Celebrating Our Glorious Wars, Plus Are Corporate Leaders Egotistical Psychopaths?

In This Edition:

- Celebrating Our Glorious Wars
----Iraq. Began with big lies. Ending with big lies. Never forget. (William Blum)
----Debacle! (Tom Englehardt)
- Our Innocents Abroad? (Pat Buchanan)
- Are Some Corporate & Government Leaders Egotistical Psychopaths? (A Nation on Meds. YouTube)
_____

(First three articles via Tom Feeley at Information Clearinghouse)

Celebrating Our Glorious Wars

Iraq. Began with big lies. Ending with big lies. Never forget. (William Blum)

"Most people don't understand what they have been part of here," said Command Sgt. Major Ron Kelley as he and other American troops prepared to leave Iraq in mid-December. "We have done a great thing as a nation. We freed a people and gave their country back to them."

"It is pretty exciting," said another young American soldier in Iraq. "We are going down in the history books, you might say." (Washington Post, December 18, 2011)

Ah yes, the history books, the multi-volume leather-bound set of "The Greatest Destructions of One Country by Another." The newest volume can relate, with numerous graphic photos, how the modern, educated, advanced nation of Iraq was reduced to a quasi failed state; how the Americans, beginning in 1991, bombed for 12 years, with one dubious excuse or another; then invaded, then occupied, overthrew the government, tortured without inhibition, killed wantonly, ... how the people of that unhappy land lost everything — their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women's rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives ... More than half the population either dead, wounded, traumatized, in prison, internally displaced, or in foreign exile ... The air, soil, water, blood, and genes drenched with depleted uranium ... the most awful birth defects ... unexploded cluster bombs lying anywhere in wait for children to pick them up ... a river of blood running alongside the Euphrates and Tigris ... through a country that may never be put back together again.

See Iraq. Began with big lies. Ending with big lies. Never forget. (William Blum) for rest of article.
__

Debacle!
How Two Wars in the Greater Middle East Revealed the Weakness of the Global Superpower

By Tom Engelhardt

. . . . In a final flag-lowering ceremony in Baghdad, clearly meant for U.S. domestic consumption and well attended by the American press corps but not by Iraqi officials or the local media, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta spoke glowingly of having achieved “ultimate success.” He assured the departing troops that they had been a “driving force for remarkable progress” and that they could proudly leave the country “secure in knowing that your sacrifice has helped the Iraqi people begin a new chapter in history, free from tyranny and full of hope for prosperity and peace.” Later on his trip to the Middle East, speaking of the human cost of the war, he added, “I think the price has been worth it.”

And then the last of those troops really did “come home” -- if you define “home” broadly enough to include not just bases in the U.S. but also garrisons in Kuwait, elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, and sooner or later in Afghanistan.

On December 14th at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the president and his wife gave returning war veterans from the 82nd Airborne Division and other units a rousing welcome. With some in picturesque maroon berets, they picturesquely hooahed the man who had once called their war "dumb." Undoubtedly looking toward his 2012 campaign, President Obama, too, now spoke stirringly of “success” in Iraq, of “gains,” of his pride in the troops, of the country’s “gratitude” to them, of the spectacular accomplishments achieved as well as the hard times endured by “the finest fighting force in the history of the world,” and of the sacrifices made by our “wounded warriors” and “fallen heroes.”

He praised “an extraordinary achievement nine years in the making,” framing their departure this way: “Indeed, everything that American troops have done in Iraq -- all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering -- all of it has led to this moment of success... [W]e’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.”

And these themes -- including the “gains” and the “successes,” as well as the pride and gratitude, which Americans were assumed to feel for the troops -- were picked up by the media and various pundits. At the same time, other news reports were highlighting the possibility that Iraq was descending into a new sectarian hell, fueled by an American-built but largely Shiite military, in a land in which oil revenues barely exceeded the levels of the Saddam Hussein era, in a capital city which still had only a few hours of electricity a day, and that was promptly hit by a string of bombings and suicide attacks from an al-Qaeda affiliated group (nonexistent before the invasion of 2003), even as the influence of Iran grew and Washington quietly fretted. . . .

For rest of article see Tomgram: Engelhardt, Lessons from Lost Wars in 2012
_____

Our Innocents Abroad? (Pat Buchanan)

As Leon Trotsky believed in advancing world communist revolution, neocons and democratists believe we have some inherent right to intervene in nations that fail to share our views and values.

But where did we acquire this right?

And if we are intervening in Egypt to bring about the defeat of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis, and the Islamists win as they are winning today, what do we expect the blowback to be? Would we want foreigners funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into our election of 2012?

How would Andrew Jackson have reacted if he caught British agents doing here what we do all over the world?

