stars above my head, and fail to realize that each one was hung where it is by Your Hand, for Your purpose, to Your glory. Help me to be mindful of You, of Your creation, of my place in Your world. Take my focus off of me, shift my vision outward, and help me to grow to be more like You. Amen.

Mayor Potter Ditches Drug Free/Prostitution Free Zones; I Continue to be Underwhelmed

Throughout conversations I've had over in my old days writing at the Metroblog, and in converstations I've had here, and in conversations I've had where I'm actually interacting with people, I've never failed to be surprised at the bad decisions of Portland mayor Tom Potter.

Some aren't necessarily all that big a deal. Like taking free Blazer tickets and failing to report it, or failing to do more to at least appear to be responsive to people interested in Major League Baseball in Portland. Some are, like demoting Derek Foxworth for weak reasons (not saying Foxworth didn't deserve a demotion, but the reason offered by Potter was poor, given the variety of reasons available), firing a police lieutenant for shooting a felon (as opposed to simply disciplining or demoting him), his ludicrous "VisionPDX" initiative, and so on.

I almost choked tonight, though, when I heard that Tom Potter has decided to pull the plug on Portland's 15 year old Drug Free and Prostitution Free Zone ordinances.

The quote proffered by Potter to explain the change: "I have concluded that both programs are no longer serving their intended purpose and act only to suppress a serious community problem rather than solving it."

That doesn't reflect the actual reasoning offered in the city press release, however, which indicated the decision was the result of a study on racial fairness in the application of the ordinance.

So, let's discuss a bit.

First, a brief discussion of what the zones are. The zones are a creation of the City Council, via ordinance, and can be found in Portland City Code chapters 14B.20 (for DFZ's) and 14B.30 (for PFZ's). The way they work is this: within the zones, an arrest for certain crimes can result not only in charges based upon those crimes, but also in exclusion from the zone. Exclusions are not mandatory, but are at the discretion of the arresting officer. "Exclusion" doesn't mean a person isn't allowed in the zone. Instead, it means (essentially) that a person may not be loitering within the zone, and if located within the zone the person must be at all times travelling for a permissible purpose (for which they must have a "variance"). Permissible purposes include heading to or from a home within the zone, a job within the zone, a treatment or social service provider within the zone, an essential need within the zone (such as a grocery store), and usage of public transportation within the zone. People are further able to get specialized variances by going to the local police precinct and simply requesting them.

An excluded person found within the zone, who is not travelling for a variance-related reason, can be stopped by police simply for being excluded, and further can be arrested for violation of the exclusion. Violation of a Variance is essentially the same as Criminal Trespass II, and is a Class B misdemeanor.

There are two tiers of exclusions. Arrest-based exclusions are effective for 90 days, starting 22 days after the exclusion is issued. This allows individuals to take advantage of an automatic right to appeal the issued exclusion. If a person is convicted of an enumerated crime that occurred within a public place within the zone, then they are automatically excluded for one year, with no similar right of appeal.

Apparently, the city commissioned a study to determine whether there was racial inequity in the application of the DFZ statute (the study didn't address PFZ's at all). The study was conducted by taking less than one year's worth of qualifying arrests made within the city's three Drug Free Zones (Central, East, and North). The total number of arrests considered was just over 1900. The study found that African Americans were excluded more often when arrested for qualifying crimes than caucasians. Hispanics were excluded less often than both. Apparently Asian Americans, American Indians, and other racial groups didn't qualify for evaluation, for whatever reason.

It is important to note that the study didn't discuss effectiveness of the zones, their influence on recidivism, displacement related to the implementation of zones, or many other factors which would actually help determine their effectiveness.

So there are a couple of things to discuss.

First, clearly, Drug Free Zones are not enforced in an even-handed manner across races. There is no evidence that the same holds true for Prostitution Free Zones, as apparently this was not studied.

Apparently, the mayor's solution to this problem is not to fix the ordinance, but instead to throw out the baby with the bathwater. As previously noted, the ordinance is currently designed to provide the arresting officer with discretion as to whether to issue an exclusion. Clearly, the best solution to the problem of unequal application of the exclusion tool is to remove the descretion. Make issuance of an exclusion a "shall" instead of a "may." Then, presumably, 100% of all people arrested for a exclusion-qualfying offense will be excluded. This would seem to resolve the issues raised by the report.

If the mayor was interested in solving the problems raised in the study, I think that such a fix would be exactly what he would do.

So the question becomes, what is the mayor actually trying to do?

The answer is, I don't know, but it ain't what he's claiming.

Let's go back to his quote, "I have concluded that both programs are no longer serving their intended purpose and act only to suppress a serious community problem rather than solving it." Mayor Potter has drawn his own conclusion of how the ordinance is working. And, in a rather telling fashion (and in a way not inconsistent with prior poor decision making) he simply doesn't offer any support for his assertion.

