by Anonymous | Aug 24, 2018 | General
When we see a homeless person “flying a flag” (panhandling with a cardboard sign), we react with sadness and empathy, followed by a gift of money. It may make us feel better. But are we making things worse?
We live in a society with plenty of opportunity. Employers are desperate for workers. So why are there 500,000 homeless in our nation?
First, we must know “the homeless.” Who are they?
The Down and Out
A major life event such as illness, divorce, domestic violence or loss of a job can cause a temporary inability to be self-sufficient. This is the smallest group and comprises those with the best hope of being helped. Sometimes we lump all homeless in this category, which worsens the problem by misusing resources and failing to distinguish the truly violent and dangerous transients.
Life Style Homeless
These people choose to be homeless. “Travelers,” they often call themselves. Some live in cars, RV’s or old school busses. Many carry packs and tents. You see them parked at night on Port Townsend’s streets. They consider themselves tourists or Bohemians. They do nothing to support our community but use expensive and vital resources. Their drain on public resources shortchanges those who are not on the streets by choice.
The Mentally Ill
This group can be dangerous to themselves and to others. Often addicted to drugs and/or alcohol and often with criminal records and open arrest warrants, they are the most visible. A culture that elevates the rights of the individual above the needs of society, good or bad, has let them run wild on our streets. They are frequently transported to hospitals at great expense to taxpayers, only to be set back on the streets without treatment. Laws have been passed to deal with this problem, but laws with no means of enforcement are useless. Politicians in Olympia and Washington can say ‘we did something’, but that is not ground truth.
“Ricky’s Law” is a great example. The state claims that first responders can involuntarily commit a person for debilitating substance abuse. But this law provides little to no legal support for our first responders and no beds or treatment centers.
Addicts and Alcoholics
This group could be considered part of the Mental Health group. Addiction is often a response to an inability to cope with life. These people are self-medicating. Our society has turned them into victims, with no accountability. We tell them and ourselves that it is not their fault.
This group is dangerous and commits the highest amount of property and violent crime. Washington State has no law against public intoxication and, worse yet, no drug possession laws based on consumption. Possessing a syringe full of heroin is a crime until it is injected, when it becomes a medical issue. The hypocrisy of a legislator claiming that unused drugs are a criminal matter, but using those drugs is not is mind-bending. Look at the mess in Seattle where police no longer arrest low-level heroin dealers. They must view them as addicts supporting an addiction. But how many people are introduced to heroin by these “non-criminal addiction supporters”?
Criminals
We can identify a fifth group, the criminal element. They are found in the Life Style, Mental Illness and Addicts and Alcoholics groups. The chicken-or-the-egg question arises: are they criminal due to homelessness, or is their criminality the driving factor? The question is immaterial. No circumstance should excuse behavior that hurts other people or their property . Society has a primary duty of protecting its citizens from those who would do them harm. And once we excuse criminal behavior we have abandoned accountability.
We can “know” the homeless. What next?
Not much can be done until we start funding mental health beds and using and enhancing our involuntary commitment laws. Until then, we will continue to see growth in all groups listed above, except the small number of “down and out” who can be helped by other means.
If we believe in the individual rights and worth of the homeless, we must let them suffer the fate they choose when they break the law. A society that respects them holds them accountable for their actions. That means real consequences.
What can I do?
Start with this little thing: Don’t give money to panhandlers. Give to the local shelter or food bank. The resources available to the homeless are abundant, but often come with conditions requiring behavior they don’t like but which is beneficial to the them and the community. Giving money that can be spent on booze or drugs hurts everyone. (Giving goods or vouchers only means your gift may be sold cheaply to raise cash for drugs or booze).
Respect the homeless by expecting them to be law-abiding citizens. Respect them by believing they can do better. Give help that lifts them up, not help that holds them down. Stop giving to make yourself feel better when you are most likely making the problem worse.
by Scott Hogenson | Aug 22, 2018 | General
One of my favorite responsibilities as a news executive was to serve as an ombudsman. When readers express complaints about a news organization’s coverage of an issue, it is the ombudsman’s role to publicly and constructively respond to these complaints, and explain how news and commentary are prepared.
The Port Townsend Free Press commentary of July 31, entitled ‘Now Showing – Desperation Over Pleasant Harbor,’ generated a good deal of response on Facebook and elsewhere. While much of the response to that commentary was positive, the criticism merits discussion.
