Incumbent Republican Commissioner David Dotterer wrote a response.
The following is an exchange that took place in the Comments section of the Substack version of this blog.
The response was not made to me directly. It was made to a third party who asked the question:
"Hi Dave, Where do you stand on the July 8th resolution which says the 2000 Mules Documentary is "irrefutable" proof?
Dotterer's response was sent to me.
 |
| Alan DeBoer |
"Peter, I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in a discussion on this topic. Dave."
Colleen Roberts, a candidate for re-election as Commissioner, called the issue "moot" even though her party just declared it wasn't moot. She neither agrees nor disagrees with them. She wrote:
I wasn't aware that the party was coming forth with this resolution. But then it is no secret that I haven't always been in lockstep with the republican party. The Presidential election was nearly 2 years ago and, in my opinion, it's a moot issue now.
But I do remember when President Trump was duly elected that many of the media and pundits (for four years) referred to him as an 'illegitimate' president with T shirts and bumper stickers everywhere saying 'not my president' so I suppose there is a precedent there, unfortunately.
I believe, like most Americans, that going forward we need to make sure the integrity and transparency of every election, local, state, and national is respected and overseen in a non-biased and transparent manner. I believe in and support voter ID and in a perfect world, I'd like us to be a community again who meets up with our neighbors at the local precinct house and casts our vote in person--and that IS a resolution that I would support.
That said, I will spend my time addressing the issues of today and our county's future.
Colleen Roberts
I have requested comments from Commissioner candidate Rick Dyer, State Representative candidate Kim Wallan, and State Senate candidate Randy Sparacino. Silence.
I am disappointed, but not surprised. They are echoing the behavior of most GOP federal officeholders. They don't want to be called a "RINO." They say nothing, or they mumble vague things elections and avoid disagreeing with anyone. If people want to believe nonsense, who are they to provide leadership? They don't confront the herd.
There is a grave problem with that approach. It lets Trump's election lie stand un-contradicted by the presumably knowledgeable and credible leaders within the Republican Party. Voters take cues from leaders. The candidates have a job to do as truth-teller to the voters. They are MIA.
One credible Republican leader was not missing: Alan DeBoer. Again, good for him.
If the MIA candidates choose to speak up, I will let readers know. Meanwhile, Independent and Democratic candidates for those offices have sent their responses, which I will report soon.
[To receive this blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
 |
| Rick Millward |
You might think this is a Saturday Night Live spoof. No. This is America in 2020.If you haven't heard about this, let me be the first to tell you about this "toy" that is sparking controversy and outrage among anti-gun activists. A company in Indiana named WEE1 Tactical (get it? "Wee one") makes and sells the "JR-15," a scaled-down replica of an AR-15. It fires 22-caliber bullets--real bullets--and it is marketed to children.Here's a page from its brochure, noting that it "looks, feels, and operates just like Mom and Dad's gun." There is a cartoon boy and pigtailed girl skull with a target X over one eye. Lethal fun!
The JR-15 comes with a 10 and 15 round magazine. It claims a safety feature, a pill-bottle type knob that must be pulled "with some force" and turned.
