Dear Mayor Adams and Commissioners:

 

I want to thank all of you for your tenacious and consistent commitment to improving the very broken relationship between Law Enforcement and our community.

 

I lived in Miami during the 1980 riots over the beating death of Arthur McDuffie and subsequent attempt by the police to cover up their actions.  The rioting lasted three days, and left millions in property damage and about 10 people died. I lived in Los Angeles during the riots that erupted over the beating of Rodney King.   That one cost billions and dozens of people were killed. In both situations, it was NOT the specific actions of police that prompted the rioting, but two acquittals of law enforcement personnel by all white juries.  It was the breakdown of the judicial system, that protected officers, not members of long abused communities, that prompted the civil unrest.

 

My fear is that we are be sitting on top of a similar powder keg here in Portland, which is why we must continue with this work of reforming a police department that appears to be out of control.  I echo the statement that was made that the rank and file in the department must embrace change in order for it to be effective.

 

There is significant anger in this community among members of many communities who have articulated that anger very clearly at the two hearings related to this ordinance.   I know from experience that if the anger is not addressed, it will emerge in very ugly ways that will significantly damage our city’s reputation.

 

Lastly, I want to clarify one other point.  At the February 18 meeting of the African American Alliance at the Red Cross, I was the person who publicly asked Commissioner Saltzman if he would commit to calling in the FBI to investigate the shooting of Aaron Campbell.  I reminded all present that if this shooting had occurred in any “southern” state, FBI participation would be mandatory as required by civil rights legislation that was passed in the 1960s and 1970s.  My specific request to Dan was that he not only call in the FBI on this incident, but that he draft policy requiring FBI inclusion in any similar incident in the future. At the time, he said he thought it was an interesting idea and would consider it.

 

I am pleased that he decided to follow through with the FBI inclusion on this one incident, and hope that policy will be drafted to set parameters for any future events (as a part of departmental oversight).  I would suggest that the language in the civil rights legislation would offer appropriate guidelines.

 

It is my belief that given the history of this region with regard to race, we must adopt many of the attitudes and civil rights policies and procedures that have been in place in the “south” for almost 4o years.  Clearly they have worked in that region, and I think an honest look at our history, our current issues, and the adoption of existing policies which have worked in other parts of the country is a better solution than offering one patch job at a time, each driven by the most recent crisis.

 

If this was any issue related to our material infrastructure, that is what we would do.

 

Regards,  Edward “Ed” Garren, MA, LMFT

 

Psychotherapy/Consulting

 

 

Some “back story” for those of you who may not have heard about the attempt of CRC to exclude as much public testimony as possible.

I arrived at the Port Building around 8:35 AM with Pam Naugle, a neighbor.  The sign in sheets and table were already in place, we both signed in.  Marcela Alcantar was also signing in.

The young man who was staffing the table asked us if we were going to testify, and we all said “Yes” and took the small testimony slips to fill out.  While doing so, we mentioned that we had come early to make sure that we would be first on the list to testify because we knew time would be limited.

The staffer, Dennis Sandstrom explained that there would be no order for testifying, “We’re going to put them all in this box, shuffle them around and then pick folks at random” was the explanation we were offered.  He went on to explain that the reason this method had been chosen was “It’s more democratic.”

I explained that I had a leadership position with the project (Co-Chair of the Hayden Island Plan Steering Committee, member of the Community & Environmental Justice Group) and he said that wouldn’t matter, that a decision had been made.   Several other persons were told this as well, all the way up to just before the meeting.

I called Mayor Adams and left a message for him, informing him of this issue, and also made a statement to the Channel 6.

When  the room opened up, the I heard CRC staff try to tell Channel 6 that they were not allowed to bring their cameras into the room.  I confirmed this with the cameraman on our way in, the news teams just ignored this “request” by CRC staff and went in to film anyway.

In addition, Sharon Nasset made an announcement in the room just before the meeting started, that our public testimony was being picked at random by the project

Because of the pressure exerted by all of us, and the presence of the media, the process was changed, and everyone got one minute to testify.  A staff person came to me and asked me to fill out a second slip, apparently the first one I filled out could not be found.

My name was called a second time at the very end of the testimony, but I had already spoken.  Ms. Nagle and Alcantar, the first two people to arrive, were among the last five to speak.

 

I share all of this because of the blatant attempt to manipulate public comment, circumvent democratic processes, and exclude the press from the meeting.  This is one more example of how CRC continues to circumvent democratic public processes in order to push through their agenda.

