In Memory of...

Introductory rambling: So much to write about these days, what with the rules committee hearing going on in DC (moot in any case), the war, the Democratic Convention in Augusta, the Celtics, international disasters--it's all been on my mind to comment, disparage or celebrate. Instead, I'm going to write about Memorial Day.

I've been thinking about this since I went to Portland's parade on Monday, and links sent by Petrie have kept it in the front of my mind. Last night I had pizza and beer with my city councilor and we chatted about it as well. Time to write.

Portland's Memorial Day Parade was pathetic. Embarrassing, actually, on several levels. It was thinly attended. The delegations were small. The community was not represented. The American Legion and VFW were predictably bitter. I was pissed.

I shot off a text message to the three city councilors who I know, and they all had the same general response. It is the VFW and the American Legion who organize the parade, and they only talk to each other. I don't mind beefing with those guys--you have to involve the community. Here are my thoughts, in no particular order:

In Memory of Memorial Day

If you don't tell it like it was, it can never be as it ought to be.
-- Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth

Reverend Shuttlesworth was speaking about slavery when he said that. I feel the quote is appropriate, nevertheless. Like slavery, our American wars -- and war wounded and war dead -- are self-inflicted strokes. Bear with me while I explain what I mean.

No matter how obvious the need, ultimately we take it upon ourselves to war. The Revolution was a choice -- we decided that bloodshed was necessary. We severed ourselves from England to become the cutting for a new flower.

Washington and Lafayette

Even the most obvious wars -- World War I and II, the war with Afghanistan -- reflect a policy choice that sends Americans to kill and die. The rightness of a choice is debatable; that it was a choice is not.

Joshua Chamberlain

It is also appropriate to tie the remembrance of slavery to Memorial Day because we have, in part, freedmen to thank for it.

During the Civil War, a racetrack near Charleston was converted into a military prison for captured Union soldiers. At least 257 of those men died from exposure and disease and were buried in a mass grave. In April of 1865, two dozen or so black men dug up the grave and properly reinterred the bodies of those dead Union men in the racetrack's infield. (Who cares to imagine that gruesome task?) A fence was built around the new cemetery, whitewashed, with an archway entrance inscribed, "To the Martyrs of the Racecourse." Then, on May 1st, Something remarkable occurred:

At 9 am on May 1, the procession stepped off led by three thousand black schoolchildren carrying arm loads of roses and singing "John Brown's Body." The children were followed by several hundred black women with baskets of flowers, wreaths and crosses. Then came black men marching in cadence, followed by contingents of Union infantry and other black and white citizens. As many as possible gathering in the cemetery enclosure; a childrens' choir sang "We'll Rally around the Flag," the "Star-Spangled Banner," and several spirituals before several black ministers read from scripture. No record survives of which biblical passages rung out in the warm spring air, but the spirit of Leviticus 25 was surely present at those burial rites: "for it is the jubilee; it shall be holy unto you ... in the year of this jubilee he shall return every man unto his own possession."

Following the solemn dedication the crowd dispersed into the infield and did what many of us do on Memorial Day: they enjoyed picnics, listened to speeches, and watched soldiers drill. Among the full brigade of Union infantry participating was the famous 54th Massachusetts and the 34th and 104th U.S. Colored Troops, who performed a special double-columned march around the gravesite. The war was over, and Decoration Day had been founded by African Americans in a ritual of remembrance and consecration.

(Of course, the "official" Memorial Day wasn't established until 1868, when General John Logan, Commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, signed General Order No.11.)

Finally, the act of warring ploughs deep furrows in the mind. This is not to say that years on the battlefield are one-to-one in ratio to lifetimes of slavery. It is simply to note a consonance of mental rupture.

The "double consciousness" of WEB DuBois that many black Americans live in is not unlike the double consciousness of the soldier in autumn (even if it's still his or her spring). Whether lately returned from the war in Iraq or guarding the memory of the last "Great War;" whether nursing a beer at the VFW or quietly living with all the horror clamped down and only the fierce memories of heightened life and comradeship allowed to percolate to the surface; whether having found an equipoise (no matter how delicate) or desperately seeking to replicate, or escape from, the high of combat; whether a soldier, a marine, an airman or a sailor, that person is always searching for a place in civil society, and for the right tone of life in the place to which that service was rendered. To paraphrase DuBois, it is a struggle to be both a warrior and a civilian, both from within and from without.