Links to WEE1 Tactical go to an email link, not the company itself. I’m not surprised they have a low profile. A gun advocacy group, The Truth About Guns, predicted the gun was "Sure to get the antis’ knickers in a bunch." It did. A gun safety group formed out of the Sandy Hook school shooting, the Newtown Action Alliance, condemned "The callousness of the National Shooting Sports Foundation to promote a children's version of the same type of assault rifle that was used in a horrific mass shooting of 20 first-graders and six educators in our shared community."I share the outrage at the special privilege that guns have in America. You may remember that lawn darts are banned because they are too dangerous for children, but apparently these guns are ok.The U.S. has more guns per person than any other developed country. This reflects a belief and tradition based on the weirdly worded Second Amendment to the Constitution.The Second Amendment can be read to support whatever belief you might want. Two giant constituencies have formed. One interprets the language as intended to give the right to states to have a militia, a citizen army, to defend against a tyrannical federal government. The other believes the language bestows a completely unfettered “right to bear arms” to individuals. That is the one this Supreme Court adopted. The result is ubiquitous guns, even for kids.This view of a gun-packing citizenry is so dark and primeval it’s hard to reconcile with the brilliant technological, creative and culturally rich society that put a man on the moon, cured diseases, and has generally improved the human condition. Presumably this would mean universal disarmament, but in America it means the exact opposite. No one questions the need to defend oneself and one’s nation against a world with many dangers, but there is a point where prudence becomes paranoia. Guns aren't the solution. They are the problem. Consider the incidents of road rage. Consider the incidents of domestic violence. Consider the number of mentally ill on our streets. Of course all of them have access to guns. This is America. Everyone has access to guns.The only use for a military style weapon is to kill another person. A marketing strategy that promotes their distribution to civilians demands a population at war with itself. It requires that we all be terrified of each other and armed, a twisted vision of “freedom." And let's recognize what has been made blindingly obvious by this advertisement. Gun culture has gone crazy in America and it is past time to scale it back. AR-15s for kids!There is a solution: Revise the Second Amendment with language that reflects the reality of the 21st Century, where one weapon has more firepower than an entire colonial army.
[Note: To receive this blog by email every day, go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
First, I suppose I should buy a ticket.
That increases my odds of winning from zero to more-than-zero.
I would have a chance of winning 1.1 billion dollars, or about $650 million in the instant cash option. Or only about $400 million after tax.
Don't criticize me for saying only. After all, I just watched $700 million disappear. I have never lost that much money in an instant, and it takes getting used to.
First thing I would do is line up a lawyer and accountant. I have lots of lawyer and accountant friends, but I am pretty sure that a windfall of $650 million in one moment would present novel tax problems and opportunities outside their expertise and experience. I worry I might offend my excellent current CPA by finding some out-of-town lottery-winner specialist to work with. It would be the same thing with attorneys. Attorneys volunteer on my wife's Legal Services board of directors. I feel grateful to them. But again, there may be some unusual legal issues that come up in sudden windfalls of this magnitude and I may need an out-of-town specialist. So, from the get-go, I would be worried about negotiating hurt feelings.
Next, I would arrange with my wife to decide how much of it we would gift to close relatives, and how we would define that, and most important, how we would explain it. I am already imagining how I would feel if my sister or brother had the windfall of $650 million. I wouldn't expect something--not at all---but I suppose I would think it would be a nice gesture from them, what with my having helped them move a heavy couch up some stairs a year ago, and having played a lot of cribbage with them over the decades. Maybe we would give a million each to the siblings to get that out of the way. Maybe two million. We would tell them that our lawyers said that this was stretching it, and say it was for some arcane tax reason. It wouldn't be us, putting a limit on our love, I mean our money. We would blame third parties. There might be lingering hurt feelings that it wasn't more. After all, it could be more.
Then there is the setting up of a charitable trust and a mechanism for doing something meaningful with the money. My wife and I have some experience with foundations, and I don't envy the people who set them up or work for them. They have offices. Bureaucracies. Rules and criteria. We would be setting up a small business. So instead of being retired and playing with my melons, I would be meeting with lawyers and making hiring decisions. It would be work.
Then, my wife and I would need to decide how we would change our financial lifestyle. I live well, but not $400 million well. I like the house we live in. It is already too big. We might consider hiring a full time assistant/butler/house-person. That would be someone trustworthy to pick up our mail when we are out of town and someone to keep track of paying the few bills that aren't on auto-pay. I suppose I would buy a new pickup truck. I absolutely would have the new house-person get the truck washed every week or so. That would improve my life. I would feel wasteful about flying business class, when I really do fit into the economy-plus seats perfectly well, but I would spring for it. Business class is better than coach. That's all I can think of.
It might be nice to have the development directors of local charities be nice to me, but they are already nice to me and I only have peanuts to give them. Now they seem happy when I donate the pittances I can afford. If I had the interest off $300 million dollars to give away--maybe $15 million dollars a year-- they would feel disappointed if I only gave them a million dollars here and there. Oh, they would be happy for it but maybe a little disappointed, too. A million dollar gift meant that some other charity got money I could have given them. I don't blame them.