See Our Innocents Abroad? (Pat Buchanan) for rest of article.
_____

Are Some Corporate & Government Leaders Egotistical Psychopaths? (A Nation on Meds--Snakes In Suits)
"I Am Fishead" Are Corporate Leaders Egotistical Psychopaths ?‬ (Long)

War on WikiLeaks Continued: Assange Interview

[Edited 12/22/10]
War on WikiLeaks Continued: Assange Interview—You be the Judge

The merciless assault on Julian Assange has continued, and although he has not been charged with any crime, he has been granted “bail” to live in an ankle bracelet in-house arrest arrangement on the British estate of a friend, while the British government either arranges to turn him over the U.S. for some sort of Kangaroo Court, or gives him up to the subservient nation of Sweden, who would likely do the same.

There are at least two motives that I can discern for the way his case has been handled by the “authorities.”

The first of course, is that the embarrassed Western industrialized countries, AKA, the “international community,” are/is engaged in a smear campaign to destroy him personally for his having revealed the scandalous information, i.e., leaks, that had been given to him by others to publish. The anti-democratic and in some cases, illegal, activities of the world’s governments that are revealed in the leaked documents, seem to have brought out the worst authoritarian tendencies from some American leaders, up to and including calls for Assange's assassination. (He is not a U.S. citizen, and therefore, as far as I know, not subject to U.S. laws in regard to revealing “secret” information.) An example must be made of those who dare resist and defy imperial power. Nothing different about what he has done really, except in the magnitude of the world corruption that his leaks reveal, than the leaks that the mainstream media (MSM) regularly publish when they see it in their interest to occasionally tell people the truth. The MSM have in fact been eager to publish the information he forwarded to them, even though they have also been happy to downplay the value of the information, or spin it in a way that destroys its effectiveness, all the while participating in the campaign to annihilate WikiLeaks.

The second motivation seems to be to divert attention from the embarrassing nature of the information WikiLeaks has provided, and to instead put the focus on Julian Assange’s character—to portray him as a lawless terrorist and serial rapist (kill the messenger). Nothing there that should have been unexpected, and it wasn’t. This is the way Western governments operate. They have become accustomed to putting out the most outrageous, irrational, and unbelievable lies, (Iraq MWD and etc.) and having the mainstream press repeat them incessantly (before "trial" and in this case, even before official charges), until they convince the public to believe the claims are true (Hitler’s Big Lie).

Below is an interview by the BBC’s John Humphrys, a media shark, intent on furthering the character assassination of Julian Assange. Problem is, Assange’s calm, gentlemanly, rational demeanor and forthright responses to Humphrys’ apparent viciousness, disarm, for the most part, Humphrys’ arrogant and aggressive attempt.

You be the Judge by reading or listening to the interview below, but here are
Humphreys’ last three questions with the answers from Assange. Much is lost without listening to Assange in the interview, where he answers some questions about the circumstances behind his detention, but these last three answers tell you something about him.:

Q: Just a final thought. Do you see yourself… as some sort of messianic figure?

JA: Everyone would like to be a messianic figure without dying. We are bringing some important change about what is perceived to be the rights of people who expose abuses by powerful corporations and then to resist censorship attacks after the event. We are also changing the perception of the west.

Q: I'm talking about you personally.

JA: I'm always so focussed on my work, I don't have time to think about how I perceive myself… I had time to perceive myself a bit more in solitary confinement. I was perfectly happy with myself. I wondered what that process would do. Would I think "my goodness, how have I got into this mess, is it all just too hard?"

The world is a very ungrateful place, why should I continue to suffer simply to try and do some good in the world. If the world is so viciously against it ,why don't I just go off and do some mathematics or write some books? But no, actually, I felt quite at peace.

Q: You want to change the world?

JA: Absolutely. The world has a lot of problems and they need to be reformed. And we only live once. Every person who has some ability to do something about it, if they are a person of good character, has the duty to try and fix the problems in the environment which they're in.

That is a value, that, yes, comes partly from my temperament. There is also a value that comes from my father, which is that capable, generous men don't create victims, they try and save people from becoming victims. That is what they are tasked to do. If they do not do that they are not worthy of respect or they are not capable.

Read or listen to the interview:
Transcript And Audio: The Assange BBC interview (via Information Clearing House)

Hedges: Ralph Nader Was Right About Barack Obama

Ralph Nader Was Right About Barack Obama

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24889.htm

Posted on Mar 1, 2010

By Chris Hedges

We owe Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney an apology. They were right about Barack Obama. They were right about the corporate state. They had the courage of their convictions and they stood fast despite wholesale defections and ridicule by liberals and progressives.

