Precious buttercups at Halloween

Halloween used to be my favorite holiday.

I loved putting together a costume using nothing but the family closets and my Mom's makeup. I loved seeing what the other kids wore. I loved all the different ways neighbors celebrated, some with incredible decorations and some with homemade treats. I loved how some neighbors tried to be scary and some tried to be fun but pretty much everyone participated - and if they didn't, they just left their porch light off and there were no hard feelings. I loved the Halloween parties. When I got older, I still loved Halloween: I loved being the neighbor who dressed up, who delighted in the kids coming to my door in costume, whether they were little children or teens, and who never ran out of candy. And I still loved the parties.

I'm giving up on Halloween. The last five years have worn me down. I'm tired of opening the door to a bored adult standing there with a sack and saying, "Yeah, my kid's sick, I'm putting together his candy sack." Or a group of teens with no costumes, who won't even bother to say "Trick or Treat," holding out their hands or a baseball cap. I'm tired of the endless memes telling me what kind of candy to hand out, or not to hand out candy at all, to hand out toys or toothbrushes instead. Or not to hand out anything orange (yes, this was a request on an online group for my local community - someone's precious buttercup doesn't like any candy wrapped in orange paper). Oh, and don't be too scary! It scares my kid! And I'm tired of being told that any expectation of costumes or "Trick or Treat" is me being unreasonable - one person said I deserved to have my house egged as a result.

So, this Halloween, our porch light will be off. Enough. 

Boo.

I am now the Grinch of Halloween.

Living the consequences of Nov 2016 elections, dreading Nov 2018

In December 2016, I was told, "It doesn't matter to the average person who is President. It doesn't really affect everyday people."

In response, I said parents would be ripped away from their children because of the election. I said people would start losing their health care and some would die as a consequence. I said public lands would start shrinking and environmental protections would be radically rolled back.

As I said in a blog back in 2016 after that night, that smirking person said:

I was being "alarmist" and "overly-dramatic" regarding Trump and his supporters, that it's not "that bad", that I should be more tolerant and caring regarding his supporters, some of whom are my neighbors, that they aren't "bad" people, that being polite and listening to them would be good for me...

My pushback against this person made observers uncomfortable. I ended up losing some people I considered friends because I dared to talk openly after that night about the horror show that quickly unfolded after January: the ban on Muslim immigrants, the canceling of green card status for people who have lived and worked here for many years, the scaling back of the affordable care act and the taking away of health care coverage from thousands (soon millions), the flat wages while prices rise, the layoffs of thousands of people and closing of businesses, the scaling back of public lands, the elimination of various environmental protections, the elimination of protections for home buyers and people with student debt, Nazis proudly marching in the streets of the USA, emboldened and empowered by the President, the President's open adoration of violent regimes (Russia, Saudi Arabia, North Korean, etc.), the separation of children and their families at the borders, the internment camps for immigrants, and, of course, the rich getting oh-so-richer while critically-needed safety net programs were eliminated.

So, yeah, I was right about the consequences of election night - in fact, I underestimated the consequences. But I take no pleasure in being right about it. None. I would have loved to have been wrong.

I didn't really think about then was how the Presidency would affect me, personally, so quickly: two much-needed jobs in the pipeline completely disappeared within weeks of the election because of anticipated federal budget cuts. Former clients have greatly scaled back because of federal cuts. We're holding our breath over a quickly-approaching green card renewal as we read horror stories of denials.

When I say elections are going to have dire consequences and affect real people, I'm not imagining things nor exaggerating. All of this affects real people, and if it hasn't affected you, then you are privileged.

It's not enough to vote in November - ask neighbors if they are registered. Ask them if they need a voter guide from the League of Women Voters (your state has them online). Ask them if they know where their polling place is. Ask your college-student sons and daughters' friends the same.

Also see Silence means approval

Washington County Sheriff and District Attorney both oppose Measure 105 in Oregon

On Wednesday, August 08, 2018, Kevin Barton, Washington County District Attorney, and Pat Garrett, Washington County Sheriff, had their joint statement in opposition to Oregon Measure 105 published in various newspapers in the Portland, Oregon metro area. These newspapers require registration to read their statement online, and while registration is free, the registration step turns a lot of readers away. So below is the statement in full. One of the points the sheriff makes repeatedly, and rightly so, is that the current law (ORS 181A.820) provides no sanctuary to an undocumented immigrant who commits a crime in Oregon. 