For myself, I struggle to harmonize my love of this nation with my sickness at the things we've been up to lately. My heart is broken; I long to be as proud of this nation as I am of many of her soldiers. And once we open this window into the contradictions of American citizenship, we can see it is a fun-house mirror-maze of double images. Like all mazes, though, there is the promise of finding a way out.

Memorial Day is a day to acknowledge the wounds on the body politic. To see, no matter our own position on any of the litany of conflicts in which our nation has engaged, that those wars have torn a hole in the civic fabric. It is a day for us to acknowledge our national wounds: psychic, moral, bodily -- even political. To look at that place where we have gashed ourselves in the throes of this experiment and say, "Here have we hurt, and yet, we are."

The fulcrum of "and yet" is why the parade. Early Memorial Day parades had two distinct parts: A procession to the cemetery on the edge of town and a recession from there to the town center. On the way to the cemetery, the marchers would be solemn. The band would play a hymn-like tune. The procession would arrive for a dedication and "Taps" -- a Civil War bugle call that once simply signaled the end of the day -- would be played. But on the return to the center of the town, the march becomes a celebration--not of victory, but of enduring hope.

Here have we hurt, and yet, we are.

Hope in this setting is so important. It is the feeling that we are still moving forward, together. A belief that the dream is still viable, still worthwhile. That whatever we do, we do together. That however bitterly we tear at one another, we share a nation and, at root, hold the same essential liberties sacred. That above all we might one day come to a place where discord is marginal, not central, to civic life.

Memorial Day, therefore, is about our community. In order to celebrate it, we should be drawing the community in. This isn't a celebration for the VFW and the Legion (an organization that I am ambivalent about to say the least), though they may be its organizers. Rather than organizing the Day and then expecting the public to come, we need to be reaching out the public and inviting them to participate, not just watch.

I "marched" in my first Memorial Day parade wearing a T-Ball uniform and sneakers. And I marched in every one after that until I graduated from High School. I marched as a Cub Scout, a Boy Scout and a member of the High School Band. In our parade we had: the 4-H; the Pony Club; every kid who played in the town's recreational T-ball, Softball, Jr. Little League and Little League; Mr. Criz and his clydesdales; the community garden group; the Lions Club; the Kiwanis; the High School Band; the Combined Jr. High Bands; the Bethany Community School band, pounding away on their drums and glockenspiels; the Library; the Bethany VFD; the Staties; the Governor's Horse Guard (stabled in town); the EMT's; the Downs brothers, dressed as clowns to pick up after the horses; the Brownies and Girl Scouts; the Bethany Wanderers (hiking group); the Bethany Conservation Commission (us. w/ the Wanderers); the Shriners; at least half a dozen antique automobiles. And that's just off the top of my head.

The parade route was 1.7 miles long. Yes, it was. I mapped it on Google maps. It included two right-wheels (three if you count the start): one onto Peck Road (a steep uphill), and one just past the reviewing stand (yes, there was a reviewing stand) into the parking lot of the Town Hall. Gordon Carrington was always on the reviewing stand (1st Selectman for about 80 years), and the kid who played "Taps" during the laying of the wreath hid out on the side stairs of the Town Hall and always seemed to crack a note or two. Then, after the wreath, we'd all troop back down Peck Road to the Fire Station and get hotdogs from Mr. DiMayo, who grilled squinting into the smoke with a little bit of dip in his lip, and we'd play on the fire trucks.

In 1990, the year before I graduated high school and left town, the population of Bethany was 4,670. The population of Portland is 64,000. The Portland Parade could have chased itself around the monument in Monument Square, around the base of Columbia, "To Her Sons Who Died for the Union." There were few people on the street.