Mostly I worry that it would spoil our children. It would be hard for them to buckle down and build satisfying careers knowing that there is a boatload of money waiting for them. (I wouldn't buy a boat; that would just be more hassles.) It would be hard for them to feel the satisfaction of getting hired for a job, making a boss happy, and getting a promotion from clerk to assistant manager if one's parents were giving away money every couple of days in amounts equal to their annual salary. Why bother working if the money involved is essentially meaningless?
I suppose I could hire the adult children to help run the foundation, but that would put them in the pathetic role of a job being in service to one's parents. They never really grow up. Look at poor Prince Charles. Pitiful.
Politicians would expect bigger gifts from me. and I would make some of them. I already get phone calls from candidates I have never heard of in faraway places. That would be a nuisance and they would all know I could give money if I really wanted to. Now when I tell good candidates I am tapped out, they believe me, so are happy with whatever I give them. Once again I would spread disappointment.
Almost everything about winning the lottery would make my life worse. I may not buy a ticket.
--- ---
[Update: My brother read this post earlier today and he said that he, too, had been having a similar revery about winning. He said that in his revery he planned to give five million dollars to each of his siblings--not my measly one or two.]
 |
| Tam Moore |
Censure Trump
For many weeks, long before the Select Committee on January 6 held its final hearing of the season, I’ve been trying to figure out how the legislative branches of our national political parties might get themselves out of replays of 2020 and January 2021.
After all, Congress twice considered the impeachment of Donald Trump. Neither brought a conviction. The second time, Articles of Impeachment (based on the insurrection of January 6, 2021) didn’t come to trial in the Senate until January 21, the day after Trump left office. They charged him with “incitement of insurrection.” But what good did that do?
In addition to political posturing of the Senators, there’s a jurisdictional question on that second impeachment process. Can impeachment of a president -- or any other federal office holder -- really take place after the person leaves office?
If we are to wait for possible criminal action against the former president and his close associates, the issues will be around for a long time. As the current Attorney General noted last week, building legal cases for issues arising out of an insurrection are complex. Making a case before a grand jury is difficult, trying it and getting a conviction is time-consuming.
A suit filed on behalf of some U.S. Capitol Police Officers is already in court, filed last August in District of Columbia District Court. Smith v. Trump names Donald J. Trump, Stop the Steal, the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and other groups as defendants. The complaint alleges the riot was “a blatant attempt to stifle the votes and voices of millions of Americans. . . .”
Don’t hold your breath as you predict how many months or years it will take to get that lawsuit to trial. The last filing (number 154 in the docket) was July 27 – a motion by Trump to stay discovery and other proceedings.
Ankush Khardori, an attorney and former federal prosecutor who contributes to the online Politico Magazine, noted last week that the select committee thus far has chosen to make Trump the “central focus” of its hearings. We get little hint of what legislative solutions the committee leans toward. Khardori wrote that the committee’s “principal objective seemed to be to make Trump toxic and prevent him from being reelected if he runs again….” He sees a secondary objective of draining support “for the Republican enablers who are either already in office or seeking office.”
That’s politics.
Let’s go back to the basics of the insurrection as revealed in detail by the well-orchestrated and scripted committee hearings. Who were the targets of that mob sent down the mall to the Capitol? The Congress of the United States, obviously.
What does the U.S. Constitution say about a happening like January 6?
Here's a clause from the 14th Amendment to our Constitution:"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."In the United States an insurrection is “a rising or rebellion of citizens against their government.” That definition’s been on the books since enactment of the Insurrection Act in 1795. It’s the same law which authorizes the president to use military force to disperse insurgents and restore the peace.
The 14th Amendment specifically gives enforcement authority to Congress.
It was the Congress sent scurrying to safety as rioters prowled the Capitol. If we are to evaluate the evidence shown by the Select Committee, it was the then president whose words launched the riot.