Before launching into my criticism of the mayor's thinking, first I should discuss how the DFZ's came to be, why we have them, and what they're designed to do.

In approximately 1990, community members were dealing with neighborhoods over-run by drugs, drug users, and crimes in their neighborhoods related to drug use. Obvious examples were delivery and possession of drugs, but related crimes included burglary and theft by people supporting their habits, assaults committed by people under the influence of drugs or in the midst of drug-related activities, and vandalism by people who were in the neighborhood with nothing better to do while scoring drugs or selling them. People went to the police for help, but there was no particular enforcement tool to keep these criminals from returning to areas that were being impacted by drugs and drug related crime in a disparate way. Police went to the DA's office to see if they knew of an existing solution, and the answer, essentially, was no. Eventually, the city and the county got their attorneys (the City Attorney and the District Attorney) together to create a solution. The result was the Drug Free Zone.

The Zones are not permanent structures. Every three years, Portland Police, working with the DA's office and the City Attorney's office, gather statistics on drug-related crimes (primarily delivery, manufacturing, and possession) throughout the city. Where disparate levels of drug-related crimes are found, a Zone is created. If a former Zone is no longer justified statistically, it is abolished. If a Zone is still justified, it is continued (sometimes it is modified to account for changes of statistical distribution within that Zone).

Do the zones work? Interestingly, since police have had to keep statistics since they were created in order to not only get zones created, but also monitor their effectiveness, there's ample data to conclude that they do (far more than 1900 arrests over 10 months). Here are some illustrative graphs.









A couple of interesting observations. In almost every zone where a DFZ was instituted, there was a noticeable drop in drug arrests within 2 years. And, city-wide, drug arrests per-mile have not gone up appreciably, despite urban growth, population condensation and the fact that each square mile of Portland land has more people in it than when the zones were created.

And, further, note that the city-wide stats are for those areas where zones have not been implemented. As a general rule, there is not an appreciable increase in drug-related crime in non-zone areas after implementation of a zone.

In fact (though I no longer have the statistical maps prepared by the city), the city has specifically looked at concerns about "displacement." That is, people are understandably concerned that creating a zone in one place will simply push drug crimes a few blocks out of the zone. In almost all cases, the city found that drug crimes in areas immediately surrounding zones continued to have either constant levels of drug arrests within them, or just as often had fewer drug arrests in them as they enjoyed a benefit from the creation of a zone next door, so to speak.

Why do the zones work so well? It's pretty simple, actually. By having a self-selecting group of people (drug sellers and users) who engage in unlawful activities create a reason for police to be able to contact them more easily in the future, those people are discouraged from returning to areas where they are subject to increased police scrutiny. If a police officer no longer has to see you actually holding your drugs to stop you, then the mere fact that you're smart enough to keep them in your pocket doesn't prevent you from losing them. So, the druggies leave.

A similar theory holds true for prostitution free zones. By excluding people who've previously been arrested or convicted for prostitution-related activities, police no longer have to wait for the person to re-offend to remove them from high-vice areas where they are, more likely than not, re-offending.

Potter says that these ordinances only act to suppress problems, and don't solve them. I guess that depends on how you define success. Sure, by simply forcing druggies and prostitutes to leave town, we don't necessarily stop them from being druggies or prostitutes. But we make our neighborhoods, specifically, and our city in general, safer and more liveable.

In August of 1999, Richard Brown, a prominent community leader (who's also African American, although that shouldn't matter) offered the following statement to the Portland City Council in support of a DFZ in the Albina area:

When they put the drug-free zone together in Washington Park, folks on the corner of Alberta and MLK Boulevard were saying "we need a drug-free zone over here." If you drive through NE and North Portland today, you will see folks cutting their grass, you will see folks banging on their roofs, you will see folks painting their houses. Six and seven years ago, that was not going on. People were trying to move out of the neighborhood. I think the drug-free zones have improved the livability for most people that live there…

In another testimonial, a citizen offered the following endorsement: “… I’m telling you the big change happened when they put [Beech Street] into a drug-free zone … it’s night and day – it’s absolutely night and day.”

What we see, then, is that Drug Free Zones (and, presumably, Prostitution Free Zones) may not solve the problem of drug use and prostitution. They do help citizens reclaim their neighborhoods, however, and that in itself is a solution to the problems plaguing many in our city.

If making an area safer and more lievable aren't the purpose of these ordinances, I don't know what is. If years of experience and statistics aren't showing that these ordinances are helping to keep these problems in check in areas where they'd otherwise run rampant, then the Mayor is blind. And if he thinks abolishing these statutes entirely is taking a step towards solving our communities problems, then he's a damned fool.

I don't think the Mayor's a bad man. But I do think that this decision is one of many that prove that he's not the right man to be leading our city.