Obama lies as cravenly, if not as crudely, as George W. Bush. He promised us that the transfer of $12.8 trillion in taxpayer money to Wall Street would open up credit and lending to the average consumer. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), however, admitted last week that banks have reduced lending at the sharpest pace since 1942. As a senator, Obama promised he would filibuster amendments to the FISA Reform Act that retroactively made legal the wiretapping and monitoring of millions of American citizens without warrant; instead he supported passage of the loathsome legislation. He told us he would withdraw American troops from Iraq, close the detention facility at Guantánamo, end torture, restore civil liberties such as habeas corpus and create new jobs. None of this has happened.

He is shoving a health care bill down our throats that would give hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the private health insurance industry in the form of subsidies, and force millions of uninsured Americans to buy insurers’ defective products. These policies would come with ever-rising co-pays, deductibles and premiums and see most of the seriously ill left bankrupt and unable to afford medical care. Obama did nothing to halt the collapse of the Copenhagen climate conference, after promising meaningful environmental reform, and has left us at the mercy of corporations such as ExxonMobil. He empowers Israel’s brutal apartheid state. He has expanded the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where hundreds of civilians, including entire families, have been slaughtered by sophisticated weapons systems such as the Hellfire missile, which sucks the air out of victims’ lungs. And he is delivering war and death to Yemen, Somalia and perhaps Iran.

Your "Hope and Change"

The illegal wars and occupations, the largest transference of wealth upward in American history and the egregious assault on civil liberties, all begun under George W. Bush, raise only a flicker of tepid protest from liberals when propagated by the Democrats. Liberals, unlike the right wing, are emotionally disabled. They appear not to feel. The tea-party protesters, the myopic supporters of Sarah Palin, the veterans signing up for Oath Keepers and the myriad of armed patriot groups have swept into their ranks legions of disenfranchised workers, angry libertarians, John Birchers and many who, until now, were never politically active. They articulate a legitimate rage. Yet liberals continue to speak in the bloodless language of issues and policies, and leave emotion and anger to the protofascists. Take a look at the 3,000-word suicide note left by Joe Stack, who flew his Piper Cherokee last month into an IRS office in Austin, Texas, murdering an IRS worker and injuring dozens. He was not alone in his rage.

“Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours?” Stack wrote. “Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political ‘representatives’ (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the ‘terrible health care problem’. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.”

The timidity of the left exposes its cowardice, lack of a moral compass and mounting political impotence. The left stands for nothing. The damage Obama and the Democrats have done is immense. But the damage liberals do the longer they beg Obama and the Democrats for a few scraps is worse. It is time to walk out on the Democrats. It is time to back alternative third-party candidates and grass-roots movements, no matter how marginal such support may be. If we do not take a stand soon we must prepare for the rise of a frightening protofascist movement, one that is already gaining huge ground among the permanently unemployed, a frightened middle class and frustrated low-wage workers. We are, even more than Glenn Beck or tea-party protesters, responsible for the gusts fanning the flames of right-wing revolt because we have failed to articulate a credible alternative.

A shift to the Green Party, McKinney and Nader, along with genuine grass-roots movements, will not be a quick fix. It will require years in the wilderness. We will again be told by the Democrats that the least-worse candidate they select for office is better than the Republican troll trotted out as an alternative. We will be bombarded with slick commercials about hope and change and spoken to in a cloying feel-your-pain language. We will be made afraid. But if we again acquiesce we will be reduced to sad and pathetic footnotes in our accelerating transformation from a democracy to a totalitarian corporate state. Isolation and ridicule—ask Nader or McKinney—is the cost of defying power, speaking truth and building movements. Anger at injustice, as Martin Luther King wrote, is the political expression of love. And it is vital that this anger become our own. We have historical precedents to fall back upon.

“Here in the United States, at the beginning of the twentieth century, before there was a Soviet Union to spoil it, you see, socialism had a good name,” the late historian and activist Howard Zinn said in a lecture a year ago at Binghamton University. “Millions of people in the United States read socialist newspapers. They elected socialist members of Congress and socialist members of state legislatures. You know, there were like fourteen socialist chapters in Oklahoma. Really. I mean, you know, socialism—who stood for socialism? Eugene Debs, Helen Keller, Emma Goldman, Clarence Darrow, Jack London, Upton Sinclair. Yeah, socialism had a good name. It needs to be restored.”

Social change does not come through voting. It is delivered through activism, organizing and mobilization that empower groups to confront the hegemony of the corporate state and the power elite. The longer socialism is identified with the corporatist policies of the Democratic Party, the longer we allow the right wing to tag Obama as a socialist, the more absurd and ineffectual we become. The right-wing mantra of “Obama the socialist,” repeated a few days ago to a room full of Georgia Republicans, by Newt Gingrich, the former U.S. speaker of the House, is discrediting socialism itself. Gingrich, who looks set to run for president, called Obama the “most radical president” the country had seen in decades. “By any standard of government control of the economy, he is a socialist,” Gingrich said. If only the critique were true.