What Congress needs to do is make a finding that January 6 was an “insurrection or rebellion,” and censure Trump –who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. That censure should include a law banning Trump from holding future federal office.
The Congress needs to act. The sooner the better. That won’t, overnight, unwind the divisions in our country, but it will show that legislative leadership is ready to move forward, not continue plowing the same furrow.
Marquette poll:
Republicans are a lot more enthusiastic about voting than are Democrats.
The Dobbs decision reversing Roe v. Wade did not change the enthusiasm gap.
Marquette University Law School published a national poll on abortion-related voting. It sends up some warnings to people who think the reversal of Roe v. Wade will motivate an army of abortion rights activists. Comparing a poll in May and one in early July suggests that recent court decisions and state actions didn't have much effect on either voters' points of view or motivation to vote.
College classmate Peter Lemieux alerted me to this poll and its finding that the people with the more extreme views on abortion--always legal or always illegal--are the people who consider the issue to be among the most important ones in the 2022 election.
Other findings show an 18 point "enthusiasm edge" for Republicans. 63% of Republicans are "very enthusiastic" about voting. Only 45% of Democrats say that. That gap was 13% in May, before the Dobbs abortion announcement.
There is some better news for Democrats. 34% of Republicans think abortions should be legal in most or all cases, putting them out of touch with core GOP policy, and likely the actions of state legislatures in red states. Only 8% of Democrats think abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, so fewer Democrats are in conflict with their party's policy.
By almost four to one margins, voters oppose state bans on out-of-state travel to get an abortion and bans on women getting abortion pills through out-of-state providers. Even about half of Republicans think that goes too far. This is another opportunity for Democrats if red state legislatures over-reach.
Public attitude toward abortion is closely scaled to gestational age of the fetus. About 30% of voters favor abortion bans even at the beginning of a pregnancy. About 40% favor banning abortions after 6 weeks. About 50% favor banning them after 15 weeks. About 65% favor banning abortion after 6 months, the Roe viability date. A significant majority of Americans are willing to "trust the woman" to make the abortion decision--but only up to about 15 weeks. Democratic principle--the woman's right, her choice--is popular, but only to a point.
Peter Lemieux is a college classmate who went on to get his Ph.D. in political science from MIT. His career is at the intersection of information technology and quantitative analysis. He puts his own analysis up for public review at his website: www.politicsbythenumbers.org. He offers some strategy advice to Democrats.
Guest Post by Peter Lemieux
 |
| Peter Lemieux and cat Zoe |
I happened to come across this article today while browsing the Marquette polling site.
https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2022/07/21/mlspsc09-national-issues-release/
It contains this interesting, if not necessarily surprising, table:
I added the last column showing the proportion of adults who hold each opinion on abortion. 28% think it should be legal in all cases; 8% think it should be illegal in all cases. Nearly twice as many Americans (64%) think abortion should generally be legal compared to those who think it should generally be illegal (35%).
Those groups at the ends of the spectrum place abortion high on their list of personal issue priorities compared to those with more middling opinions. 63-64% of those who think abortion should always--or never--be legal call it one of the most important issues. Those with more mixed options are only half as likely to put abortion at the top of their lists.
I'd focus my attention on that 46% of people who think abortion should be legal in most cases but think the issue is only "somewhat" important. At 36% of all adults, the "legal in most cases" group is the largest in the country, so encouraging them to make the abortion issue more important could be fruitful at the polls in November.
 |
| Y-Charts: 3 month chart of gasoline prices |
 |
| St. Louis Fed: Unemployment rate |
I've got to admit it's getting better (Better)
A little better all the time (It can't get no worse)
I have to admit it's getting better (Better)
[Note: to get this blog by email daily, go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
"Portland is broken."
Nicholas Kristof was quoting Portland's congressman Earl Blumenauer. Kristof asked the question in a current article about Portland and other West Coast cities: "What's wrong with West Coast Cities?"