There are a couple of reasons, I think. One is that it has become a three-day holiday weekend. The other is that no one has asked them, or their kids, to participate. Where were the neighborhood groups? Munjoy Hill, Bayside, East Bayside, Western Promenade and the West End all have neighborhood groups. What about the Friends of Deering Oaks Park? What about the historical society/Portland Monuments? Portland Parks and Rec? Friends of Evergreen Cemetery? Portland Trails? A Company of Girls Theater Group? Were the Kiwanis there? What about the Portland Boxing Club? What about our new immigrant communities--don't you think we can do a better job with that? Don't they have something to celebrate here? And shouldn't we, a nation of immigrants, be equally excited to celebrate them? (I guarangoddamtee you the Legion didn't reach out to them.) What about PATHS and Casco Bay HS? I bet those PATHS guys could make up a ripping float.

My point is, this should be a community event. It should be a moment to look around and see who we are, to come together to share sorrow, to honor sacrifice and loss, and then to celebrate ourselves for moving this democracy forward, one day at a time.

We're in an historic moment where the only sacrifice we've been called to make as a community is to support the troops by shopping. But Memorial Day is a chance to stitch the fabric of our Community (capitalized on purpose) a little tighter together.

We need to take that chance.

KJG 1919-2001

Stand to the Left

I really can't figure out Edgar Allen Beem. (And if you don't know who that is or you're not from the Portland area, I'm sorry. This post is barely going to have entertainment value for you.)

The guy is clearly a liberal (though perhaps not a progressive). Yet he persists in knocking down the Maine Greens every chance he gets. And while I agree that they've certainly had their share of characters and missteps (and characters who make missteps), he's doing it to take cuts at a couple of guys who don't fit the mold.

David Marshall and Kevin Donoghue got themselves elected to the Portland City Council by busting tail, connecting with voters, and promising movement on a whole slate of issues. And they've done a damn good job of delivering. It can't be easy. The city council has nine (9) seats, and they're just a couple of guys who are barely 30 years old, and have about $5 between them.

Yet for some reason, they seem to be about the only Councillors with any interest in preserving public process or with helping the city get the best deal out of its own resources. Take, for example, the Portland State Pier development deal. This excellent interview with John Anton (local workforce housing financier) lays out a lot of the problems with the process.

The big problem is that the Pre-DavidandKevin City Council sent out a Request for Proposals (RFP) after basically being goaded into the idea by Ocean Properities (one of the two companies in the running). OP's access to the council comes via tight Democratic connections to Governor Baldacci (through his brother, an OP bigshot) and through the Democratic party to the office of Councillor Cloutier.

After the proposals were submitted, OP realized that its competitor had done a better job conceptually (even though OP had known about the project for a longer time). In response, OP has submitted two further revisions. Now the council is debating the merits of a shifting bid. Unsurprisingly, Kevin Donoghue wants to put on the brakes and establish a legitimate process for soliciting and then judging the bids.

Watch this video (link on the right). Kevin's words here really sum up his position and his and David's basic approach to city government:

I am worried about the direction of this...We have a responsibility to the public and the public has no idea what's going on. ...a rudiment of that public process should be that we should stick to the rules that a deadline was set...

Cloutier clearly took offense to Donoghue and Marshall's insistence on a process that would muck up the sweetheart deal he's set up for Ocean Properties. I can transcribe his words, but I can't do justice to his temper when he said

You don't have the right to say to anyone...this is how you're going to evaluate this to come to a decision.

Or his smiling condescension when he said

...some of our new members weren't even on the council when we actually issued it, so they don't have the benefit of that background, and it is kind of confusing and hard to follow...

You really need to watch it for yourself. If you're really interested in the background of the process, also check out the Bollard's archives.

So, citizens of Portland can be thankful that they have at least two vigilant and independent voices looking out for them. Unfortunately and for some reason, they've come into columnist Beem's sights. I took him to task once already, in a column that got picked up by Beem's publication, the Portland Forecaster. But he's at it again, and again, I can't really figure it out.

This week, he made it his business to dredge up all the crap the Green Independent Party has laid down in order to lay it at Kevin Donoghue's feet with a warning: "Better keep your nose clean."

Now don't get me wrong. There's been some absolutely absurdist behavior by a couple of Greens on the school committee lately.

The arrest last month of Green Party and Portland School Committee member Benjamin Meiklejohn for driving after suspension is just the latest in long run of bad publicity for the Maine Greens. Meiklejohn was apparently being a Good Samaritan by driving a drunken friend home when he got pulled over for having a taillight out. Kudos for that.