The hypocrisy and ineptitude of the Democrats become, in the eyes of the wider public, the hypocrisy and ineptitude of the liberal class. We can continue to tie our own hands and bind our own feet or we can break free, endure the inevitable opprobrium, and fight back. This means refusing to support the Democrats. It means undertaking the laborious work of building a viable socialist movement. It is the only alternative left to save our embattled open society. We can begin by sending a message to the Green Party, McKinney and Nader. Let them know they are no longer alone.

Obama and Corporate Friends Looking for War in Iran?

In this Edition:

- Iran Nukes????
- Michael Moore on Obama Health Care Actions

Another War in the Works
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23583.htm
America Is Led And Informed By Liars

By Paul Craig Roberts

September 29, 2009 "Information Clearing House" --- Does anyone remember all the lies that they were told by President Bush and the “mainstream media” about the grave threat to America from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? These lies were repeated endlessly in the print and TV media despite the reports from the weapons inspectors, who had been sent to Iraq, that no such weapons existed.

The weapons inspectors did an honest job in Iraq and told the truth, but the mainstream media did not emphasize their findings. Instead, the media served as a Ministry of Propaganda, beating the war drums for the US government.

Now the whole process is repeating itself. This time the target is Iran.

As there is no real case against Iran, Obama took a script from Bush’s playbook and fabricated one.

First the facts: As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, Iran’s nuclear facilities are open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which carefully monitors Iran’s nuclear energy program to make certain that no material is diverted to nuclear weapons.

The IAEA has monitored Iran’s nuclear energy program and has announced repeatedly that it has found no diversion of nuclear material to a weapons program. All 16 US intelligence agencies have affirmed and reaffirmed that Iran abandoned interest in nuclear weapons years ago.

In keeping with the safeguard agreement that the IAEA be informed before an enrichment facility comes online, Iran informed the IAEA on September 21 that it had a new nuclear facility under construction. By informing the IAEA, Iran fulfilled its obligations under the safeguards agreement. The IAEA will inspect the facility and monitor the nuclear material produced to make sure it is not diverted to a weapons program.

Despite these unequivocal facts, Obama announced on September 25 that Iran has been caught with a “secret nuclear facility” with which to produce a bomb that would threaten the world.

The Obama regime’s claim that Iran is not in compliance with the safeguards agreement is disinformation. Between the end of 2004 and early 2007, Iran voluntarily complied with an additional protocol (Code 3.1) that was never ratified and never became a legal part of the safeguards agreement. The additional protocol would have required Iran to notify the IAEA prior to beginning construction of a new facility, whereas the safeguards agreement in force requires notification prior to completion of a new facility.Iran ceased its voluntary compliance with the unratified additional protocol in March 2007, most likely because of the American and Israeli misrepresentations of Iran’s existing facilities and military threats against them.

By accusing Iran of having a secret “nuclear weapons program” and demanding that Iran “come clean” about the nonexistent program, adding that he does not rule out a military attack on Iran, Obama mimics the discredited Bush regime’s use of nonexistent Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” to set up Iraq for invasion. 

The US media, even the “liberal” National Public Radio [Jews Talking to Jews, AKA National Jewish Radio, NJR, AKA Israel Lobby], quickly fell in with the Obama lie machine.

Steven Thomma of the McClatchy Newspapers declared the non-operational facility under construction, which Iran reported to the IAEA, to be “a secret nuclear facility.”

Thomma, reported incorrectly that the world didn’t learn of Iran’s “secret” facility, the one that Iran reported to the IAEA the previous Monday, until Obama announced it in a joint appearance in Pittsburgh the following Friday with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkoszy. 

Obviously, Thomma has no command over the facts, a routine inadequacy of “mainstream media” reporters. The new facility was revealed when Iran voluntarily reported the facility to the IAEA on September 21.



Ali Akbar Dareini, an Associated Press writer, reported, incorrectly, over AP: “The presence of a second uranium-enrichment site that could potentially produce material for a nuclear weapon has provided one of the strongest indications yet that Iran has something to hide.”

Dareini goes on to write that “the existence of the secret site was first revealed by Western intelligence officials and diplomats on Friday.”

Dareini is mistaken. We learned of the facility when the IAEA announced that Iran had reported the facility the previous Monday in keeping with the safeguards agreement.

 Dareini’s untruthful report of “a secret underground uranium enrichment facility whose existence has been hidden from international inspectors for years” helped to heighten the orchestrated alarm. 

There you have it.

The president of the United States and his European puppets are doing what they do best--lying through their teeth.

The US “mainstream media” repeats the lies as if they were facts. The US “media” is again making itself an accomplice to wars based on fabrications.

Apparently, the media’s main interest is to please the US government and hopefully obtain a taxpayer bailout of its failing print operations. 