As district attorney and sheriff, we are the elected law enforcement leaders in Washington County. One of our primary obligations is to ensure public safety. We believe every member of our community has the right to live, work and raise a family in safety and that an essential aspect of being safe is feeling safe and having access to justice.

Through our role as public safety leaders, we are aware of Ballot Measure 105 (formerly known as Initiative Petition 22). This measure seeks to repeal ORS 181A.820, a 31-year-old Oregon law that controls when local law enforcement agencies may use local resources to enforce federal immigration laws. We are compelled to speak because we believe this ballot measure may negatively impact public safety.

Oregon's Legislature passed ORS 181A.820 in 1987 to provide structure regarding how and when local police can be involved in enforcing federal immigration law. This longstanding law states local police cannot use resources to detect or apprehend persons whose only law violation is federal immigration law. Importantly, this law does not prohibit local police from using resources to detect, apprehend or even cooperate with immigration officials for people who have violated federal immigration law and committed a crime. In other words, the current law (ORS 181A.820) provides no sanctuary to an undocumented immigrant who commits a crime in Oregon. In fact, it specifically authorizes police to share information with federal immigration authorities.

ORS 181A.820 strikes the right balance. Under this law local police cannot enforce federal immigration laws but can cooperate and communicate with immigration authorities if an undocumented immigrant commits a crime. While there are certainly ways the current law could be improved or clarified, and there appears to be some misunderstanding regarding how this law works, repealing it altogether is not the answer.

A repeal of ORS 181A.820 would likely create a chilling effect in our community. Certain members of the immigrant population may be less likely to report crimes, to access justice services such as restraining orders, or to even appear in court and testify as witnesses. Immigrant communities and families may become greater targets for criminals because they may be less likely to come forward or appear in court to testify. These are not hypothetical concerns; we have already seen these issues occur. If ORS 181A.820 is repealed, we believe these problems may increase.

Additionally, a repeal of the current uniform law that allows all law enforcement throughout Oregon to communicate with immigration authorities regarding criminal defendants would likely result in a patchwork of inconsistent ordinances and rules from various cities and counties.

Our community is safer when citizens and non-citizens alike report crimes and testify in court so we can arrest and prosecute criminals. We believe that ORS 181A.820 strikes the right balance to keep our community safe and we oppose the effort to repeal it.

Kevin Barton, Washington County District Attorney, and Pat Garrett, Washington County Sheriff.

Why listening to candidates is so imporant

There are two people running for the office that heads our county government here in Oregon. One of them

• doesn't believe libraries should do anything but lend books and videos (he has a big problem with "all these language classes and other stuff they offer now"), 
• believes there aren't any homeless or mental illness problems in our county that nonprofits and churches aren't "handling", 
• believes our county's affordable housing crisis will be solved by tax breaks for private companies, and 
• believes that the way to handle traffic congestion is to build more roads and synchronize traffic lights. 

I've learned all of this by attending two forums - newspaper stories and his website make him appear relatively sensible, if just center-right politically.

I have a feeling most of the people that want to support this person don't realize what they are voting for.

Pay attention to your local races, folks. MAKE time to hear these people speak. I have a feeling most of the people that want to support this person don't realize what they are voting for.

30 years ago - 1988

Jeepers. It just dawned on me that, 30 years ago, I graduated from Western Kentucky University, worked my first summer at the Williamstown Theater Festival and then started as a PR assistant at Hartford Stage in Hartford, Connecticut, which had just opened A Midsummer Night's Dream, directed by Mark Lamos and which featured a very young and often shirtless Bradley Whitford. And I was a size 8.

It was an extraordinary year. I loved my senior year of college and I loved my first post-university jobs. I felt like the luckiest girl alive.