Turns out, however, that unknown to him, Meiklejohn’s license had been suspended for failure to pay a speeding ticket. Plausible and understandable. Could happen to anyone. But then Meiklejohn started making wild accusations about a politically motivated bail commissioner making him stay in jail an hour or two too long. Then, when the arrest of an elected official naturally brought some scrutiny of his character and it was reported that Meiklejohn’s Web site featured a link to the alt-porn SuicideGirls.com site, he charged that writers and editors at The Forecaster were “media prudes.”
...
Meiklejohn’s arrest, of course, followed the December arrest of his fellow Green Party and Portland School Committee member Jason Toothaker for skipping out on a taxi fare after a night of drinking. Toothaker, who was found hiding under the deck of a home, sobered up and had the good sense to resign from the School Committee in January, having embarrassed himself, the committee and the Green Party.

True and true. And ol' Zen Ben doesn't strike me as a particularly realistic evangelist for alternative living. But Beem just can't resist piling it on. He picks up the fact that local whack-job Dorothy Lafortune hijacked the Green Party nomination in Biddeford, and he digs back to a 1999 DUI conviction for Pat LaMarche, and an acquittal (that is to say, not a conviction) to raise the smell of rot.

The trouble with that kind of approach is that it cuts both ways. Observe:

Just last fall, Democrat Ellen Alcorn, was ticketed for speeding in a school zone – an admission that was laughed off as a harmless mistake. Except that she was the Chair of the School Committee at the time. Still looking out for kids, Ellen? Speaking of driving, Mayor Mavodones recently admitted to a conviction for driving after suspension. Luckily, he doesn't have a MySpace page. Finally, Democratic State Senator Bruce Bryant was recently convicted of OUI after getting drunk on a break in the middle of the legislative session.

Patrick Colwell, while head of the Maine Democratic Party, laundered campaign contributions for Rhode Islander Matt Brown's campaign. He was cleared, not because what he did was right, but because there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. If the appearance of impropriety is enough for Beem to indict Ben Chipman, certainly there's room in the Beem jailhouse for Colwell.

And let's not forget Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Tom Connolly, in whose judgment it was a smart idea to dress up like Osama Bin Laden and wave a toy gun at people. That added up to an arrest for criminal threatening.

By Beem's logic, the Maine Democratic Party is probably one arrest away from folding the tent.

Ridiculous, of course. The Dems, and these Dems, are alive and well and doing good work.

But why even bother? If the Greens are so ridiculous, why sling the mud? They're clearly ready to self-destruct as a party, right?

Well, no. In fact, the Maine Green Independent Party is getting stronger. Thanks, in large part, to the efforts of Portland's two youngest city Councillors. And Beem tips his hand at the very end, when we finally see what all his muck-raking is coming to: Kevin Donoghue better keep his nose clean.

Beem dug up every piece of garbage he could find about the Maine Greens only to hold it over the head of one of our most effective City Councillors. I find that very interesting.

The Maine Green Independent Party has nearly 30,000 registered members, and it's growing. It is the most vital Green Party of any state in the country and there's a reason for that: If you want to be a progressive in Maine, you've got to go Green. This is especially true in Portland, where the Democratic Party has locked up the city for so long that they're suffering the malaise to which all single-party systems eventually succumb: With no motive to remain sharp, they've inevitably become dull.

But Beem is right in pegging Kevin Donoghue as a harbinger of things to come. He and his council-mate David Marshall have proven to be serious, process-oriented administrator's of the people's business. Do not be deceived by Marshall's and Donoghue's youth. There is a right way and a wrong way to run a government and those guys do it the right way. Their work on the City Council has displayed a level of maturity and a deep respect for the public interest – and the public's intelligence – that should be a wake-up call to some of their longer-serving co-Councilors.

With 25% more Green voters this year than last and a full slate of candidates due for this November, the Green Party in Maine is vital and getting stronger. If Beem is truly looking for a Party in Danger, well, nobody's talking about the real Elephant in the room. Yet.