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a rare man of principle who has not sold his integrity to the US and Israeli governments, refuted in his report (September 7, 2009) the baseless “accusations that information has been withheld from the Board of Governors about Iran’s nuclear programme. I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member states, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board.

These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith.”



As there is no legal basis for action against Iran, the Obama regime is creating another hoax, like the non-existent “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.”

The hoax is that a facility, reported to the IAEA by Iran, is a secret facility for making nuclear weapons. 

Just as the factual reports from the weapons inspectors in Iraq were ignored by the Bush Regime, the factual reports from the IAEA are ignored by the Obama Regime.

Like the Bush Regime, the Middle East policy of the Obama Regime is based in lies and deception.



Who is the worst enemy of the American people, Iran or the government in Washington and the media whores who serve it?
___________________________________________

MOORE From Michael Moore on Democracy Now!
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/24/after_20_years_of_filmmaking_on

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Michael, before you go, your film before Capitalism: A Love Story was Sicko, and now you see this whole debate. We only—well, we have less than a minute, but your thoughts on the healthcare crisis and debate and where it’s going here?

MICHAEL MOORE: President Obama, the reason why this is failing is because you took a half measure. He only went halfway, this public option. That’s why the base isn’t excited. That’s why there aren’t millions of people out in the streets supporting him. Had he done what he said he was going to do in 2003, when he first started thinking of running for Senate, that we need a single-payer system, like every other Western democracy, you know, I think all of us, everybody, would be out there massively. And it would make the town hall meetings and the teabag stuff look like the Disney Channel. You know, that’s what he would have had. But he can’t get anybody excited with this. He started out with a compromised position. You don’t start out compromising. You may have to compromise somewhere along the line, but you don’t start out that way.

So I hope he goes back and he rethinks this, now that he realizes that all his olive branch, bipartisan thing really wasn’t too accepted by the other side, and they have no intention of ever helping him. And, in fact, they will continue to whip up racism and other things to oppose whatever it is that he wants to do. They don’t care what it is. They’re just completely opposed to it. So, hopefully, I think he’s understood that at this point. And he’s got to go back to being that person who was raised by a single mother, from the working class, graduates from Harvard, goes to work in the inner city. That’s the Barack Obama we need to see right now.
________________________

Thank you Michael!!!!!!!!

Stop the Selective Persecution

This particular article will be a work in progress, because, as usual, I don't have time to write. Butterflies and work calling today & tomorrow. :-) There is a need, however, to at least put up some information from Beverly Calder's side of the story with regard to Friday's article ("Sidewalk dots spark controversy" on their website http://www.bakercityherald.com ) in the Herald. This morning's post includes more of the ordinance in question, as well as some e-mails that cast serious doubt on the story coming out of City Hall and dutifully printed in the Herald article. They are placed below so that the public can reach an informed conclusion about this sad episode. I will post more as information becomes available, and as time permits.

It seems that City Manager Brocato and Mayor Petry can’t be content with frittering away the budget surplus, by, among other things, recruiting expensive “rock stars” to city government, giving extravagant and unwarranted raises to close city staff, and by improving the airport playground for people who are wealthy like them. Now, in my humble opinion, they seem to want to amuse themselves by bullying Councilor Calder out of public service with a campaign of spurious charges, mean-spirited public statements and threats of censure.

Last Friday’s article in the Herald didn’t print the title of the ordinance or put the bogus charges in the context of the entire ordinance, so it would be easy for the public to get an inaccurate picture of what is occurring, especially in light of the inane quotes from Brocato and Petry. Ordinance NO. 2893 is titled: “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF CITY REGULATIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCE 2404 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.” A quick reading reveals that it is about regulating pedestrian and vehicle traffic, as well as parking. It has nothing to do with controlling what someone poster paints on the sidewalk in front of their business during one of our city's summer festivities.

In exercising their animosity towards Calder, the Mayor & City Manager are making a really lame attempt to charge her with violating an ordinance that has nothing to do with the "crime" she was supposed to have committed. This isn't the first time the City has done this. According to the article:

Brocato wrote in an e-mail to councilors that the painting of the colored dots is not the first time the sidewalk in front of Calder's store has been an issue. She also was cited for violating Ordinance 3030, stemming from tables and chairs she placed in front of her store.

In a 2007 Baker Justice Court brief she filed on her own behalf in that case, Calder relied on the language of the ordinance itself, which says that people can't store personal property on the sidewalk unless it's "equipment placed on the sidewalk in the normal course of business by an authorized franchisee of the City, so long as such property does not materially affect the right of pedestrian travel."

The city, Brocato wrote in his e-mail, withdrew from that case.

Well, apparently that last part isn't true, at least according to Calder. It would seem to be a serious distortion of the truth on Brocato's part, because Cader says she actually WON the case! Ay Yi Yi....