What a year it was (links go to photos):

• I wrung in the new year outside of London with my best friend from WKU, Carmen, and my new best friend from the UK, Louise.
• In the Spring, I was part of the first massive protest that my university had seen in more than a decade - students protested the WKU President, Kern Alexander, install faculty editors at the WKU student newspaper, the College Heights Herald, and the WKU yearbook, the Talisman.
• In May, I graduated, stuck around town for a month with friends, then closed my bank account in Bowling Green and moved away, not knowing that Domino's Pizza hadn't cashed my last check I wrote to them and they swore out a bench warrant for my arrest and my former flatmate, still in town for the summer theater, had to take care of it. 
• I drove from Kentucky to New England and back to Kentucky twice, having never seen much of the USA at all until then. 
• Over the summer, I helped a fledgling little show called Entertainment Tonight get interviews at Williamstown, which they featured on TV for a full week. 
• Sigourney Weaver said my name and Tony Goldwyn rocked his baby while doing a press interview in my office. 
• I met Christopher Reeve and he hated me and two years later, he STILL hated me. 
• Nikos Psacharopoulos would hang up on me if he called and I said my boss wasn't in the office. 
• Jon Polito and I discussed both being Capricorns.  
• I worked with possibly the most talented, dedicated, fun staff I ever have in my life - at Hartford Stage (though the staff at the UN my first two years run a very, very close second)

Good times!

Many of the people I knew in that year, and met in that year, are my still friends to this day.

30 years ago? Sometimes it seems like a million, sometimes it seems like yesterday.

A happy ending for Daisy Dog

Daisy the dog snarled and lunged at other dogs. She didn't play with toys. She wouldn't look at the other dog or the cats in her apartment. She avoided eye contact with humans. She looked anxious all the time. I was a bit scared of her.

Then I started walking her every day, along with the other dog in her apartment. My own dog, Albi, had died, and I wasn't quite ready to get a new dog, but I missed dogs, and her owner had trouble getting around. When I would arrive to walk Daisy, she would howl with delight. Sometimes I howled too. She started prancing when I walked her. A firm "OFF" at the first sign of a growl stopped her snarling and lunging at other dogs. After bringing her into my backyard just once, she veered towards my house every time I walked her, wanting to return - and stay. When I would walk her back to her apartment, she would fall behind me. Her reluctance to return was obvious.

After several months of this, her owner, my neighbor, died. There were five cats to find homes for, and two dogs - one of them Daisy. Four of the cats were adopted quickly. The other canine, a trained therapy dog, was quickly adopted as well. I took one of the cats, despite promising my husband once upon a time we would never have a cat. But he said no to Daisy: she looked too scary, she was overweight, she was older, people would avoid us when they saw us coming with her.

Other neighbors, with a house full of cats, said they would foster Daisy until they, or I, found a forever home for her, but after just a few months, they announced they were keeping her.

Daisy still howled whenever I arrived to walk her or just to visit. I stopped by once just to say hi with my new dog, Lucinda, on our way to the vet, and Daisy insisted on going with us. She had dog toys and she played with them. She started rolling in the yard on her back, doing that happy roll that most dogs do. She loved the pit bull, Bella, next door. She would fuss at Lucinda like a cranky, beloved aunt, and Lucy LOVED it. Daisy would come for a visit and lay on the back porch, just hanging out, surveying the yard, watching Lucy be crazy. Twice I caught my husband bent down rubbing the "scary" dog's belly. When one of the cats in Daisy's home had kittens, she patiently let them crawl all over her. She lay quietly as the pet rabbits hopped around her, a look of amazing contentment on her face. She enjoyed being cuddled.

Daisy lived for four years in a house where she was loved and adored. A house in stark contrast to where she had lived before. A house where there was no screaming or constant angry chaos. A house that was sometimes lively and loud with joy but more often quiet with love and contentment. And in October 2018, Daisy passed away quickly and peacefully in the home she loved and that loved her oh-so-much.

Love you always, Daisy Dog.

Oregon Measure 105

I try to attend every town hall in my area by my federal and state senators and representatives. I've asked a question only once, at my state representative's public meeting, mostly because there were just a dozen or so people there and I just kinda wanted to see what she would say. I usually already know all of the positions of my state and federal representatives. I'm at these town halls mostly to make sure Trump supporters don't highjack the meeting and make it seem like they are in the majority - they are not. There's usually someone standing at the entrance to the town hall with paper signs - one is green with "agree" on it and one is red with "disagree" on it. Display of the signs is how the speaker knows what the room is thinking.