Maine State Pier: a Crossroads

The project to develop the Maine State Pier is more than just a problem of urban planning. It is a crossroads.Beware, Portland: whatever is born of this process will determine the future of our waterfront. No matter which of the proposals currently before the council is adopted, both would spell the end of the working waterfront. Is that what we want? Perhaps, but we need to realize that that’s what we’re doing. Once one luxury hotel/conference center/boutique rack sits on the waterline, you can bet another will follow. It’s the small end of a wedge that could ultimately drive out the working waterfront zone.

The development of the pier is also an acid test for how seriously we take our commitment to sustainable progress. We need to get Portland out of its cars and walking. And we must guard against pricing ordinary Mainers out of the city. Development is necessary. But unless we carefully monitor the course and character of that development, we will find ourselves living in a generic commercial grayscape that puts profit before people. In doing so, we’ll have killed the goose that lays the golden egg.

The Olympia proposal is on the right track, and shines by comparison to Ocean Properties, but it needs to go further. I’m baffled by former Green Representative John Eder’s decision to act as window dressing for the Ocean Properties plan. There is very little that is truly “green” about it, other than Eder himself (pictured). Putting shrubbery on top of a parking garage is like passing out aspirin in a cancer ward.

These plans do not encourage increased pedestrian access, nor aid in the reduction of traffic. They do not maintain harmony with the ideal of a working waterfront. They do not address affordable housing at all. Instead, they pluck a piece of our bay away from us and use it to gild the lily of luxury.

Ask yourself, Portland, were you consulted about this? Or did this plan grow quietly in the dark of some city councilman’s office? Ocean Properties had a proposal ready very quickly. So quickly, in fact, that others have questioned the openness of the process and thereby, its integrity.

But Ocean Properties’ eagerness is perfectly understandable. Whatever they (or Olympia) do to the pier, they’ll hold the result rent free under a lease that lasts for generations. It’s a giveaway. I’d jump at it, too. That is, if I weren’t a tax-paying citizen of the City of Portland.

To be fair, the pier needs help in the form of expensive structural repairs. But that very fact highlights the shortcomings of years of city council policy which have failed to acknowledge that this day would come. To solve it, some propose to give it away.

The Maine State Pier belongs to you and me. It is an important piece of the public trust that we own by virtue of living in this city. Watch this closely, Portland. Be sure we get what we want, because this decision has the potential to shape the future of our skyline.

And since we’re on the subject of sustainable development and the privatization of public resources, it’s worth pointing out how our state legislature fell down on the job this week.

The Land for Maine’s Future program has been one of the most successful state land conservation projects in the nation. In a bond that has been consistently replenished since its inception, LMF has succeeded in setting aside over 400,000 acres for the people of Maine.

This land is our heritage. More importantly, as we negotiate our way into a new economy, it is also our brand. The genius behind the LMF money is that the state doesn’t give it out unless it can be matched by private funding. It’s a business-savvy strategy for leveraging our money to leverage our resources.

In a proposal that had the backing of people from former Governor Angus King to the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine to municipal officials from across the State, the Governor asked for 35 million dollars in bonds (Hannah Pingree asked for 75 million--go Hannah!), spread over three years. Instead, our congress gave us less than half of that, in a one-time hit.

That’s not forward-thinking. That’s not preserving the best leverage our state has not only in the new economy, but also for the health of our selves and future Mainers. That’s half-a-loaf where more than just bread is needed. It’s a calculation based on buying votes rather than banking a resource for the future. As Beem said, “People come to Maine for from all over the world to experience the natural environment that has been plowed under, paved and developed where they come from.”

Whether you serve in City Hall or in the State House that’s a message you should bring into committee. And take to heart.

A Logjam, not a Vacuum

This week's Forecaster features a column by Edgar Allen Beem, Our Leadership Vacuum. Beem's column, "The Universal Notebook," runs every week. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not. Like most (but not all) columnists, he's pretty lazy in his thinking. Even when I agree with his conclusions I'm often not altogether charmed by his logic or evidence. This week's column was particularly lazy, however.

As the title suggests, Beem feels there's no real leadership in Portland. He longs for the days when "things got done." Usually, things got done because the guys in charge not only had all the money, they owned all the real estate and basically ran the city. Things have changed. I agree. But what set me off was Beem's targeting of "Generation x" types and their assumed lack of big picture vision:

...all those progressive neighborhood activists who have assumed power can’t seem to get much accomplished.
...And the GenXers who have stepped into the leadership void just seem to lack the big picture, focusing on narrow, do-able, short-term goals with the best of intentions and mixed results.