Additionally, there is a selective prosecution aspect to this as not only is the ordinance not applicable to Calder's "dots,' but it is applicable to a sign in front of Councilor Dorrah's business on Campbell Street (Yorks).

There is more to be said, but for now, it will have to be enough to post some pertinent e-mails, most of the ordinance (for context), and pictures of the sign in that was in front of Yorks on Friday.
________________________
E-mail 1.
-------
From: Steve Brocato [mailto:sbrocato@bakercity.com]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:58 AM
To: 'Andrew Bryan'; 'Bev Calder'; 'Dennis Dorrah'; 'Gail Duman'; 'Jeff Petry'; 'Sam Bass'; 'Steve Brocato'; Terry Schumacher
Subject: Sidewalk painting


Mayor:

It is illegal to paint or hinder sidewalks especially in a public right of way. In the state code, it is considered public mischief. In the city ordinance, it is illegal to deface a sidewalk (ordinance 2893, section 6). I have conferred with the city attorney on the application of the law.

Councilor Calder in my tenure as city manager, has violated the law regarding sidewalks on three occasions:

In the first incidence when a citation was issued regarding the sandwich boards, after spending city dollars with the city attorney and police time on the legal issue following a challenge in court by C. Calder, we withdrew and left the case unchallenged. The irony is that the councilor both at HBC and as a councilor supported the city ordinance regarding sandwich boards then challenged its legality in court.

The second was for the Elkhorn Bike rally, when after receiving complaints about ”painting” on the sidewalk in front of Bella, our Director of Public Works was rebuffed by the Councilor Calder. We opted to ignore the situation hoping it would go away and thus avoided confrontation.

In the current incident, I would like to avoid the obvious dilemma of creating a political platform at this time nor do I want a debate with any councilor. However, we are now receiving complaints (including complaints from retailers) about pricing advertising being “painted” on the sidewalks in front of Bella and find the issue unavoidable. The complaints include the accusation that a councilor is being unfairly exempted from the laws “that everyone else has to follow”. We have tried enforcement in the first incident and tried to ignore the second. Neither approach is working. I ask for direction from a collective Council on how to proceed: enforce the law by issuing a citation and turning this issue over to the City Attorney; or suggest to Council that we change the law to accommodate painting on the sidewalks.

Please let me know your collective opinion.
Steve Brocato
City Manager
Baker City, Oregon
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.2/1561 - Release Date: 7/18/2008 6:35 PM
_______________________
E-mail 2.
-------
From: Jeff Petry
To: 'Steve Brocato' ; 'Andrew Bryan' ; 'Bev Calder' ; 'Dennis Dorrah' ; 'Gail Duman' ; 'Jeff Petry' ; 'Sam Bass' ; 'Terry Schumacher'
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com ; 'Deby'
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:59 AM
Subject: RE: Sidewalk painting

Council,

The Chief of Police has been beyond tolerant in this situation.
The position of Councilor does not give a you carte blanche to break our laws (our ordinances). This type of attitude and conduct should not be tolerated. It's ridiculous and sad that this would even be an issue. This is childish and arrogant behavior. A Councilor is SUPPOSED to be a leader in abidng by the law while striving to a beacon for our fellow citizens to follow. This conduct is shameful.
It is obvious to me that a citation should be issued.
If this conduct continues, I will ask Council to set this matter as an agenda item for discussion.
Sincerely,

Jeff Petry

Mayor
City of Baker City
jdpetry1@qwestoffice.net
_________________________
E-mail 3.
-------
From: Gail Duman [mailto:sprouts@uci.net]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 9:42 PM
To: Jeff Petry; 'Steve Brocato'; 'Andrew Bryan'; 'Bev Calder'; 'Dennis Dorrah'; 'Gail Duman'; 'Jeff Petry'; 'Sam Bass'; 'Terry Schumacher'
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com; 'Deby'
Subject: Re: Sidewalk painting


Mayor,
Check Ordinance 2893, Section 6: Private Marking Unlawful. It shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks, or
signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, or to post on a parking strip anything designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk,
dwelling house, business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.

Reads to me like you can't do anything to prohibit parking, not that painting dots on a sidewalk isin't allowed. What do you think?
Gail
__________________________
E-mail 4.
-------
From: Jeff Petry
To: 'Gail Duman' ; 'Steve Brocato' ; 'Andrew Bryan' ; 'Bev Calder' ; 'Sam Bass' ; 'Terry Schumacher' ; Dennis Dorrah
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com ; 'Deby'
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: Sidewalk painting

Councilor Duman,
In my opinion, the reading of this ordinance is plain, straightforward and obvious. I have highlighted the section along with the conjunction OR which delineates the subject matter. In any case, the City Attorney has already reviewed this matter.
You seem to defend Councilor Calder no matter the question, she has been given warnings, repeatedly shown that this is a violation with no effect. Nobody, for any reason, especially a Councilor, is allowed to deface/graffiti/advertise on our public sidewalks.
Our Police, City Attorney and Staff are just enforcing our ordinances. I would hope you understand and support this.
Sincerely,