In the face of this, they wonder why increasing numbers of people have lost trust in the project, and are so angry about the process.

I hope that an investigation can be done to find out who at CRC ordered this protocol for the meeting, and that person can be censured in an appropriate manner, including prosecution of any laws that were broken. I am not a lawyer, but this could be considered “Conspiracy to obstruct Justice” or some other violation of public meeting laws.  Whoever ordered staff to do this needs to be held accountable, even if is just some time off without pay.

I am calling on our elected leaders to not just let this sweep under the rug, and let it go.  No matter what one’s position on the CRC, the decisions should not be made in an illegal manner, or one that specifically attempts to exclude public concern and testimony.

 

Regards,  Ed Garren, MA, LMFT

Candidate for Portland City Commission, seat #3

www.EdForPDX.com

503-922-0338

 

 

 

 

 

If only we could pass on wisdom as effectively as we pass on pathology.

 

The biggest challenge for a person or a society is to move from where we are,

to where we have never been.

 

ed@edgarren.us

www.edgarren.us

 

 

If only we could pass on wisdom as effectively as we pass on pathology.

 

The biggest challenge for a person or a society is to move from where we are,

to w

ed@edgarren.us

www.edgarren.us

 

 

 

 

 

If only we could pass on wisdom as effectively as we pass on pathology.

 

The biggest challenge for a person or a society is to move from where we are,

to where we have never been.

 

ed@edgarren.us

www.edgarren.us

 

 

 

 

 

If only we could pass on wisdom as effectively as we pass on pathology.

 

The biggest challenge for a person or a society is to move from where we are,

to where we have never been.

 

ed@edgarren.us

www.edgarren.us

 

 

Read the full story here:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/health/policy/30health.html?emc=eta1

I’m REALLY angry about this one.  

I used the links below to go to their web pages for “letters.”  Then I filled out and wrote a scathing comment about “bought” legislators, etc. into the “comment” section for the first one, then copied and pasted it in for the comments to the rest of them (including Bill Nelson of Florida, the “sold out” Democrat).  

 Those comments are below.Anyway, I eMailed all of the listed in the article senators from their sites.  

I’d suggest if you’re as mad as I am, do the same thing.  Take pointers from my comments below.Here are links to some of the senators who voted “no.”

http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

http://carper.senate.gov/contact/webformIQV2.cfm

http://conrad.senate.gov/contact/webformIQV2.cfm

http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm

You can also check out:  http://www.sickforprofit.com

Regards, Ed

*************************My “form” letter is below:

As one of the 48 million Americans who cannot (and never will be able to) afford “private” health insurance (male, over 50, monthly premiums exceed $700 a month) even though I’m “healthy as a horse”, I am mad as hell that you sold out to your buddies in the Health Care industry and rejected the Public Option.

The cost issue is simple. I’ve worked in health care much of my career. The non profit hospitals, where nuns drive Chevrolet’s, have no problem with what Medicare pays.

The private hospitals, where the administrator drives a $70,000 car and gets a huge bonus “can’t afford it”.

What’s wrong with this picture? Making a profit off of sick people, that’s what’s wrong.

In the meantime, millions of us don’t have and will never get health insurance, and you, in your wealth and comfort, don’t give a damn.

I hope they vote your sorry posterior out of office next time. It’s “bought” politicians like you that have ruined this country. You’re supposed to be working for US, not the health care industry.

Regards, Ed Garren, MA, LMFT Psychotherapist

Living in a Constant State of Fear

 

 

Our community (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Trans, Queer) has a lot going on right now.  The lingering question of marriage rights, of the right to serve in the Armed Forces without fear, the ongoing storms of constantly having our dignity and humanity questioned and brought to a vote in ballot initiatives loom over our lives as constant unwanted companions.   It’s been 32 years since 1977, when Anita Bryant launched the first “Anti-Gay” ballot initiative in Miami Florida, and that 32 years has been marked by dozens of ballot initiatives, most of which our community has lost.  The recent loss of marriage in California underscores our status as “half citizens”, they want our tax money, but they don’t want us to be free.

 

Add those things to the list of the more daily issues like public display of affection, how to address a partner in public (saying “Honey” out loud in the store) and our significant numbers who are married to women, but seek “NSA action” on the side, and it’s easy to demonstrate that our lives are more complicated than those who live in the mainstream.

 

I believe that all gay men grow up and live in a constant state of fear.  Fear  of discovery, fear of rejection, fear of physical violence, the list goes on and on.   Many of us can “pass” for straight, but the constant fear of being discovered never really goes away.  That constant fear significantly affects our self-esteem and our ability to fight back against those who want us to shut up and go away.