Not to mention (and by that I mean, specifically to mention) the lazy equation of Barak Obama with George Bush:

I wish I could say I see hope on the horizon, but I don’t. Barak Obama? Come on, all the guy’s done so far is get elected. Like George W. Bush, he’s just a blank slate upon whom people project their desires.

So I dashed off a response to the Forecaster. I barely scratched the surface of what I could have hit on. Nevertheless, for your reading pleasure (with fun links added):

There are so many red-herrings, misleading assumptions and fuzzy thoughts in Edgar Allen Beem's notebook of 2/28 that I hardly know where to start. So, like Beem, I'll just wade right in.

Beem assumes there is no leadership because there are no leaders. Starting here leaves you nowhere to go but down and that, predictably, is where he heads. The trouble with this premise is that Beem's idea of a leader is really the definition of a philanthropist with a civic bent. Well what do you know? All those wealthy Boomers that have come to Maine over the past 30 years just don't want to give their money away. Beem nods cursorily in that direction, but his real shots he saves for the younger generation (of which I am proudly a part).

Contrary to Beem's assertion, we have a "big picture" vision that we deeply desire to implement: We see a city of reduced car traffic, with greater and more convenient public transportation. A city that is not just walk-able but actually walk-ing, with vibrant, mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods and an accessible city government. A picture of a new, greener future that is available to all citizens, regardless of their income or socio-economic status. A city better connected to the Mid-coast, Southern Maine and Boston with improved rail service. A sea-going city bound more closely with the Northeast's greatest trading partner: Canada and its maritime provinces. A city of immigrants, newcomers and native Mainers. A city with strong schools and the outstanding business opportunities that come with a ready, willing and educated workforce. A true 21st century model.

But the moment someone comes up with a sensible, albeit unorthodox idea, people of Beem's ilk and generation pop up to shoot it down. Witness the efforts of Marcos Miller and the Munjoy Hill Neighborhood Organization to promote that vision with respect to the City's transportation plan. When people weren't actively denigrating their ideas, the City was burying the process and eliminating public participation.

This same ineffectual group of individuals (citizens and councilors alike) consistently stands in the way of the big picture vision of Portland's younger generation. The "narrow, do-able, short-term goals" Beem sees so fit to denigrate are not stand-alone initiatives. They are part and parcel of the bigger vision: incremental victories that we somehow manage to slip past the wall of muffle-headed, business-as-usual types like Mr. Beem. But more is coming. In the very paper that carries Beem's sad lament, we read of a new push for accountability in the Mayoral office and a drastic restructuring of city government put forward by these allegedly short-sighted enfants dans les bois.

"[A]ll those progressive neighborhood activists who have assumed power can't seem to get much accomplished." Let's look as one of the little things they've done: the revocation of the formula business ban and the formation of a committee to examine the issue. The ban, which Beem rightly labels "ill-conceived," was railroaded through before the last election by the retreating baby-boom old guard, which declined to study the issue at all, winged it completely and missed badly.

Sometimes you have to go backward before you can go forward. It has scarcely been three months since Donoghue and Marshall were inaugurated to the city council. That's barely enough time to come to grips with the mess of Portland government, much less reverse its course. Ask yourself, Mr. Beem, who is standing in the way of these "activists in power" (all two of them)? I have a generational mirror here if you need it.

Beem wants leaders with "vision and clout." Obviously, the vision is there. Apparently what Beem means by "clout" is "cash." The people with cash in this city are, paradoxically, the ones who lack vision. Well, "generation X" has the vision. As for the cash, all I can say is give us time. Lenny Nelson inherited a lot of money and made a lot more—but not by the age of 30. The same goes for the Paysons, Porteouses and Baxters of the world. In the meantime, I suggest that the Baby Boomers get out their checkbooks and get out of the way. "It's been decades," says Beem. Your generation has been in the driver's seat, Mr. Beem. Let someone else have a chance. Get your energy behind them and let them lead.