Jeff Petry

Mayor
City of Baker City
jdpetry1@qwestoffice.net

Section 6: Private Marking Unlawful.
It shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks,
or signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, OR to post on a parking strip anything
designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk, dwelling house,
business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
___________________________
E-mail 5.
-------
From: Beverly Calder/BELLA
To: Jeff Petry ; 'Gail Duman' ; 'Steve Brocato' ; 'Andrew Bryan' ; 'Sam Bass' ; 'Terry Schumacher' ; Dennis Dorrah
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com ; 'Deby'
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Sidewalk painting

Mayor Petry;

I apologize for not responding earlier, I was out of state for a wedding and
just returned this morning.

As far as multiple 'warnings' - there were none. There was a threat of a citation
to one of my employees in the midst of Jubilee on Friday as well as the recent storm
of letters which I have only now had the opportunity to read.

The following e-mail (in blue) was the only contact I recieved for our 'dots'
which were done to create smiles and overall was very successful. It referred
to no ordinances and appears to say that chalk is allowable. I responded
to Michele that the paint used was a temporary poster paint.
I heard nothing more.

There was no additional paint for the Jubilee Sidewalk Sale - only a bit of
sidewalk chalk. The exact type of chalk that Andrew's daughter and her
friends draw on the sidewalk in front of Mad Matilda's with.

As regards Ordinance 2896, Section 6 - I don't believe we can interpret
half of an ordinance to mean somthing it was clearly never intended to.
This ordinance very specifically deals with anything done to a sidewalk that is
"designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking".
Obviously, that was not the intent or the result.
Bev
------- Original Message -----
> From: "Michelle Owen"
> To: "'Beverly Calder'"
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:19 AM
> Subject: Sidewalk
>>
>> It was brought to my attention that there is a colorful addition to
>> the public right of way in front of your business. Cute. I trust it's
>> washable-like sidewalk chalk right?
>>
>> Michelle Owen
>> Public Works Director
>> City of Baker City
_________________________

So...this last one from Michelle Owen doesn't quite show the serious concern that the city later expressed, but suddenly, out of the blue, the police show up on Jubilee and threaten an employee with citation. This same employee was later issued a citation by the PD for parking in wrong direction while unloading a piece of furniture. Yes, sadly, the city was issuing parking tickets for people who parked in the wrong direction during Miner's Jubilee, and are apparently continuing to do so. (Am I feeling a chill wind in Baker City, or is it just my imagination?)

Here is most of the ordinance. You can pretty much skip to section 6 at the end (in bold print) after you see it is about traffic and parking regulation) .