Jeff Maloney, writing on the Brinnon Community Page on Facebook, expressed a concern echoed by other readers. “It strikes me as confrontational, an attack on this Brinnon group, a lot of it irrelevant, petty, like how much money the group has, an error in the address, it was about the group, not about the issue (sic).”
The column raised questions about the Brinnon Group and its finances, a practice well ensconced in journalism. When a party inserts itself into a debate, it is in the public interest to scrutinize that party. One role of journalism is to explore and explain the motivations of parties engaging on an issue. The public knows what the Brinnon Group says but does not know how its efforts are funded nor who is providing this funding. These are valid questions.
As for the location of the Brinnon Group, the group says it is working for the people of Brinnon yet there is evidence that it isn’t located in Brinnon or even Jefferson County. If the people who say they are working on behalf of local interests are located nearly 100 miles away, as the Brinnon Group’s Kitsap Superior Court filing and IRS correspondence reveal, it is reasonable to ask whether it is really a local grassroots organization.
Sara Harvey, also writing on the Brinnon Community Facebook page, lamented, “metaphoric slanders against a group of people who are trying to prevent a massive shift to the rural village that is Brinnon.”
Slander is a legal term that applies to spoken falsehoods that damage another party. Falsely accusing a party of wrongdoing or some other malfeasance may rise to the level of slander but presenting facts, posing questions and expressing opinions do not. People are not entitled to their own facts. Factual inaccuracy was not among the complaints about the column.
The Brinnon Group is trying to prevent the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. But there is nothing to suggest the group speaks for all or even most of the people in Brinnon. The recent primary election results in the race for District 3 county commissioner indicate otherwise.
Of the 551 votes cast for all four county commissioner candidates in the Brinnon Precinct, 32% were cast for a candidate who opposes the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The remaining 68% were for candidates who publicly expressed support for the project. While the Brinnon Group may speak for a third of the people of Brinnon, their position appears to represent a small minority, further legitimizing questions about it. When a party takes action on an issue that contradicts the wishes of two-thirds of the people of Brinnon, it is reasonable to ask why.
The greatest number of complaints involved the tone of the commentary. Brinnon Group spokesperson Mark Rose described the column as, “a hit piece,” “nasty,” expressive of “anger,” and he articulated dismay that the commentary did not delve into, “the merits of our appeal,” to block the MPR. Other readers voiced similar complaints.
The column expressed no opinion on the merits of the appeal because that is the role of the courts. The column expressed no opinion on the Pleasant Harbor MPR, but did disclose the group’s prior statements on the issue, which is appropriate.
As for the tone of the commentary, that is a license granted to all opinion writers. The term “conga line of buffoons,” is an admittedly less than cordial means of describing the Brinnon Group and purely subjective. Mr. Rose admitted during an on-the-record interview that he falsely accused two public officials of suppressing information and said earlier that his group was unable to inform a “shocking,” number of Brinnon residents about the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Whether these actions and inactions rise to the level of buffoonery is open to debate. Reasonable people can conclude they are inconsistent with organizations wishing to do good.
The feedback was instructive and the opportunity to respond to critics is appreciated. It is our responsibility and we are wiser for that opportunity.
Scott Hogenson is a resident of Jefferson County.
by Sky Hardesty | Aug 21, 2018 | General
It would have been easy to break the law. My Russian fiancé Elena and I, along with our new baby, could have easily obtained a Canadian tourist visa, hopped the ferry in Victoria, B.C., and illegally set up home in sanctuary city Port Townsend. In this city that has announced its welcome to illegal aliens, Elena could receive public benefits, a driver’s license and enjoy police protection from federal detainers and deportation orders.
But that would have meant that Elena’s first act upon stepping on American soil would be to commit a crime. We would implicate our child in criminality. We didn’t have to think twice. This would not be the route for our family. Honesty and respect for law are among our core values.
Our journey was arduous. We confronted despair and frustration. Our situation was incredibly complicated. We made mistakes. We learned. We persevered.
If we could do it, so can anyone else. There is no excuse for entering this country illegally.
A Long Journey
I awoke Christmas day, 2017, in the Dubai International Airport en route to a pregnant Elena in Belgorod, Russia. We had heard nothing after submitting her application for a fiancé visa six months earlier. As my flight departed, I found myself in a rare moment of prayer. I prayed for our immigration application to be approved so our daughter could be born in the United States.