 

In my private practice, as well as in the social services agencies I’ve worked in, the story is always the same, smart handsome men, who work very hard to “fit in”, often at the cost of our own sense of self, who wonder why we feel empty inside and either self medicate with drugs and alcohol, and/or are taking prescribed anti-depressants.  A recent story on ABC News centered on how the use of Anti-Depressant drugs in this country has doubled in the last decade.  How many of us have swelled those numbers?

 

At the height of the HIV plague, before there were the current medicines that slow down the progress of the virus, two actions groups emerged among the dying,  those who knew they only had a couple of years left to live.

 

The first was “Act Up”, with it’s mantra, “Silence equals death / Action equals life.”  The second was “Queer Nation” whose slogan was “We’re Queer, We’re here, We’re fabulous, Get used to it.”

 

I lived in Los Angeles at the time, and one of the direct impacts of these two movements was the explosion of gay men and lesbians into mainstream media.  Basically, closeted men who had led quiet and comfortable lives working as producers and directors, lost patience with the status quo and decided to rock the boat before they died.  Their actions led to the emergence of gay characters in virtually every aspect of media, television, film, etc.  These people decided to go out with dignity, instead of quiet patience that somehow “things would change” on their own.

 

So now I’m living here in Portland and the status quo includes such attributes as “patience”, “understanding” and being orderly and reserved.   People want change, but seem to think that someone else will make it happen, not us.

 

And I have a steady stream of people in my practice who have been depressed for years.

 

In this day of anti-depressant drugs, and the belief that depression is “a chemical imbalance in the brain” a couple of basic truths have been lost.  The first is that depression is “anger turned inward.”  If we can’t express our anger when we are being assaulted (physically or emotionally) then we “stuff it” and get sick, physically, mentally or both. 

 

The second truth is that if you torment an animal repeatedly, it’s brain chemistry WILL become imbalanced in order to accommodate the ongoing torment.  Part of that accommodation is to create a defense mechanism that makes it okay to live in fear. 

 

We have become experts at denying some basic, and very liberating truths about who we are.  We also have a very hard time fighting back, which is the most exhilarating and liberating thing any of us can do.

 

I have a very simple question I ask myself whenever I need to decide how to deal with a situation that involves my dignity.  “Do “straight” people have to do this?”

 

If the answer is “No”, then I don’t do it either.  Life is too short to spend it in half misery, being a half person, in a half world, so that the people who hate us can continue to feel comfortable hating us.

 

Edward “Ed” Garren, MA, LMFT

 

 

 

From the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/g-8-failure-reflects-us-f_b_228597.html

 

 

Dr. James Hansen

Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Posted: July 9, 2009 10:33 AM

G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change

 

Jim Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, but he writes on this policy-related topic as a private citizen.

It didn’t take long for the counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey to push back against President Obama’s agenda. As the president was arriving in Italy for his first Group of Eight summit, the New York Times was reporting that efforts to close ranks on global warming between the G-8 and the emerging economies had already tanked:

 

The world’s major industrial nations and emerging powers failed to agree Wednesday on significant cuts in heat-trapping gases by 2050, unraveling an effort to build a global consensus to fight climate change, according to people following the talks.

 

Of course, emission targets in 2050 have limited practical meaning — present leaders will be dead or doddering by then — so these differences may be patched up. The important point is that other nations are unlikely to make real concessions on emissions if the United States is not addressing the climate matter seriously.

With a workable climate bill in his pocket, President Obama might have been able to begin building that global consensus in Italy. Instead, it looks as if the delegates from other nations may have done what 219 U.S. House members who voted up Waxman-Markey last month did not: critically read the 1,400-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and deduce that it’s no more fit to rescue our climate than a V-2 rocket was to land a man on the moon.

I share that conclusion, and have explained why to members of Congress before and will again at aCapitol Hill briefing on July 13. Science has exposed the climate threat and revealed this inconvenient truth: If we burn even half of Earth’s remaining fossil fuels we will destroy the planet as humanity knows it. The added emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide will set our Earth irreversibly onto a course toward an ice-free state, a course that will initiate a chain reaction of irreversible and catastrophic climate changes.

The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere now stands at 387 parts per million, the highest level in 600,000 years and more than 100 ppm higher than the amount at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Burning just the oil and gas sitting in known fields will drive atmospheric CO2 well over 400 ppm and ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back. But if we cut off the largest source of carbon dioxide, coal, we have a chance to bring CO2 back to 350 ppm and still lower through agricultural and forestry practices that increase carbon storage in trees and soil.