I like to live tweet town halls I attend. I tweet about questions being asked and how the representative is responding. It's my way of reminding people that their representatives are (or should be) available to answer their questions in public and that people need to take advantage of opportunities to hear directly from their elected officials. My overall message: It's easy to be "involved," and this is what it looks like.

At a recent meeting I attended, one of the audience members said that she is a survivor of sexual violence: she said that, in 2001, she was raped for 15 hours by men in the USA illegally. She asked our Representative to change her mind and support Oregon Measure 105, which will repeal Oregon's Sanctuary State Law (ORS 181A.820). Repeal would mean local police and sheriff's deputies could ask people for proof of their immigration status and arrest people for violating federal immigration law, even if they aren't being investigated for such. The woman at the event believes that most illegal immigrants are criminals, that they commit far more violent crimes than other people, and that Measure 105 will protect people - and that it would have protected her.

Her horrific experience is something that deserves our empathy and sympathy and ANGER, no question. These men that did this are beyond evil. I hope they were prosecuted. In fact, I wish them nothing but pain. But I wish all of this not because they are illegal immigrants. I wish it because they did something reprehensible beyond measure. I would feel the same way had they been legal immigrants. I would feel the same way if they were citizens that were born in the USA. Their legal status as residents or citizens in no way changes the nature of the horror they inflicted.

So, if this survivor had been raped by people where legal immigrants, would she now want all legal immigrants banned? I guess she would say, "If people are willing to commit one crime - crossing the border and living here illegally - they will commit any crime." Never mind that such is not backed up by facts. Yes, there are illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes. There are FAR more natural born citizens who commit violent crimes.

And consider the actions of these immigrants:

William Ramirez, a father of two from Colombia, was on his way to his maintenance job at a boatyard when he witnessed a man trying to gun down a Miami police officer. Ramirez drove his van into the line of fire, shielding the policeman from the shooter and pulling him to safety.

Antonio Diaz Chacon, from Mexico, was in Albuquerque and saw a young girl being abducted off the street, and unhesitatingly pursued the kidnapper to rescue the child.

Jesus Manuel Cordova saved the life of a 9-year-old boy stranded in the Arizona desert. The boy’s mother had died in a car crash, leaving him helpless — until he was discovered by Cordova, who had just entered the country illegally. Cordova stayed with the boy, keeping watch for hours until someone eventually found them and contacted the authorities.

On the day of the Boston marathon bombing of 2013, Costa Rican Carlos Arredondo rushed to help the victims just after the explosion of the two bombs. He made a tourniquet for Jeff Bauman, a victim who lost both legs. His picture in a cowboy hat next to Bauman in a wheelchair circulated around the world.

José Gutierrez, the first American soldier killed in combat after the invasion of Iraq, on March 21, 2003, was an orphaned Guatemalan who had entered the U.S. at the age of 2.

Damián López Rodríguez, a Mexican from Nogales, joined the USA military and he died on April 6, 2007, along with two other soldiers when their Humvee was hit by home-made bomb.

Some of the aforementioned were here legally, some came to the USA illegally. Can you tell which ones just by their actions? Would you really look at the people these immigrants saved or served and saved, "I don't care, I wish they had been deported and not helped you or your family"?

Fearing deportation, many domestic violence victims are steering clear of police and courts. Is that what we want, for people that commit domestic violence, many of them NOT immigrants, to get away with that crime because of fear of deportation? How does that keep us safer?

Immigrants are being scammed by NON immigrants but are reluctant to call police about the crime. How does that keep any of us safer?

When people commit crimes, they should be punished. When people prevent crimes or help people, they should be celebrated. What their immigration status is doesn't in any way make people more likely to be criminals nor heroes.

Washington County, Oregon District Attorney Kevin Barton and Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett have issued a joint statement saying they do not want the repeal of Oregon Measure 105 and that "Our community is safer when citizens and non-citizens alike report crimes and testify in court so we can arrest and prosecute criminals." I agree.