I arrived in a freezing Belgorod. It was a thrill to be met by my future wife and be able to spend the holidays together.
Bad news arrived in a letter from the US Customs and Immigration Service requesting additional evidence. They wanted proof that ours was not going to be a sham marriage. This was a heavy blow. Such a letter often means visa denial.
In Belgorod I suffered a severe skull injury that sent me across Europe for a dizzying array of treatments. That did not stop us. We hired a lawyer to ensure we submitted the correct response to the USCIS letter. The paperwork we submitted was an inch and a half thick.
We waited. I called the US embassy and was told to wait more. Weeks later we got the news that Elena’s visa had been approved. We were instructed to call and schedule an appointment at the consulate in Moscow.
Bureaucracy, delays, frustration and fear
Due to the political tensions between Russia and the US, making an appointment was extremely difficult. Besides, no appointments were available. Elena’s due date was fast approaching. We had to accept our daughter not being born in the country we wanted to be her home.
We constantly tried to get an appointment while completing a list of tasks and gathering required documents. You cannot imagine the nightmare of obtaining Russian government documents. Elena had to travel to a medical appointment 500 miles away to meet a visa requirement. She began experiencing pregnancy-related problems. We felt helpless and frustrated. We were stressed to our limits.
May 25, 2018 was one of the greatest days of my life. Our daughter Anastasia was born after suffering trauma from needlessly induced labor. We now had daily trips on her behalf to doctors, physical therapy and massage.
Elena was finally able to get an appointment. We rushed to complete our documentation. The three of us took an all-night train to Moscow and went straight from the station to the embassy. We presented a stack of paper a foot high. Elena’s visa was approved in ten minutes!
But now we had to prove that Anastasia was our daughter.
The extraordinary travel required by my medial care had produced “too many passport stamps,” we were told. We needed more medical documents for Anastasia. Once they were submitted, we could again expect to endure more waiting and uncertainty. We quickly returned to the train station, made the long ride to Belgorod and got to work.
Two weeks after submitting all that was asked of us we still had no word. I called the embassy and got a clueless bureaucrat. I called again and was successful in finding someone who confirmed they had received our documents.
On July 19 we received approval to travel. We arrived in Seattle July 26 and are now happily building lives here in Port Townsend. Elena and I have our American marriage certificate.
The Right Decision
We are thankful we took the righteous, lawful path. It is a contemptuous insult to follow the law diligently only to hear many of our fellow Port Townsend residents and elected officials—who swore to uphold the law upon taking office—celebrating law-breaking, open borders and clemency for illegal immigrants. Our city council has dictated that police ignore our nation’s immigration laws and refuse to cooperate with fellow federal law enforcement officers. The Russian girl I fell in love with has exhibited more respect for American law than these politicians.
Elena read over this article and wants to add this: “People who are desperate enough to decide to break laws in general are not respected in their own countries. If Americans want to live in a civilized society, they should keep sending illegal immigrants back home.”
I am elated to be here with my wife and daughter. The difficulties we endured were worth it, ten times over. God bless America!
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
by Jim Scarantino | Jul 27, 2018 | General
|
From left: Ruby Groussman (8), Andre Mackey (10), Ike Banks (13), Evan Mackey (12).
|
The youth photographers in the Discovery 4-H Club photo project will help “Save the Bees” for this year’s fair theme. The Jefferson County Fair theme is “Bug Up!!” and many of the exhibits throughout the fairgrounds will emphasize an insect theme. The Discovery 4-H students decided to take things a step further.
Last year the club raised money to help cover their photo booth costs. This year they will take donations for
The Honeybee Conservancy, a non-profit 501c3 organization that works to help the bees, while increasing access to organic, sustainable food in underserved communities.
Saving the bees and protecting the environment is a cause all of the club photographers agree is important.Andre Mackey, age 10, says “We wanted to do something to help the honeybees, because they help people by pollinating one-third of the crops we eat in this country. They’re also helpful to animals and the environment. And they have good honey!” His older brother, Evan Mackey, age 12, adds, “Honeybees are good for the environment. People should not use pesticides and should leave their dandelions in their yard to help the bees to live. They are important creatures to the world. Albert Einstein said, “if the bee disappeared off the face of the Earth, man would only have four years left to live.’ So we should really keep them alive.”