The essential step, then, is to phase out coal emissions over the next two decades. And to declare off limits artificial high-carbon fuels such as tar sands and shale while moving to phase out dependence on conventional petroleum as well.

This requires nothing less than an energy revolution based on efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. Alas, we won’t get there with the Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity hatched in Washington after energetic insemination by special interests.

For all its “green” aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like “cap-and-trade” scheme. Here are a few of the bill’s egregious flaws:

• It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.

 

• It sets meager targets — 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year’s level — and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious “offsets,” by which other nations are paid to preserve forests - while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.

 

 

• Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, “has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives.”

 

 

• It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, “businesses and households won’t be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense,” thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.

 

There is an alternative, of course, and that is a carbon fee, applied at the source (mine or port of entry) that rises continually. I prefer the “fee-and-dividend” version of this approach in which all revenues are returned to the public on an equal, per capita basis, so those with below-average carbon footprints come out ahead.

A carbon fee-and-dividend would be an economic stimulus and boon for the public. By the time the fee reached the equivalent of $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton of CO2) the rebate in the United States would be $2000-3000 per adult or $6000-9000 for a family with two children.

Fee-and-dividend would work hand-in-glove with new building, appliance, and vehicle efficiency standards. A rising carbon fee is the best enforcement mechanism for building standards, and it provides an incentive to move to ever higher energy efficiencies and carbon-free energy sources. As engineering and cultural tipping points are reached, the phase-over to post-fossil energy sources will accelerate. Tar sands and shale would be dead and there would be no need to drill Earth’s pristine extremes for the last drops of oil.

Some leaders of big environmental organizations have said I’m naïve to posit an alternative to cap-and-trade, and have suggested I stick to climate modeling. Let’s pass a bill, any bill, now and improve it later, they say. The real naïveté is their belief that they, and not the fossil-fuel interests, are driving the legislative process.

The fact is that the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. Their bill is an astoundingly inefficient way to get a tiny reduction of emissions. It’s less than worthless, because it will delay by at least a decade starting on a path that is fundamentally sound from the standpoints of both economics and climate preservation.

Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who died this week, suffered for 40 years — as did our country — from his failure to turn back from a failed policy. As grave as the blunders of the Vietnam War were, the consequences of a failed climate policy will be more severe by orders of magnitude.

With the Senate debate over climate now beginning, there is still time to turn back from cap-and-trade and toward fee-and-dividend. We need to start now. Without political leadership creating a truly viable policy like a carbon fee, not only won’t we get meaningful climate legislation through the Senate, we won’t be able to create the concerted approach we need globally to prevent catastrophic climate change.

 

 I read the story in the Oregonian, and then the legions of comments after, mostly disgraceful, negative, mean spirited stuff, all hidden behind monikers and “post names”, never the real identity of the person.   A link to the article is below:

 http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/07/challenge_may_follow_renaming.html

This is what I wrote as my comment, and as always, I used my real name.  Please feel free to comment, here or at the Oregonian article comment section.

*****************************************************************************

 

Street names get changed all over from time to time.  In the county I grew up in, which has grown significantly in the 35 years since I left, the entire county (actually the entire state) switched to a “central grid” street numbering scheme because the old RFD system of Route numbers and Box numbers gave no clue as to where the house actually sits.  Emergency services could find the house quickly, nor could anyone else without elaborate directions.  This didn’t just happen in Florida, but all over the country, even the remote mountain cabin my brother lives in (in the mountains of western North Carolina).

 

So the 303 E. Bougainvillia of my childhood (and until I was in my early 50s) has now become a five numbered address in the NE section of the county, and my brother’s home, which was for decades, Route 6, box 355, Burnesville NC, is now 627 Winter Star Road.

 

I know people don’t like change.  My only point is, it happens.  One of the reasons I had suggested “Division” as the choice is that absolutely no one, even a friend in his 70s, a Portland native, who was a county planner his whole life, can tell me how and why Division got it’s name.  Who was Division?  Why Division?  What did it divide?  No one seems to know.My choice was Division, though Grand or Broadway would have made more sense too.  But the “hoopla” about any of those streets forced it over to 39th.

 

This “majority” thing is tricky.  We actually live in a Constitutional Republic, not a pure “Democracy”.  Will of the majority can be very brutal at times.  I grew up in the civil rights era, and I can assure you that white people everywhere were not at all willing to consider the issues of non white people.  Some of the most brutally racist events in history occurred in Chicago, Boston, and yes, here in Portland.