6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 1 Ord. No. 2893
ORDINANCE NO. 2893
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF CITY
REGULATIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCE
2404 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF BAKER, OREGON:
Section 1: Definitions:
The following words or phrases, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning, shall mean:
a) Alley: A narrow street through the middle of the block;
b) Bicycle: Every device propelled by human power upon which any person
may ride having two tandem wheels, either of which is over 14" in
diameter;
c) Bus Stand: A fixed area in the roadway adjacent to the curb to be occupied
exclusively by busses for layover in operating schedules or waiting for passengers.
d) Cycle: Any mechanical device, other than a farm tractor, designed for
the transportation of persons on the ground on wheels that: a) has a
seat or saddle for the use of a rider; b) is designed to travel with not more
than three wheels in contact with the ground.
e) Highway: Every public way, thoroughfare and place, including bridges,
viaducts, and other structures used or intended for the use of the
general public vehicles. Includes “streets” and “roads”.
f) Holidays: Where used in this ordinance or on signs erected in accordance with
this ordinance, Sundays, New Years Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day,
and Christmas Day.
g) Loading Zone: A space adjacent to a curb reserved for the exclusive use of
vehicles during the loading/unloading of passengers or materials and
freight. A loading zone shall not be less than 20 feet nor more than 60
feet long, and shall be designated by appropriate limit lines with the
words “Loading Zone” displayed within the limit lines.
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 2 Ord. No. 2893
h) Park/Parkings: Means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not,
otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually
engaged in loading/unloading property or passengers.
i) Parkway: That portion of a street not used as a roadway or a sidewalk.
j) Pedestrian: Any person afoot.
k) Person: Every natural person, firm, partnership, association or
corporation.
l) Roller Skater: Any person propelling oneself by human power or gravity on wheeled
devices that are worn on the person’s feet. Such devices specifically
include, but are not limited to, roller skates, in-line skates, and rollerskis.
m) Stand/Standing: Means the halting of a vehicle, whether occupied or not,
otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually
engaged in receiving or discharging passengers.
n) Stop/Stopping: Means any halting, even momentarily, of a vehicle whether
occupied or not, except where necessary to avoid conflict with other
traffic or compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic
control sign or signal.
o) Taxicab Stand: A fixed area in the roadway, adjacent to the curb, set aside for
taxicabs to stand and/or wait for passengers.
p) Traffic Lane: That portion of a roadway used for the movement of a single lane
of vehicles.
q) Vehicle: Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or
may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, except
devices moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively
upon stationary rails or tracks.
r) Vendor: Any person engaged in the selling or offering for sale, of food,
beverages, or merchandise on the public streets from a motor
vehicle. (As amended Ord. No. 3080 adopted 8-24-94)
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 3 Ord. No. 2893
Section 2: Powers of the City Council.
The City Council shall designate by resolution, providing, where required by the motor
vehicle laws of Oregon, approval of the State Transportation Commission has first been
secured, the following:
a) Streets, portions of streets, sides of streets, or city owned or leased land
upon which parking, standing, or stopping shall be prohibited or prohibited during
certain hours and the angle of such parking.
b) Through streets.
c) One-way streets or alleys.
d) Truck routes.
e) Traffic direction on streets.
f) Streets where trucks, machinery, or any other large heavy vehicles
exceeding specified weights shall be prohibited. Such vehicles may, however, be
operated on such streets for the purpose of delivering or picking up materials or
merchandise, but then only by entering such streets at the intersection nearest the
destination of the vehicle, and proceeding no farther than the nearest intersection.
The City Council may also designate the streets, or portions thereof upon which parking
shall be limited to a certain amount of consecutive time.
Section 3. Powers of the City Manager.
The City Manager, for best use of the streets and the public interest, shall exercise the
following powers based on standards established by the State Department of
Transportation, and recognized traffic control standards, provided where required by the
motor vehicle laws of Oregon, approval of the State Department of Transportation has first
been secured.
a) Designate where traffic control signals shall be placed and the time of
operation of such signals.
b) Establish bus stops, bus stands, taxicab stands, and stands for other
passenger common-carrier vehicles.
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 4 Ord. No. 2893
c) Designate on each side of a block, where required, not more than two
loading zones.
d) Designate and cause to be placed or maintained appropriate signs, marks
or lines for:
1) Intersections where drivers of vehicles shall not make right, left, or
U-turns and the times when such prohibitions shall apply;
2) Crosswalks at intersections where deemed necessary for pedestrian
safety;
3) Safety zones of such kind and character and at such places as
deemed necessary for pedestrian safety;
4) Play streets, or such hours when certain streets may be used as
such, on which no person shall drive a vehicle upon such street or portion
thereof, except drivers of vehicles having business or whose residences are
within such closed area, and then such driver shall exercise the greatest
care in driving upon such streets. Play street designations shall be effective
for no more than five consecutive days without Council approval.
e) Cause to be placed or marked and maintained:
1) Traffic control signs;
2) Parking spaces;
3) Traffic lanes and other symbols;
4) All other signs and markings necessary to implement traffic and
parking controls enacted by the City Council;
f) Cause to be removed or reduced in height, or trim any hedge, shrubbery or
tree extending over the street.
g) Designate certain streets as priority snow-removal streets upon which
parking may be prohibited between certain hours.
h) Emergency and experimental regulations. Make and enforce temporary,
experimental or emergency regulations, consistent with this ordinance. No such
regulation shall be effective and in force until and unless adequate signs,
signals, or other notices are erected clearly indicating such regulation. No
such regulation shall remain in effect for more than 15 days.
Section 4: Authority of Police and Fire Officers.
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 5 Ord. No. 2893
a) It shall be the duty of the Police Department, through its officers, to enforce the
provisions of this ordinance.
b) In the event of a fire or other emergency or to expedite traffic or to safeguard
pedestrians, officers of the Police Department may direct traffic as conditions may require
notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance.
c) Members of the Fire Department, when at a scene of a fire, may direct or assist
the police in directing traffic there at or in the immediate vicinity.
Section 5: Duty to Obey Traffic Signs and Signals.
a) No driver of any vehicle shall disobey the instructions of any traffic sign, signal,
marker, or barrier placed in accordance with the motor vehicle laws of Oregon or this
ordinance, including those erected by any authorized public utility and department of this
city or other authorized person, unless it is necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or
otherwise directed by a police officer.
b) No unauthorized person shall move, remove, or alter the position of, or deface or tamper with any such sign, signal, marker or barrier.

Section 6: Private Marking Unlawful. It shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks, or signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, or to post on a parking strip anything designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk, dwelling house, business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
_____________________________

The pictures below are of the sign I mentioned in front of Yorks. This is the sort of thing, private regulation of public parking spaces, that Section 6 the ordinance was designed to prohibit.