The students will operate a photo booth to take photos of babies, kids and adults decked out in bee wings, antennae or in regular clothes. No donation is necessary, and at least three high print-quality photos will be e-mailed to participants after the fair.
Photographers include: Reice Elsasser, Ike Banks, Evan Mackey, Andre Mackey, Ruby Groussman, and Zeke BanksDanell Swim-Mackey, the 4-H coordinator for the group, says this is only part of this year’s service project. “Another way that the kids are finding the honeybees relevant is our fundraiser with 4-H Fruit, selling organic peaches, pears, and nectarines from an orchard in Eastern Washington (and all of those crops are entirely dependent on pollinators). 4-H Fruit will hopefully provide the funding for more equipment and cameras for the kids, and a field trip somewhere amazing when we get the kids to agree to a location.”
The Discovery 4-H Photo Project provides twice-monthly meetings to demonstrate photography skills to students 8 to 16 years of age. The project is in its second year and will begin accepting new students in December 2018. The Bug Up photo booth will operate during the Jefferson County Fair August 10-12th. 11am-3pm on Friday, and 1pm-5pm for Saturday and Sunday.
by Scott Hogenson | Jul 11, 2018 | General, Politics
Had anyone told me last year that I’d be writing about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as it pertains to Jefferson County politics, I would have told them they’re nuts. But having made a passing reference to it a few weeks ago, and having listened to local politicians and community commentators over the past few weeks, I realized I had hit on something.
Abraham Maslow was an American psychologist who left us too soon. He was only 62 when he died in 1970 but he left behind a volume of work that merits the study of scholars in developmental psychology, sociology, and management training to this day. Chief among his theories is his
Hierarchy of Needs, which resulted from his research into human motivation and curiosity.
During the course of his research, Maslow identified stages through which humans pass
en route to reaching their full potential and what we need to get there. Much of Maslow’s theory laid out the basic things humans need before they can achieve their full potential –
self-actualization, as he described it. Some of these needs include self-esteem, social belonging and a measure of safety and security. But the necessary bedrock which precedes all other needs is what Maslow called physiological needs. These are the things necessary to human survival. Without them we fail to function.
Maslow broke down these physiological needs into a handful of necessities: air to breath, water to drink, food to eat, and shelter from the elements, along with sex, sleep and clothing. Once these needs have been achieved, we can move to the next level of Maslow’s hierarchy, which is safety. This involves our personal security, as well as our emotional and financial security, and our health and well being.
One stage in Maslow’s hierarchy leads to the next. Leapfrogging doesn’t work. It does no good to perceive a sense of social belonging, which Maslow identifies as necessary to self-actualization, if one hasn’t first attained proper shelter and security. It is at this point that we can see a nexus between the needs of human beings as individuals – little different from our cave dwelling ancestors – and the communities we inhabit in the 21st century.
As the contest for the vacant seat on the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners takes shape we can see how candidates are applying Maslow’s theory, and whether they are applying it properly or improperly, particularly on the issue of infrastructure. Democrat Craig Durgan and Republican Jon Cooke are pounding the podium for sewer services in Port Hadlock and other areas of the county, while Democrats Greg Brotherton and Ryan McAllister are expending more time extolling the virtues of high-speed Internet.
Maslow would probably say both are good things, just as he said shelter and acceptance into social settings are good things. But he was quite specific in determining which must precede which. That is the question for Jefferson County voters in choosing among candidates.
Just as with individuals, the goal of reaching full potential can also be charted among communities through Maslow’s Hierarchy. Before Jefferson County can achieve its full potential, it must maneuver through the stages of Maslow’s theory, demonstrated by how it conducts itself as a civil society. We must first establish a foundation for the civic equivalent of physiological and safety needs, followed by fulfillment of social belonging and esteem before reaching that stage of self-actualization – Jefferson County’s full potential.
Jefferson County has largely met the physiological needs of its citizens but can the same be said for safety and financial security? It’s an open question depending on where one lives. But ask the storekeeper or restaurateur in Port Hadlock, or the landowner wanting to build apartments to provide much needed rental housing: does reaching financial security and their full potential depend more on their Internet service or their sewer service? You’ll likely find greater need for the latter than the former.