And while you're at it, you might want to leave comparing Obama with Bush for political smear campaigns. Neither Bush nor Obama is a "blank slate." Bush is the scion and torchbearer of a morally vacant political philosophy that has destroyed our army and bankrupted our nation. The truth was there to be seen from the beginning but the facile compliance of "journalists" like Beem (though perhaps not Beem) permitted the incurious to see what they wanted to see. Obama, although he exhibits a disturbing willingness to accommodate the once-loyal opposition, is an even more richly rendered page. His political record echoes JFK's, but without wealth and influence of the Kennedy political machine, with better grades and a traceable track-record of legislation in the public interest.

The real "root of our leadership problem" is not the lack of viable options. Rather it is the opaque fog of the lapdog press that cloaks all candidates in a veil of sameness. I suggest that rather than whining about a "lack of leadership" Beem might start by exhibiting a little of his own. If a "long leaderless decline" is to be averted, the press must play a far more active role. Find the truth and report it. Don't just take dictation. Or, in Beem's case, don't just whine. Do a little thinking before you put fingertip to keyboard.

From the Dept. of "Injustice Anywhere is Injustice Everywhere"

With a hat-tip to recent commenter Abdul-Halim V., allow me to point to What Makes American Muslims Unique, a brief note by a doctoral student on alt.muslim. There's not a ton of insight in the post, but it offers a jumping-off point if you're interested in beginning to understand the Islamic part of our population.

Like everything else in the U.S., this is a gem with thousands of facets. The title of the article grabbed my attention because of the growing population in my city of Muslims from the north African countries--particularly the Sudan and Somalia. Somalia is of particular international concern right now because of the turmoil raging there. US involvement has been under the radar for most Americans, but certainly not for Portland's Somali population. Add it to the list of things you're keeping track of. US officials claims that terrorist cells in Somalia, while also involved in fighting the provisional government, are also busy carrying out attacks beyond Africa. Hence the US airstrikes. The Ethiopian army (traditional adversary of Somalia) has, with the provisional Somali government's blessing, been driving the islamists south, toward Kenya, along with thousands of refugees. Naturally, Kenya doesn't want them. Guess who's helping them out? If you guess U.S. Marine ground forces, you win.

The Horn of Africa. Darfur, Ethiopia, Somalia. Quickly the world rolls toward fire.

The War in Somalia is part of a long pattern, longer even than US hegemony. It takes a back seat in our superficial and distracted news media, but for all our sakes we'd best keep our eyes on it. More than one commentator and the state department have identified Somalia as the next major terrorist stronghold (though everything Gartenstein-Ross opines should be taken with a grain of salt, IMO).

From my perspective, all this should be footnote to our own importance, however. Take some responsibility for getting to know the people around you in this tent. The alt.muslim article I linked to emphasizes that

The same bickering that exists elsewhere in the Muslim world is also certainly present in the US, which serves as a microcosm of the Muslim world. But America has historically offered people to forget past enmities and forge a new identity by becoming part of the melting pot. Similarly, American Muslims have a good chance of forming a truly dynamic American Muslim identity. All the component ethnic groups, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, who have made America their home have also brought their respective strengths, weaknesses, and prejudices. But in the US, one can find such sights like Shias and Sunnis praying side by side, Indians and Pakistanis getting along (most of the time), second generation desis overcoming the prejudices of their parents against African Americans, and so on.

Melting pot has been dropped in favor of 'salad bowl' by some. But the fact remains that we are in this Ark together.

Take a look around alt.muslim. I think you'll find good cause for hope there. Now find it in yourself.

Copping a Beer

City of Portland Politics Warning.

Been a host of zoning changes goin' on around here. All of it is targeted at preserving the 'liveability' of our fair city whilst permitting the inevitable growth. Managing retail expansion, IOW. Coming under review in this laudable effort to craft a great American city is the cost of policing Portland's "Old Port," a lovely section of town that used to be wharves and warehouses but is now home to small shops, restaurants, bars and clubs.