Portland has a one-two punch of special misery. Portland has a conspicuous problem of unhoused people living on sidewalks, roadsides, and median strips. This creates crimes of nuisance and disorder: garbage, blocked access, trespass. The second punch is the protests-turned riots of the long summer of 2020. They left a residue of closed businesses and bad relations between police and the public.
 |
| Portland |
I am sharing two responses to the question posed by Nick Kristof. One is from a college classmate, Chip O'Hare. Chip is a mostly-retired businessman. He was formerly a Selectman (i.e. City Council member) for the city of Belmont. He volunteers in nonprofit work, including the Greater Boston Food Bank. "I'm a moderate who supports the poor, but I think the Progressive agenda and its politically correct narrative are a major part of the problem."
His comment on West Coast cities was:
I can’t tell you so much what needs to change as to what WILL change if the leadership vacuum is left to spawn solutions that clean up the mess without agreement on how to do it from both sides of the political aisle. I’m not sure that a constructive dialogue is possible, even on such a difficult issue. The right will eventually gain the support from the middle who want the problem solved and who have lost faith in the progressives and the Democratic Party. I don’t see how a more authoritarian approach is avoidable (like Rudy G. in NYC who cracked down on lower level criminals when he was mayor), only this time I see it being harsher and Trumpian. It may take a while for Portland to shift, but as of now, it’s rotting from the inside and the present situation is not sustainable. Even progressives will not tolerate dysfunction forever as the pursuit of happiness by law-abiding citizens will outweigh the policies of the far left.
O'Hare
In Massachusetts, where bad winters keep the numbers at lower levels, our new mayor, Michele Wu, cleaned up our only notorious tent city during the winter by offering alternative housing to those who lived on “Methadone Mile,” which had become a place where drugs were sold in public and overdoses frequent. A motel was offered, and housing at a closed hospital, which didn't solve the drug issue but at least kept the tents from remaining. The business community has been at their wits' end with everything, but for now it has improved somewhat.
We are heading for a more authoritarian and dystopian future, I fear. Hope I’m wrong.
Another reader, who goes by the pen name "Low Dudgeon," gives a parallel analysis. Democrats were like indulgent parents. I don't know who "Low Dudgeon" is. From previous comments I guess Low Dudgeon to be male, in his 50s, and an attorney living in Southern Oregon.
 |
| Dudgeon |
A couple of common misapprehensions and false distinctions need to be pointed out here. First, between the chronic homeless in places like Portland, and crime, including of the worst sort. Second, between Floyd protesters and Floyd rioters.
It has proven impolitic in area news media sources to note what is a matter of public record in two recent, otherwise well-publicized, topical and arguably emblematic cases: the arrestee in this professor's deadly beating AND the arrestee in the violent hate crime visited upon a Japanese tourist and child are longtime members of Portland's houseless community.
The Floyd riots were hardly sui generis, but a continuation of the Occupy and WTO-protest movements. Activist left-wingers, Black and White alike, Antifa and BLM alike, share convictions that America is so oppressive and corrupt that it must be burned down and built anew. Milder-mannered Democrats marched with and also cravenly deferred to these types as if well-intended, and their violent politicized excesses as unfortunate but largely understandable or unavoidable. Kamala Harris herself urged donations to bail funds for the worst offenders in all this, crowing that the mayhem must and will continue.
Suddenly many grown-up Democrats wonder, like bad parents, why the spoiled, tantruming adolescents continue to maim and destroy and degrade and demand, on ever more nebulous or unserious pretexts. They wonder why the people they indulged with tolerance and patience, from ingrate ersatz anarchists, to money-grubbing hustlers and hostile ignoramuses in BLM leadership positions nationwide, even after asinine calls to abolish police and prisons were uttered with a straight face in adult policy debates, NOW they wonder why these folks refuse to moderate their views and their conduct one jot for the common good.
Democrats sowed the wind, further wrecked the cities they have long run, and they will reap the election-year whirlwind.
Nicholas Kristof asked the question:
"What's wrong with West Coast cities?"
Nicholas Kristof was an award-winning New York Times reporter. He grew up in Yamhill, Oregon and some of his recent work described the pathologies in that small agricultural town west of Portland. He described poverty, joblessness, addictions, and despair. It is rural Oregon's version of J.D. Vance's Hillbilly Elegy. It is the ongoing story with echoes of Michael Harrington's The Other America, in which Appalachian poverty was brought to national attention in 1962.
