« Sho Dozono's TV Ad | Main | Obligatory Indiana Jones Post for May 6, 2008. »
1.WE GIVE UP!!! Tom Potter tells homeless protesters he can’t be bothered to get rid of the camping ordinance or sit/lie ordinance. Welcome to the last six months of his tenure, people.
2.FASCISTS!!! Ever eager to engage in the debate, the Oregonian editorial board calls on Potter to “end the slumber party,” the “Dignity Village annex that is starting to mushroom on three sides of city hall.” They don’t give Potter any advice on how to go about “dislodging” the constitutionally protected protest, other than urging him to “take command.” Read it. It’s laughable. BTW: The Oregonian’s managing editor Therese Bottomley is somewhat closely related to the lobbyist for the pro sit-lie Portland Business Alliance, Bernie Bottomley. Not that they ever discuss politics, you understand. It would be nice to see some protesters start camping outside the big ‘O’s offices.
3.INDIANAROLINA!!! Clinton and Obama do battle in two crucial states this evening. Matt Drudge says Clinton insiders are predicting a 15 point loss in NC. Next Tuesday, it’s West Virginia. Then eventually, Oregon.
4.MYANMAR!!! A cyclone kills 22,500 people, and a further 41,000 are still missing. News priorities, eh.

MYANMAR: Lining up for drinking water…
5.THURMAN!!! A man accused of stalking Uma Thurman is found guilty in New York. His defense attorneys try to cast him as a misguided romantic, although mentioning the names of her children and threatening to kill himself in emails tip the case over the edge. Strange. I mean, who among us hasn’t threatened someone’s children in the heat of the moment?
Good day.
"As in most cities, you can't just pitch a tent, throw down a sleeping bag and camp wherever you want in Portland.
Several city ordinances make that illegal. Also, of course, it's unfair. You shouldn't be able to usurp sidewalks, parks and other public places."
What, exactly, about the above statement is laughable?
I have read some very laughable Oregonian editorials. But I am unsure what is so laughable about this one. For once, they seem to be making a somewhat sensible argument.
What's laughable is how they over-simplify the situation, dismiss the human element, and scoff at the fact the Potter hasn't already used the police to brake up a legal protest.
I though that might be the kind of thing Matt could "explain" in his "journalism".
I think, personally, that the editorial board (cringe) was pointing out that the homeless "protest" had crossed a line between political expression and something else. Something, like, living on the street outside of city hall. Which does happen to be illegal. So your point about the legality of the protest I would take issue with, as was the Oregonian.
Astonishingly, the editorial board made another good point that this is unfair to other people because the homeless are monopolizing public space. This is one of the things that bothers me about homeless people. They take public areas that should be there for everybody and appropriate that space for their own exclusive use. This, in my opinion, is not an oversimplification but rather an important point.
As far as the human element, see previous comments on posts regarding this protest for further discussion of the issue. Myself and others have commented that many homeless people (not the crazy ones, obviously), as human beings, are accountable for their own situation.
And, if there are problems with society at large, i.e. broken, abusive families and substance abuse marred childhoods, these things should be considered. But as for living off of the public good will without taking responsibility for your own lack of housing, food, resources, etc..., that is not an excuse in my opinion.
Hopefully the police will not have to get involved. Or if the police do get involved, I hope they do not act like crazy jerks.
"this is unfair to other people because the homeless are monopolizing public space"
hmmm...what would you suggest when someone doesn't have a home?
i have a beef with people monopolizing public space all of the time---but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to be there (read: public space!). and, if these people are staging a protest then the sit-lie doesn't apply to them, right?
do you think a letter-writing campaign will force the city to change its policies? or, what, some homeless people showing up to city council meetings? i say good for them for taking a stand against the system and for showing everyone things aren't as they seem. people need to be awakened. bringing attention to inequality and suffering is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. it forces us to make changes.
p.s. with cascadia's current situation, expect the homelessness in pdx to rise substantially (probably with an increase in proportion of people with mental illness). good times.
Finally, Matt admits the Big O rejected his job application...
Oh I remember those days...in my twenties, so compassionate, so liberal, so clueless. Before you start defending dignity village, you should have some real life experience with the homeless population in Portland. I represented indigent criminal clients for years in Multnomah County. Many were homeless. Many chose to be homeless -- didn't want to adhere to the rules of subsidized housing (drug testing, curfews etc) or just wanted wanted to be homeless. Or, lets face it, were drug addicts who didn't want treatment.
Why do you think we have so many homeless people in this town? Because they come from all over the country after hearing about our programs, liberal vagrancy laws, etc. Most of our homeless are not even from Portland. I for one am over it.
Yangon myanmar mynamar
maps of Map myanmar
maps of Map myanmar
definition high Cyclone
definition high Cyclone
myanmar Map maps of
myanmar Map maps of
myanmar bankok Yangon
myanmar bankok Yangon
That's one hell of an inferiority complex you're working on.