On Monday, the Old Port Night Life Task Force presented recommendations to the city council that would change the way fees are assessed and alter the zoning regulations for future development. A new boundary was proposed for the greater downtown area specifically for this licensing overlay, inside of which a rate hike for licenses tied to dancing, music and liquor permissions granted by the City. While the plan would raise the rates marginally for many restaurants and bars that are relatively far from the Old Port, some of the more notorious locales will see precipitous drops in their fees:

Councilor Edward Suslovic questioned why some restaurants would be tapped while the busy Pavilion nightclub on Middle Street would see its assessment for Old Port policing drop from $14,075 to $3,120. Suslovic also said he would support increasing license fees for 100 convenience stores and supermarkets citywide that sell "liquor to go."

Sixteen of the 24 business that pay the seat tax would see reductions in their overall fees. The Old Port Tavern, one of the biggest beneficiaries, would see its annual fees drop from $10,790 to $3,120. Fees would be adjusted annually to reflect fluctuations in the cost of extra police protection.

Essentially it's a flat tax for police protection (a meta-legislative issue: are we using fees in lieu of taxation--a subtlety seemingly picked up on only by Councilor Donoghue and the Task Force attorney), spread over an arbitrarily drawn area that seems to follow most closely the logic of a raindrop. I was also struck by just how little concern for governance some councilors evinced and how much a sense of district-provincialism was displayed.

After sitting in on the talk, without reading the report, I must say I oppose the plan.

One of the Task Force participants and Councilor Cohen felt that greater police presence is beneficial not just to the Old Port bars, but to everyone in the city who is open late. To me, this seems illogical and wrong on its face. As noted by Mr. Suslovic to the contrary, the police are drawn away from the outer districts to the downtown area, effectively leaving these places uncovered. Police are focused on the Old Port precisely because that's where the area of concern is.

It seems rather obvious that those who benefit from a service should be the ones to pay for it. That was the logic of the now-disfavored "seat tax." It is true that all of Portland benefits from the Old Port, and all of Portland benefits from Police protection. More germaine to this discussion, however, is the idea that if you're the source of the problem, you should be held accountable. The Old Port costs Portland. As some publicans are on record as saying, if you police yourselves, you don't need the Police. Last night I was thinking (not having a copy of the report to look at) that a GIS overlay of police calls, EMT calls and incidents reported with the location of bars, etc., could be a useful means of graduating a surcharge system for licenses.

For example: a basic, small hike in liquor license fees to everyone who sells it within city limits, including those that are takeaway places like Hannafords and RSVP or 7Eleven. Then, using the GIS overlay, tacking a surcharge on those locations manifestly responsible for the police/EMT calls--let's say a certain number of cents per call. This puts commerce at work for us by creating a purer econometric: the cost of doing business includes the cost incurred when your patrons are out of control. Call it the pollution model. We can figure out who costs Portland the most and we can make them absorb that cost. This creates a perfect incentive: police yourself effectively or pay us to do it for you.

Rates are assessed at license renewal based on the incidents reported in the prior year. A decrease amounts to a discount -- functionally a reward to doing better. I like this cost-sharing better than the flat-tax method proposed in the plan. It could have the added benefit of encouraging dispersal of venues as well, through simple economics: you know the OP attracts a high number of incidents and therefore a high cost for license. If you want to avoid that cost, establish elsewhere. No need for pesky 100 foot or 150 foot zoning regs that the Task Force proposes--the space will take care of itself. If a new business wants to open in the OP, take the average of the fee that is charged (or will be charged) to its two nearest neighbors--that's your starting surcharge.

The beauty of this system is that it can be applied city-wide. It fairly brings home the cost of policing a business to that business (Bubba's, let's say), without unfairly penalizing businesses that don't encourage that level of rowdiness (Thai Garden or King of the Roll, e.g.). And for businesses that argue that their area is generally rowdy even though not thanks to their patrons, the answer is, "that's the added cost of doing business in a location that is so beneficial to business. You profit from the very nature of the Old Port, help us keep it safe." It's also important to note that the money needed for the increased warm-weather policing ($61,000) amounts to a tiny fraction of the overall budget, about .02%

The Task Force plan is a windfall to bad actors. It has the opposite effect you'd want a regulation to have: rather than encouraging good behavior it effectively rewards indiscipline. It's imprecise where imprecision is unnecessary. And it is arbitrary, applying only to businesses within some conjured line. You've got to do better than that.

Photo of the Old Port (c) Dean Abramson, used without permission