 

As a gay man, who has had my existence, dignity, humanity and civil rights put on a ballot measure every two or four years for over 30 years (my entire adult life), and then I get to see the percentages of people who hate me when the ballots are counted, I can assure you that not all things should be determined by majority rule.

 

As someone who is not a native to the region, who was born in a state with a Spanish name, in a city with a Spanish name, and lived another 22 years in a city with a Spanish name, I find all of this objection sadly provincial at best, and disgustingly racist at worst.

 

Within days of John Kennedy’s assassination, Grand Central Blvd. in Tampa Florida, which was the main street through the heart of the city (much like Burnside here) was changed to Kennedy Blvd.  The only people who objected were the ones who thought his getting shot was a good idea.

 

None of we whites in the south wanted integration.  But a couple of years later, most of us realized what idiots we’d been for having made such a fuss.  The rest died with a hardened heart.  Is that what some of you will do?  Stay angry because the world has changed and you don’t like it?  Carry that grudge till you die?

 

One of the reasons integration had to happen was that national and international business would never relocate to a segregated area.  Look at the south now, an economic powerhouse, because it changed.  Long held traditions, in a region which is the most “historically oriented” region in America, realized that some traditions are not worth keeping.

 

Cesar Chavez made a difference, and not just for Latino people, what he did, and stood for affected us all, he fought against abusive use of pesticides on produce, and civil rights for GLBTQ people, something he championed decades ago when it was not popular to do so.

 

Every time you bring produce home from the store you are benefitting from his work.

 

Our city does not need a reputation as a back water, provincial place.  That’s how we lose opportunities. Displaying a progressive posture, yes, with a street named after Mr. Chavez, helps us attract businesses and jobs of the future.

 

I’m truly sorry that this is so difficult for some people here, but all this spewing of ignorance and narrow mindedness simply demonstrate why the name change needed to happen.

 

Ed Garren

www.edgarren.us

This mornings New York Times has the following article about how fluctuations in the price of oil are making both budgeting, and the possibility of an economic recovery very difficult.  Here’s a link to the article:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/06oil.html?emc=eta1 

 

Being a psychotherapist, who is trained to listen and intuit the significance of what is NOT said, and combining it with what IS said, an obvious picture is emerging out of this situation.

 

Remember when Rush Limbaugh made the statement that he wanted Obama to fail at getting the country back on it’s feet?

 

We know that Rush is the mouthpiece for the most greedy elements of Republican party leadership.  We also know that those “most greedy elements” are hip deep in the energy industry.

 

“Connect the dots” people, if they play with the price of oil, and soak up any extra money that might get back into circulation by inflating the price of oil, what happens to the economic recovery?

 

It fails.

 

If the Democrats fail at getting the country back on it’s feet, then the Republicans come in, gloating, boasting,  ”we told you all along that the Democrats don’t know what to do, that government does not work” and they get back in power.

 

Don’t fall for it.  There is enough oil around to keep prices stable, but the oil industry uses any burp or belch as an excuse to jack up prices.   When they do, remember who is really the brains behind the charade, and think of Rush Limbaugh’s statements about wanting the president (and therefore the country) to fail.

 

Any way you can get away from using gasoline, or using less of it will help the country.   If you can buy a car or other major product that is made in America, that helps the economy.

 

The new Ford Fusion Hybrid gets 41 MPG in the city and is a real kick to drive.  Here’s one review:

 

http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=3610 

 

Insist on the production of electric cars for city use.  We have the technology GM’s EV1 was a great car, killed by the oil industry, watch the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car” for details.  A link to watch the entire movie on YouTube is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3rw9MsHB8Y

Encourage municipalities to convert to electric busses and trolley cars.    Write your congress person and tell them that now the “we the people” own General Motors that they return to production of electric cars (like the EV1) and make the technology available to other auto manufacturers (like they sell other components to competitors) so that Chrysler can also make electric cars.  A modern electric car can go over 120 miles on one charge, enough for virtually all daily driving a person does.  Cost wise, it’s the same as driving a gasoline car, except the gasoline costs less than 50 cents a gallon.  And, the energy is made in the United States, not the middle east or some other off shore place.

 

Also, insist that there be a full congressional investigation of all the connections and collusion between the energy industry and the Bush/Cheney era, who stole their way into the treasury in the first place.

 

The sooner we get away from oil, the stronger our country will be.

 

And remember, if Rush says something outlandish again, he’s just telling you what they are planning on doing, and thank him for spilling the beans.