Kristof returned to Oregon to grow grapes at the family farm, to run for governor of Oregon, and do journalism and commentary. I subscribe to his Substack blog and am one of his 1.9 million Twitter followers. Here is a link to his article, What's Wrong with West Coast cities?" https://nickkristof.substack.com/
Kristof turned his attention to disfunction in Portland and other Oregon cities. It is a top-of-mind issue for Oregonians and candidates for state offices. Portland is going through a rough patch. Kristof led off his article with the story of the beating to death of this kindly-looking 82-year-old retired university professor at a bus stop in downtown Portland.
Kristof noted that the murder rate in Portland was four times that of New York City, that trash is on the sidewalks, that the worst homelessness in America is in West Coast cities including Portland, and that Oregon's school graduation rate was among the worst in the country. He quoted Portland's congressperson, Earl Blumenauer, saying "Portland is broken."
I have written about Portland in prior blog posts. Portland had been the lovely, gracious "Keep Portland Weird" city with parks, food trucks, and a progressive ethic that inspired laughs in the TV program Portlandia. Now there are tents and encampments in the parks and median strips and boarded up buildings from the vandalism of the 2020 rioting. The mood in the city has changed.
I recognize the intractability of the problem of unhoused people. If there were easy solutions they would have been implemented. Tents on sidewalks, people living under plastic sheets, and accumulated garbage change the feel of what had been a gracious city.
But some of the problem with Portland involves the poorly managed rioting in the summer of 2020. The damage from that remains physically in plywood on windows and in closed businesses. The riots damaged the relations between the citizens and the police. They hurt Portland's self-image as a well-managed place. They damaged the reputation of Democrats in 2020 and that damage remains. Night after night voters saw mostly-White anarchist-hooligans dressed in black, acting under cover of George Floyd-related protests, breaking windows and setting fires. Portland became a poster child of uncontrolled disorder in Democratic cities. Meanwhile, in San Francisco, its School Board was the poster child of misplaced priorities, putting their attention on renaming schools.
 |
| ABC News |
Kristof asked a provocative question. Let me ask readers to comment and add your thoughts. Is there anything wrong with West Coast cities? What needs to change?
[Note: To get this blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
Yes, but there is one problem. You are a witness to something and cannot pretend that you don't see it and that others don't see how you respond. It is a dangerous lie that has infected a significant number of the people whose general political positions you hold, i.e. fellow Republicans. You are a leader. You hold a position of trust.
If you saw a colleague on the Board of Commissioners take a bribe to OK a land use decision you could say "I learned not to pay attention to bribes such as this." And if people saw you take that position, because they announced it in a press release, then the public would learn something terrible about the integrity of government in Jackson County. They would see you turning a blind eye to corruption, and the blind eye says it is OK, or at least not something you care to object to.
You are a Republican and ran for office as a Republican. Your own Jackson County elections office had a warning painted on its parking lot: "Votes don't count. Bullets next time." David, you cannot ignore this. What people think about the election puts county employees at some potential risk. You have a duty, but you are saying it is ok not to pay attention.
On my doorstep in about 2004 you were campaigning and I watched you show integrity when I asked if Muslims should be allowed to build a facility in lower Manhattan. I watched you hesitate, then say there there was no reason a Muslim facility should not be built in lower Manhattan. It was their right as Americans. If they fit the zoning, they had every right, just like Christians, Jews, or anyone else. That took courage. You likely guessed I would echo the then-loudest voices saying that they should be forbidden to be there. The easy thing would have been to go along with the Fox News viewers who were saying "No Muslims near the former World Trade Center." You did the right thing. You told the simple truth to a voter. You were educating me as to what it meant to be an American, but also educating me about you. I surprised you when I said "good answer." You were a City of Ashland Planning Commissioner then--a tiny appointed office. Now you hold a serious, high visibility partisan office. Your courage would matter more than ever now.
Peter Sage