As we contemplate the contenders for the Board of County Commissioners we would do well to consider Jefferson County’s Hierarchy of Needs and which candidates are prepared to meet them. There are no shortcuts to self-actualization and anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring the settled science of Abraham Maslow.
by Scott Hogenson | Jul 3, 2018 | General, Politics
Port Townsend and Jeffco Contracts Requiring
Payment of Union Dues Now Unenforceable
Pop quiz: If you belong to a collective bargaining unit in Jefferson County, and if that collective bargaining unit took money from you to support the reelection of President Trump, would you be:
A – Happy
B – Unhappy
C – Indifferent
Given the results of the 2016 presidential election, my hunch is that most people would choose Response B because a lot of people in Jefferson County do not support the President. Ergo, they probably do not want their hard-earned money used to support someone with whom they disagree.
To those of you who chose Response B be assured, for whatever it’s worth, that I have your six on this issue. The very idea of taking away somebody’s money and using it to promote something they don’t like is a cringeworthy violation of the First Amendment. It’s not free speech; it’s rather expensive speech and it’s financed by forcing people to pay-up regardless of their beliefs.
That’s why last week’s Supreme Court decision in the
Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees case is so important.
This particular case ruled that a 41-year-old Illinois law which forced employees who do not belong to a union, but are represented by a collective bargaining unit, to give their money to that union.
While this decision does not affect union members at the Port Townsend mill or other private employer unions, it does affect anybody who belongs to a union representing government employees, school teachers, fire and police personnel and so forth.
This decision frees non-union members from being compelled to give their money to a collective bargaining unit in support of something they oppose. This is good news for opponents of President Trump who would not want their paychecks shrunk by force so the money could be used to support the Administration. It is also good news for the workers who like what the President is doing and don’t want a portion of their wages used to undermine policies with which they agree.
It turns out that Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan disagrees with me. She would apparently be happy with unions in Jefferson County and elsewhere supporting Trump with money taken from people who oppose him. Kagan, in her dissent, goes so far as to argue that this decision amounts to, “weaponizing the First Amendment.”
Maybe it’s just me but does anyone else find it peculiar that Kagan would make such a statement given her political leanings? After all,
Slate Magazine described Kagan as, “the most influential liberal justice,” on the court. So why is she articulating a position that is in such stark contrast with the greatest liberal Democrat icon of the 20th century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
The public sector unions that want to take money from non-union members were vociferously opposed by
President Franklin Roosevelt. He never even bothered to get around to whether such unions should be able to take money from non-members. He said flat-out that public sector unions are wrong.
When asked by a reporter in 1937 whether he supported unions for government employees, Roosevelt was unequivocal in his response saying, “Not in the government, because there is no collective contract. It is a very different case. There isn’t any bargaining, in other words, with the government, therefore the question does not arise.”
Perhaps the time has come for Jefferson County Democrats, liberals, progressives and others cut from similar cloth to revisit Roosevelt’s values and take a stand by advocating the elimination public sector unions altogether. That’s what FDR would want. Given that the issue of campaign finance was raised at the June 24 Honesty Forum in Port Ludlow, it’s a fair question for the candidates running for office.
Scott Hogenson lives in Jefferson County. He is a former Teamster and a former member of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union.
Editor’s Note
The Janus decision will have a substantial impact on the area’s public sector employees. We took a look at a few of their union contracts.
The city’s contract requires that all its employees join and pay dues to General Teamster’s Local Union 589. The contract recognizes only religious First Amendment rights in protecting an employee being forced to join. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment’s free speech and freedom of association clauses mandate that anyone having an objection to joining a public-sector union may not be compelled to do so.
The City’s union contract oddly required employees with a religious objection to union membership to give the equivalent of their dues to a non-religious or other charity selected—get this–not by the employee, but by the Teamsters and the City. If they could not agree, the Washington Department of Licensing and Industry would determine the charity to be paid each month by that employee. That clause is certainly illegal now.
Jefferson County has the same clause in its contracts with Teamster Local 589. The Port Townsend School District also has a similar clause in its contract with the Port Townsend Education Association. That clause required the union to participate in the selection of the charity to be paid. The school district’s contract with the Service Employees International Union and its Local 925 incorporates a similar clause but allows the employee objecting to forced union membership on religious grounds to steer her dues equivalent to a charity of her choice.
Here is the pertinent clause from the City’s Teamster’s contract:
Here is the equivalent clause from the School District’s agreement with the PTEA:
