Daily Archives: March 2, 2022

When Vladimir Putin announced Russias invasion of Ukraine at dawn on Thursday, he justified the special military operation as having the goal to denazify Ukraine. The justification is not tenable, but it would be a mistake simply to dismiss it.

Vladimir Putin is himself a fascist autocrat, one who imprisons democratic opposition leaders and critics. He is the acknowledged leader of the global far right, which looks increasingly like a global fascist movement.

Ukraine does have a far-right movement, and its armed defenders include the Azov battalion, a far-right nationalist militia group. But no democratic country is free of far-right nationalist groups, including the United States. In the 2019 election, the Ukrainian far right was humiliated, receiving only 2% of the vote. This is far less support than far-right parties receive across western Europe, including inarguably democratic countries such as France and Germany.

Ukraine is a democratic country, whose popular president was elected, in a free and fair election, with over 70% of the vote. That president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, is Jewish, and comes from a family partially wiped out in the Nazi Holocaust.

Putins claim that Russia is invading Ukraine to denazify it is therefore absurd on its face. But understanding why Putin justifies the invasion of democratic Ukraine in this way sheds important light on what is happening not only in eastern Europe, but worldwide.

Fascism is a cult of the leader, who promises national restoration in the face of supposed humiliation by ethnic or religious minorities, liberals, feminists, immigrants, and homosexuals. The fascist leader claims the nation has been humiliated and its masculinity threatened by these forces. It must regain its former glory (and often its former territory) with violence. He offers himself as the only one who can restore it.

Central to European fascism is the idea that it is the Jews who are the agents of moral decay. According to European fascism, it is the Jews who bring a country under the domination of (Jewish) global elite, by using the tools of liberal democracy, secular humanism, feminism and gay rights, which are used to introduce decadence, weakness and impurity. Fascist antisemitism is racial rather than religious in origin, targeting Jews as a corrupt stateless race who seek global domination.

Fascism justifies its violence by offering to protect a supposedly pure religious and national identity from the forces of liberalism. In the west, fascism presents itself as the defender of European Christianity against these forces, as well as mass Muslim migration. Fascism in the west is thus increasingly hard to distinguish from Christian nationalism.

Putin, the leader of Russian Christian nationalism, has come to view himself as the global leader of Christian nationalism, and is increasingly regarded as such by Christian nationalists around the world, including in the United States. Putin has emerged as a leader of this movement in part because of the global reach of recent Russian fascist thinkers such as Alexander Dugin and Alexander Prokhanov who laid its groundwork.

It is easy to recognize, in Putins invasion of Ukraine, the roadmap laid out in recent years by Dugin and Prokhanov, major figures in Putins Russia. Both Dugin and Prokhanov viewed an independent Ukraine as an existential threat to their goal, which Timothy Snyder, in his 2018 book The Road to Unfreedom, describes as a desire for the return of Soviet power in fascist form.

The form of Russian fascism Dugin and Prokhanov defended is like the central versions of European fascism explicitly antisemitic. As Snyder writes, if Prokhanov had a core belief, it was the endless struggle of the empty and abstract sea-people against the hearty and righteous land-people. Like Adolf Hitler, Prokhanov blamed world Jewry for inventing the ideas that enslaved his homeland. He also blamed them for the Holocaust.

The dominant version of antisemitism alive in parts of eastern Europe today is that Jews employ the Holocaust to seize the victimhood narrative from the real victims of the Nazis, who are Russian Christians (or other non-Jewish eastern Europeans). Those who embrace Russian Christian nationalist ideology will be especially susceptible to this strain of antisemitism.

With this background, we can understand why Putin chose the actions he did, as well as the words he used to justify them. Ukraine has always been the primary target of those who seek to restore Soviet power in fascist form. Echoing familiar fascist antisemitic tropes, in a 2021 article, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev denounced Zelenskiy as disgusting, corrupt and faithless. The free democratic election of a Jewish president confirms in the fascist mind that the fascist bogeyman of liberal democracy as a tool for global Jewish domination is real.

By claiming that the aim of the invasion is to denazify Ukraine, Putin appeals to the myths of contemporary eastern European antisemitism that a global cabal of Jews were (and are) the real agents of violence against Russian Christians and the real victims of the Nazis were not the Jews, but rather this group. Russian Christians are targets of a conspiracy by a global elite, who, using the vocabulary of liberal democracy and human rights, attack the Christian faith and the Russian nation. Putins propaganda is not aimed at an obviously skeptical west, but rather appeals domestically to this strain of Christian nationalism.

There are broader morals here. The attack on liberal democracy in the west comes from a global fascist movement, whose center is Christian nationalism. It will be hard to disentangle this movement from antisemitism (albeit a version of antisemitism that allies with forces pushing for a Jewish nationalist state in Israel). Unsurprisingly, proponents of the view that a Christian nation needs protection and defense against liberalism, globalism and their supposed decadence, will be marshaled to their most violent actions when the faces of free, secular, tolerant liberal democracy prominently include Jewish ones.

View post:

The antisemitism animating Putins claim to denazify Ukraine - The Guardian

Analysis by Alex Traiman, Jerusalem bureau chief of JNS

With fighting raging in Ukraine, Israel finds itself torn between supporting independent Ukrainian sovereignty and not wishing to anger a newly belligerent world power in Russia.

Should the Jewish state support a diminishing world order led by the United States and Western European powers, or an emerging order in which a China- and Russia-led axis now seeks to dominate international affairs? Must Israel choose?

For Israel, the stakes are high.

The world order as we know it is changing, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett told an IDF officers graduation ceremony on Feb. 25. The world is much less stable, and our region too is changing every day. These are difficult, tragic times. Our hearts are with the civilians of eastern Ukraine who are caught up in this situation, he added.

Bennetts statement was carefully crafted.

Support for Ukraine

Sympathizing with the citizens of Ukraine, who have come under attack, is the correct moral position, regardless of politics.

Jerusalem also has strong ties with Kyiv. Ukraines President Volodymyr Zelensky is Jewish. Over 40,000 Jews live in the country and approximately 200,000 Ukrainians have direct Jewish lineage and qualify for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. In addition, Israel and Ukraine have robust economic ties. In just one example, Ukraine is a primary supplier of wheat to Israel, accounting for nearly half of the Jewish states wheat consumption.

Since the outbreak of hostilities, Jewish organizations have rushed to offer humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian Jewish community. The State of Israel is working to facilitate the absorption of Ukrainian refugees.

But coming out in support of Ukraine is a risky strategy.

The larger conflict being waged by Russia is against Europe, the United States and a NATO alliance the worth of which will now be put to the test.

Just a day prior to Bennetts statement, Israels Foreign Ministry was less careful in its wording than the prime minister.

On Thursday, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid (who is also Israels prime minister-in-waiting) said, The Russian attack on Ukraine is a serious violation of the international order. Israel condemns the attack. He added that Israel is ready and prepared to provide humanitarian assistance to the citizens of Ukraine.

On Wednesday, Lior Haiat, a spokesman for Lapids ministry, tweeted: Israel supports the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Ukraine. Haiat added that Israel is continuing to engage in dialogue with its partners on ways to get the diplomatic efforts back on track.

Israels backing for Ukrainian sovereignty was made at the request of the United States, Israels closest ally.

From Russia with love

Russia was not pleased with Israels position, and quickly let the Jewish state know.

Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Dmitry Polyanskiy said in a statement that We are concerned over Tel Avivs announced plans for expanding settlement activity in the occupied Golan Heights, which directly contradicts the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention. Russia doesnt recognize Israels sovereignty over [the] Golan Heights that are part of Syria.

In referring to Tel Aviv, Russia was indicating that it does not view Jerusalem, the seat of Israels parliament, Supreme Court and prime ministers official residence, as the recognized capital of the Jewish state.

More importantly, for the last several years, Russia has been a dominant force in a war-torn Syria. Russian forces are a heartbeat away from Israels northern border. Just two weeks ago, Russian planes were seen flying together with Syrian planes. Russian air defenses systems are stationed in the country.

Russia suddenly refusing to acknowledge Israels sovereignty over the Golan, and considering the strategic hills overlooking Israels primary water supply the Kinneret as part of Syria, would be a message anything but subtle. If disagreements continue, Israel and Russia could find themselves entangled in a complicated and dangerous diplomatic row.

Good relations with Russia are a major strategic imperative.

Diplomatic relations between Israel and Russia have grown warmer over the past decade, to the point that the two nations are considered allies. Mutual respect was developed between Russian President Vladimir Putin and former Israel premier Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu has visited Moscow, and Putin has visited Israel. Bennett met Putin in Sochi this past October.

Putin has been very friendly to the Jews of Russia, compared to Russian leaders of the past. Historically, the words czar and pogrom have been synonymous. Not so under Putin. Russias Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar is known to be a confidante and adviser to the Russian leader. Putin himself donated to Russias Jewish museum.

Then there is the issue of Israels military campaign in Syria, where Iranian fighters have been active in recent years, and to which the Islamic Republic has been importing arms. Weapons traveling into Syria often make it to Lebanon, where Iranian proxy Hezbollah has over 150,000 rockets and missiles, many precision-guided, pointed at the Jewish state.

To limit Irans hegemonic aspirations and to protect its own security interests, Israel has conducted numerous military actions against Iranian fighters and weapons convoys in Syria, mostly by air, and even some on the ground. Sophisticated de-escalation measures with Russia are in place to ensure that Russian military adventures dont instigate any retaliation from Israel, and vice versa. It is imperative that these understandings between Israel and Russia remain in place.

Recognizing that it may have erred in openly siding with Ukraine, Israel refused to back a UN Security Council resolution on Friday night condemning Russias invasion. While it is true that resolution had no chance to succeed due to Russias own permanent Security Council veto, it is similarly unlikely that Israel will support a UN General Assembly resolution, which Russia cannot veto, due to the sensitivities involved.

Poking the Chinese bear

Back in June, Lapid and the Foreign Ministry made another diplomatic error. Then, Israel voted at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to condemn China for its treatment of the Uyghurs.

At the time, I wrote that Jews should undoubtedly be the first to express deep concern over grave human rights abuses. Yet, the Israeli government should know better than to give any credence to a forum that unfairly singles out Israel for censure more than all the worlds countries put together. Secondly, Israel should think twice about angering an ascending global superpower.

Why did Israel vote against China, in a vote that passed by large margin meaning that Israels own vote was of no consequence to the outcome? Because the United States asked Israel to do it.

Lapid, who was all-too eager to please the Biden administration, allowed his foreign policy establishment to make a rookie mistake.

The United States has been repeatedly pushing Israel to temper its relations with China, and the suggestions indeed have merit.

China is a nation on the offensive, and their business practices are often less than scrupulous. They regularly steal technology and data, and undercut national and company interests by offering low-interest financing that ultimately ends up weakening the nations and companies they do business with. China is also a surveillance state that commits numerous human rights violations.

Yet China is a nation that has no history of anti-Semitism, and has something of an affinity with the Jewish state. They value Israels status as the startup nation and an incubator of the technology they crave. As China becomes the dominant world superpower, it behooves Israel to remain on Chinas good side.

With friends like these

At the same time, it is worth reevaluating Israels alliance with the United States and Europe.

Though Israel, as a liberal democracy, sees its values as being closely aligned with the West, there are two major challenges. The first is that the United States and Europe are diminishing world powers.

The economic and moral foundations of the United States are cracking. Lengthy campaigns to undercut American values are proving effective, while the economic might of the United States is dwindling. The United States no longer acts like a moral superpower.

One of the messages being heard through Russias aggression in Ukraine is that the United States has dropped the banner it has carried since World War II as foremost leader of the free world.

The United States may have the worlds largest and most powerful army, but in recent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even in Vietnam, it did not prove victorious. Americas recent hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan demonstrated tremendous weakness. Firepower is well and good, but if one does not have the will to fire, let alone the will to win, might is lacking.

Europe is in a similar position. The withdrawal of Great Britain from the European Union was a serious blow to Europes dominant position.

Secondly, as allies both the United States and Europe are double-edged swords.

The international community frequently condemns the Jewish state for applying sovereignty in lands it controls between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, despite strong legal, moral and historical claims to that land.

Empowering, enriching our enemies

Western powers are heedlessly and senselessly rushing towards a renewed pact with Iran, that would lift sanctions on the Islamic Republic and infuse the worlds largest state sponsor of terror with billions in capital to fund its hegemonic aspirations.

This despite the fact that Iran violated the terms of the first nuclear agreement, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and has been enriching uranium to levels that are only necessary for developing nuclear weapons. At best, even if Iran signs a new deal, the deals terms would be set to expire in barely two and a half years, at which point Iran will legally be able to become a nuclear power.

It is unclear what the West is getting in return for its negotiating position.

The United States and Europe are also the primary sponsors of the Palestinian Authority, despite the PAs constant incitement to violence and convoluted multimillion dollar terror financing schemes.

Similarly, the United States, Europe and United Nations constantly censure Israel over its settlement policies, and even its military responses to terror flareups.

The Trump administration, by contrast, was a brief window of true friendship. Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and insisted that settlements were not inherently illegal. Trump pulled out of the JCPOA and installed crippling sanctions on the Iranian regime. He similarly defunded the PA and expelled the PLO mission to Washington.

Furthermore, the Trump administration protected Israel at the United Nations, after the Obama administration secretly brokered and then allowed UN Resolution 2334 to pass, censuring Israel and calling settlements a flagrant violation of international law.

More importantly, the Trump administration helped Israel broker the Abraham Accords normalization agreements with Arab-majority nations, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and Kosovo.

Among the strongest lessons of the accords should be that Israel has no choice but to align its interests with nations in its own neighborhood.

The Biden administration is back to the behavior of the Obama administration, in which the United States continuously undercut the positions of several allies, including those in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to blame Israel for working well with a president Trump who arguably did more to advance Jewish interests than any other American leader.

Now, while American and European leaders consistently pledge their support for the Jewish state, many of their actions prove otherwise. Israel finds itself forced over and over again to beg for friendship. Such behavior is not what Israel should expect from countries it calls allies.

Israel must defend itselfby itself

Israel should take several lessons from the early days of fighting in Ukraine. The first is that Western allies cannot be counted on to defend its sovereignty.

To survive and thrive in a dangerous region and a dangerous world, Israel must maintain its military doctrine of being able to defend itself, by itself. Relying on the guarantees of others for security is foolish.

Yet the doctrine must not apply only to troops and technology. Israel must strive to be self-sufficient with regards to weapons and munitions. A primary example is the replenishment of its Iron Dome missile interceptor system. The system was used to shoot down a significant portion of the 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli population centers from Gaza during the May flare-up, as a result of which Israel launched Operation Guardian of the Walls.

The US administration had promised Israel in June to provide the funds necessary to replenish the Iron Dome, just weeks after fighting concluded. Yet the funding has been delayed for months in Congress, leaving Israels missile defense system dangerously undersupplied.

A nation that stands alone

The second lesson is that the world order is indeed changing. Rapidly. Military power, economic power and diplomatic power are shifting.

Israel has always been, both historically and prophetically, a nation that stands alone. Israel must be on good terms with the West, but it is not a Western country despite its democratic and liberal values. Israel may not approve of Russia or Chinas behaviors, but it must remain on good terms with them as well.

The third is that the United Nations cannot be counted on to bring peace to the world. Proof of this is the world bodys frequent condemnation of Israel, and its newly minted open-ended international investigation into Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

Israel is a nation that craves peace and stability more than any other. To achieve that peace, Israel must be dependent on no foreign power, must use savvy to navigate between world powers with their own sordid interests, and be both willing and able to use force when necessary to protect its sovereignty.

As world powers sort out their positions in a changing world order, ultimately Israel must stand alone.

Continued here:

Where will Israel land as world order changes? - The Jewish Star

Not long ago, proposing to force the homeless population in one of Americas most liberal cities into three massive shelters would have seemed a political, potentially career-ending non-starter.

But, in late January, mayoral aide Sam Adams signaled times had changed. In a now infamous eight-page memo sent to multiple government offices, Adams, a former mayor himself, not only posed the idea but suggested such an action could be politically palatable.

Adams included screenshots of three responses from polls paid for by a group called People for Portland. Each showed the public overwhelmingly fed up with regional leaderships approach to homelessness and trash piling up near campsites.

Adams proposal for shelters staffed by the Oregon National Guard was bashed by homeless advocates, who drew instant comparisons to internment camps. Adams later said he heard feedback that 1,000-people sites may be too large, but appeared overall unfazed by the backlash, buckling down in a series of tweets and thanking his boss, Mayor Ted Wheeler, for his support.

The People for Portland campaign soon distanced itself from the plan, telling the public not to blame them for the mayors incompetence or bad ideas. Yet, to some donors, this proposal along with Adams commitment to it in the face of roaring condemnation was hardly political ineptitude.

It was People for Portland working as intended.

Were trying to give the electeds cover to make tough decisions because they are tough decisions and not get overwhelmed by the vocal minority, said Downtown Development Group co-president Greg Goodman, one of Portlands largest private landowners and a contributor to the campaign.

FILE: A man sits outside his camp in Southwest Portland in September 2021.

Kristyna Wentz-Graff / OPB

Its been half a year since two top political consultants unveiled People for Portland, a mostly anonymously funded campaign to spur local officials to act on some of the most pressing problems they say face the city: trash, homelessness and public safety. The campaign has flooded the airwaves with TV ads, orchestrated a mass-email campaign to elected leaders and paid for polls that paint a clear picture of a gloomy electorate.

Six months and at least a million dollars later, both critics and those who dug into their pockets to finance the effort are mulling the same question: Has it made a difference?

Interviews with over a dozen public officials, donors, activists and political consultants reveal two schools of thought. Some brush the campaign aside as an agent of chaos, sucking up the air in government offices and stoking the ire of already frustrated voters without accomplishing much in the way of fresh policy.

But another camp of both opponents and supporters see the group dominating civic conversation in Portland, particularly when it comes to the right way to address the citys homeless crisis. They say its provided certain elected officials the political support they need to move aggressively to build big shelters and clear the streets of tents, a push critics say will ultimately fail to make a dent in the crisis and one supporters see just now starting to bear fruit.

While Goodman had quibbles with the mayors plan for mammoth shelters 1,000-person camps was too large and the use of National Guard questionable he applauded Wheeler for the concept.

I think that might have given Ted the cover to do what he did, he said, referring to the campaigns polling. If that gives him the cover, then I think its very effective.

A screenshot from the People for Portland website where over 4,000 people have used the form to send an automated email to politicians to encourage them to find ways to address the houseless in Portland.

Screenshot / OPB

People for Portland has proven divisive since day one.

The campaign burst into public view in late August. Dan Lavey, a longtime Republican consultant, and Kevin Looper, a leading strategist for Democrats, announced they had united to create a platform to make politicians listen harder to voters.

Through public polling and a mass-email campaign, the consultants said they wanted to show elected leaders the public demanded three things: the garbage cleaned up, the public safety system strengthened, and people experiencing homelessness moved from the streets into shelter.

The campaign caused a collective shudder among many Portland progressives, who speculated the campaign was a vehicle for more than public venting perhaps a set-up to pave the path for gubernatorial candidate Betsy Johnson, whose campaign both consultants later joined, or a plan to redirect tax money from Metros $250 million homeless services measure, which Looper himself helped pass in 2020. A top director for Loopers political consulting firm who worked on the measure promptly left the company, blindsided by the effort. Polling company FM3 Research, which conducted the campaigns first poll, soon said theyd no longer be able to work with the campaign as its strategies conflicted with their other clients.

Questions quickly arose over who was backing the campaign. The organizers chose to structure People for Portland as a 501 (c)(4), meaning donors to the campaign arent made public. Consultants and contributors have bristled against the association with dark money, arguing there was nothing nefarious about the decision to file as a social welfare organization, the same designation used by Basic Rights Oregon and the political arm of Planned Parenthood.

Yet the dark money branding has lingered with few early backers choosing to put their name behind the effort. Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle told the Oregonian/OregonLive he had donated when the campaign was announced, and Harsch Investment Properties president Jordan Schnitzer said he supported the effort. No other donors followed. OPB reached out to nine people rumored to have backed the campaign from the onset. Three said they were not donors. Three didnt respond to a call and two emails. The head of a private equity firm agreed to speak, but then went silent.

Goodman responded immediately. He said he was part of a small group of people who felt that a vocal minority, dominated by more radical progressives, was driving politics in the city. Lifelong liberal friends of his, he said, were not feeling represented by Portlands left. Through polling and letter-writing campaigns, campaign backers wanted to prove there was significant support for more centrist politics in Portland. Goodman said the group was not driven solely by business interests, though he declined to say who else was involved.

With only the names of Portlands most prominent businessmen attached to the effort, homeless advocates quickly portrayed People for Portland as the latest in a long string of attempts by the citys business establishment to push the houseless population from the citys core, in line with the Portland Business Alliance-backed push in 2013 to get Salems help barring people from sitting or lying on city sidewalks.

Donors say activists are directing their ire at the wrong targets. Its the class of elected leaders, they say, who deserve the criticism for responding with bureaucratic sluggishness and befuddlement to a situation on the streets that becomes more inhumane by the day. Portland saw a record number of people die while living on the streets in 2020 and an all time high number of houseless people killed by cars in 2021. And yet, when the federal government gave the county emergency housing vouchers last May to prevent people from losing their houses, the public housing authority struggled for months to get them in the hands of renters teetering on homelessness, as Willamette Week reported.

It would be different if we were lobbying for tax breaks for the wealthy, and it would be different if we were lobbying to sweep the streets and get rid of these horrible homeless people. Thats not what were about, said developer David Gold, a contributor to People for Portland. Were about trying to get the city to humanely heal the problems on our streets and the plight of these people who somehow we have determined that its better to have people live in our gutters, literally, than it is to have them live in available housing.

Gold said hed donated about $15,000 to the campaign. The consultants have declined to say how much theyve raised in total, though city lobbying reports show them spending over $1 million.

Goodman would not say how much hes contributed to the effort, but considers the unspecified sum well-spent.

I think its been tremendously successful. Its taken on a life of its own, and I hope it keeps going, he said. The purpose is to create a grassroots army.

At this point, the army largely shows up in town halls and form emails. Over 6,000 people attended the groups town hall on homelessness Thursday night, according to the event moderator. Inboxes of elected officials have been flooded with thousands of emails from supporters. With one click on People for Portlands website, frustrated Portlanders can fire off a pre-written email that gets blasted to elected officials in Portland, Multnomah County and Metro, the regions land-use government, as well as state legislators who represent Portland districts.

From the time the campaign launched in August 2021 through Jan. 27, People for Portland supporters sent as many as 8,000 emails to city officials, according to records requested from council offices by OPB. The main thing differentiating each message is the name and address at the bottom of the email. According to an OPB analysis of those addresses, residents of the central city are firing off the most emails per capita. Residents in Portlands eastern neighborhoods Parkrose, Gateway, Lents, Montavilla send the least. There was no statistically significant correlation between the neighborhoods median income and the number of letters sent.

The concerns voiced by the campaigns so-called grass-roots army run the gamut. A 77-year-old longtime Portland resident told OPB she wants to change the commission form of government. A Lewis & Clark administrator is alarmed at the rising catalytic convertor theft in her Southwest Portland neighborhood. A veterinarian who lives on Marine Drive wants someone to do something about all the cars abandoned on the levees that stop the Columbia River from flooding the city.

But nearly every conversation winds toward the same subject: the growing number of people living on the street in clear crisis and the politicians they no longer trust to help.

Just look around Portland is a disaster right now, said Sean Farrell, a 38-year-old social services worker who has sent three of People for Portlands form emails. The city is doing nothing. The city does nothing like nobodys business.

FILE: A homeless encampment perched along southbound I-5 in Portland in January 2022.

Kristyna Wentz-Graff / OPB

When it comes to addressing outdoor camping, Portland leaders tend to assign themselves to one of two philosophical groups.

Homeless advocates and providers, alongside many elected officials, have long advocated for the Housing First model an approach that prioritizes providing permanent housing to people as the most effective way to end homelessness. Until there is available housing to move people into, advocates of this model often argue, it is inhumane to force people to move from their camps on public land. Services must meet people where they are. Portlanders have passed three ballot measures in recent years aligned with this housing first direction: a $258 million Portland Housing bond for affordable housing; Metros $653 million housing bond; and a tax to generate $250 million-per-year to provide supportive services that help people remain in housing.

Critics of this approach say it takes far too long and believe leaders need to prioritize building shelter alongside housing. The status quo of allowing streets to stay lined with tents until there is enough housing, they say, is untenable.

People for Portland is firmly in the latter camp. Recently, the mayors office has been planting bigger and brighter flags showing Wheeler is too.

In a traditionally slow-moving mayors office, theres been a jolt of activity in the last month around outdoor camping. A few days after Adams wrote out his proposal for three, 1,000-person shelters, Wheeler unveiled a plan to ban homeless camps along dangerous roadways. A week after that, Wheeler pushed Gov. Kate Brown to fund temporary shelters across the state.

Adams, the Wheeler aide and former mayor, said recent public polling separate surveys paid for by both People for Portland and the Portland Business Alliance has shocked elected officials from their echo chambers and showed the public is shifting toward where Wheelers staff says the mayor has always stood: a belief that unsanctioned camping is dangerous and temporary shelter presents a solution.

From what I read, that change in emphasis that deeper and deeper level of frustration and anger is also happening in cities up and down the West Coast, Adams said.

Last year, one Seattle suburb made it a crime to sleep on public land if there was available shelter and another banned public camping outright. San Franciscos liberal mayor declared a state of emergency this winter on the nasty streets of the citys Tenderloin, where overdose deaths have exploded and outdoor camping is common. Los Angeles banned sleeping, sitting, and lying down at 54 places in the city.

But its Austin, Texas, that some city officials are watching most closely.

Camping along the 2300 block of Southwest Naito Parkway in Portland last year. It was the site of the second of now six "Safe Rest Villages" in the city.

Kristyna Wentz-Graff / OPB

The liberal enclave shares more in common with Portland than a slogan and a branch of Voodoo Doughnut. As homeless camps proliferated across the city, a county GOP chair and a Democratic activist united to form an advocacy group called Save Austin Now. With familiar messaging of a failing city, they circumvented a city council they viewed as out of touch and got a measure on the ballot last May to reinstate a ban on outdoor camping and impose fines on those who did not go to shelter. Despite vehement opposition by the citys homeless advocates, politicians and ice cream company Ben & Jerrys, the voters in the progressive oasis approved it handily.

A similar story is playing out in Sacramento where voters are considering a ballot measure proposal that would ban outdoor camping and allow residents to sue the city to force them to clean up campsites.

Adams believes Portland could be next.

The political class in Portland and Oregon and well-intentioned advocates are so disconnected from the anger and frustration and concern over the outdoor camp-less housing situation that we are headed for an Austin moment, what appears to be a Sacramento moment where ballot measures are put on the ballot that are blunt and can be counter-productive, but get passed because were not paying attention, said Adams. Were on the road to losing it to somebodys initiative petition ballot measure unless we all wake up and pursue the win-win: better places for homeless folks to camp.

Though People for Portland distributed materials to donors early on showing they were interested in a measure to ban public camping, the campaign has not taken public steps toward such a measure. That fact has done little to dampen the speculation among elected officials that they may one day harness their long list of angry voters toward something bigger than a mass email campaign.

Theyre herd animals, and weve put fear into the herd, Looper said of the cohort of local politicians they are targeting with their ads and emails. Theyre absolutely reacting.

The organizers of People for Portland have rarely claimed victory over the past six months. The message directed at local leaders is consistent and consistently negative: do more, do it better.

But, in an interview, the consultants said that while progress has been slow, they credit the campaign with influencing several policies: the city councils decision to increase the police budget in the fall; the unanimous vote to expand Portland Street Response (a non-police unit that responds to some 911 calls); and a shifting conversation about the correct way to address outdoor camping.

Some see this conversation shift extending beyond Portland City Hall. A member of the Here Together coalition, a group of nonprofits, businesses and elected leaders that campaigned for the Metro homeless services measure, said that a year and a half ago, discussions of sanctioned campsites would have been shouted down by some in the coalition as criminalizing homeless, implying there are places where camping should not be allowed. They say thats no longer the case and believe People for Portland is the reason.

The consultants and supporters say public officials are just reacting to the facts they have presented: a sizable number of constituents appear to support expanding shelter options and require rather than encourage people living on the streets to move into them.

The campaigns most recent poll found 58% of respondents from Multnomah County supported requiring people living on the streets to move into available shelters. Officials have received People for Portlands recent form letter imploring city leaders to build more shelter and housing and phase out camping in public areas over a thousand times.

Allowing people to live and sleep outside in public spaces is inhumane and dangerous for everyone, the email reads. Sadly, as long as we allow people to violate the ban on public camping, many will not choose to go to safe shelters.

Some advocates have accused the campaign of manufacturing this sentiment, flooding the air waves with divisive TV ads that malign homeless service providers and the people theyre trying to help.

Theyre using peoples legitimate frustration and worry and sadness about whats going on for folks who are unsheltered and tapping into that with what is a marketing campaign, said Jenny Lee, deputy director at racial justice advocacy group Coalition of Communities of Color and one of more than 700 people to sign a letter protesting the campaign. What we see with People for Portland is this strong push for something that we know is going to fail.

Shelter providers themselves have been some of the most vocally opposed to the push for more shelter. Andy Miller, head of the nonprofit Human Solutions, says he sees the campaign drumming up undirected populism toward a solution that will not make a dent in the problems, bucking years of research showing the only true path out of this crisis is moving people into housing.

We have not heard the voice of people on the streets, or in our shelters already, saying we would like to see the city build more shelter beds and force people to go sleep in them, Miller said. So if this is an attempt to respond to the humanity thats on the streets, where are the voices that represent that humanity asking for this as a solution?

But perhaps critics and supporters are all giving People for Portland too much credit. After all, much of the city looks exactly as it did when the campaign started.

For that reason, Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle says he has given up.

Boyle said he donated north of $25,000 to People for Portland with the understanding that the campaign would harness public pressure to improve the conditions of the citys homeless population and get the trash picked up. He says he no longer sees any light in this effort.

If the concept was to have action done by members of elected officials in the government, theres been virtually no action, Boyle said. Its raised the issue, but raising the issue is a small percentage of solving the issue.

Pollster John Horvick with DHM Research said People for Portland looms large in the minds of participants in his focus groups. People tend to feel their concerns about the state of the city have been validated by the effort. But theyre puzzled about where its all going and what they are supposed to do. As is he.

For all that theyre doing, it seems like their policy requests are really insignificant, and theyre not taking actions to really change what matters, which is who your representatives are making these decisions, Horvick said. Theyre not running ballot measures. I just find it odd. I find it confusing. I dont get that.

People For Portland consultants Looper, in particular have nothing nice to say about the regions elected officials. Commissioner Mingus Mapps, who Looper says he sees actually trying, is an exception.

In an interview, Looper painted local elected leaders with a broad brush: He called them fools gold and not advanced vertebrae. He said the city is losing to a bunch of elected officials who cant beat their way out of a wet paper bag.

These people are toast, he said. We tried to tell them, they werent listening.

But aside from battering local officials in campaign ads and interviews, the consultants say they have no plans to quicken their fall by endorsing other candidates in the city, county or Metro races this May. As a 501(c)(4), the advocacy campaign is not allowed to support candidates as their main activity, and Lavey and Looper dont intend to change forms. They are adamant the campaign was not set up for an electoral strategy, despite the rampant speculation that the effort was a way to assist gubernatorial candidate Betsy Johnson, a longtime Democratic state lawmaker running as an unaffiliated candidate for whom they have consulted for since October. While both campaigns may sing from a hymnal hypercritical of Portland, the consultants say their work for the two efforts remains separate.

Instead, they say, People for Portland will focus on trash. Lavey said the group is considering a lawsuit against the city and state for failing to remove garbage on roadway corridors that includes Interstate 405, I-5, Lombard Street and Powell Boulevard. Theyre currently sorting through 350 potential plaintiffs.

Past is prologue. If you look at what weve done, its a pretty good indicator of the things were gonna keep doing, Lavey said. Were not going away.

See the article here:

People for Portland is spending big to change the citys approach to homelessness. Is it working? - Oregon Public Broadcasting

Three years on, no one within the government has been held accountable for a program that is 40 per cent over budget, way behind schedule, politically skewed and failing to deliver on its stated aim of making it easier for people to get to and from work.

Loading

The minister who oversaw the programs creation, Alan Tudge, has been shifted out of the portfolio in late 2020 so cant face questions in Parliament over the saga. Freedom of information requests for the role of the Prime Minister are rebuffed on flimsy grounds or only contain sheets of black ink.

Scott Morrisons miracle election victory was built on promises of commuter car parks, roundabouts and sports grounds. All to be funded with taxpayers money.

It remains to be seen whether the government has learned the merits or otherwise of splashing cash around to win over increasingly cynical voters when it has no control over the land to be used or the planning processes involved.

Excerpt from:

Voters left stuck in the electoral traffic as car park fund falters - Sydney Morning Herald

news, local-news,

An Australian first set to create almost 4000 new jobs and deliver around $5.2 billion of investment in the region will revolutionise the way energy is generated across NSW. The Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone (REZ) will boast an improved transmission corridor that minimises impacts on landowners and maximises options to unlock more renewable energy in the future, NSW Treasurer Matt Kean said. The area - which incorporates Dubbo and stretches from south of Mumbil to as far north as the Warrumbungle local government area, then Narromine to the west and Cassillis in the east - will be Australia's first renewable energy zone. Mr Keen said the Central-West Orana REZ is pivotal to the NSW Government's plan to make the state's electricity system cheaper, cleaner and more reliable. He added renewable energy zones are modern day power stations that will change the way energy is generated and then transmitted across NSW. "The revised study corridor for new transmission infrastructure will minimise impacts on prime agricultural land in the region and enable us to deliver greater capacity for the Central-West Orana REZ to meet future energy needs," he said. That new route will accommodate additional transmission lines and, Mr Keen says, will give NSW options to deliver "nearly four times the amount of renewable power to the grid with the same infrastructure". Minister for Western NSW and Member for the Dubbo electorate, where the bulk of this new REZ will be located, Dugald Saunders said the Central-West Orana REZ will attract around $5.2 billion of private investment and support around 3,900 peak construction jobs and 500 ongoing jobs. "This is about getting the balance right in a way that boosts the economic and employment benefits for local communities, without compromising the assets that make this region so unique," Mr Saunders said. Member for the Upper Hunter David Layzell said the NSW Government has redesigned the eastern part of the corridor to avoid significant areas of high-quality agricultural land. "The majority of the revised corridor is now located on land owned by mining companies or alongside existing transmission lines, minimising the impact on prime agricultural land," Mr Layzell said. "This new route is a win for the Upper Hunter community and reflects the Government's commitment to building new energy infrastructure in the right places." The Energy Corporation of NSW (EnergyCo) will lead a competitive process to appoint a network operator to design, build, finance and maintain the new transmission infrastructure in the REZ. EnergyCo will undertake extensive community consultation and technical studies to refine the transmission alignment prior to lodging an Environmental Impact Statement for the project in early 2023. Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:

/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/GHcbaSNijNeVS4SULWDX8n/a533bffa-e63d-4d91-82b2-e57118bb389d.jpg/r0_4_1020_580_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

February 25 2022 - 4:30PM

An Australian first set to create almost 4000 new jobs and deliver around $5.2 billion of investment in the region will revolutionise the way energy is generated across NSW.

The Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone (REZ) will boast an improved transmission corridor that minimises impacts on landowners and maximises options to unlock more renewable energy in the future, NSW Treasurer Matt Kean said.

The area - which incorporates Dubbo and stretches from south of Mumbil to as far north as the Warrumbungle local government area, then Narromine to the west and Cassillis in the east - will be Australia's first renewable energy zone.

Mr Keen said the Central-West Orana REZ is pivotal to the NSW Government's plan to make the state's electricity system cheaper, cleaner and more reliable.

He added renewable energy zones are modern day power stations that will change the way energy is generated and then transmitted across NSW.

"The revised study corridor for new transmission infrastructure will minimise impacts on prime agricultural land in the region and enable us to deliver greater capacity for the Central-West Orana REZ to meet future energy needs," he said.

That new route will accommodate additional transmission lines and, Mr Keen says, will give NSW options to deliver "nearly four times the amount of renewable power to the grid with the same infrastructure".

Minister for Western NSW and Member for the Dubbo electorate, where the bulk of this new REZ will be located, Dugald Saunders said the Central-West Orana REZ will attract around $5.2 billion of private investment and support around 3,900 peak construction jobs and 500 ongoing jobs.

The majority of the revised corridor is now located on land owned by mining companies.

"This is about getting the balance right in a way that boosts the economic and employment benefits for local communities, without compromising the assets that make this region so unique," Mr Saunders said.

Member for the Upper Hunter David Layzell said the NSW Government has redesigned the eastern part of the corridor to avoid significant areas of high-quality agricultural land.

"The majority of the revised corridor is now located on land owned by mining companies or alongside existing transmission lines, minimising the impact on prime agricultural land," Mr Layzell said.

"This new route is a win for the Upper Hunter community and reflects the Government's commitment to building new energy infrastructure in the right places."

The Energy Corporation of NSW (EnergyCo) will lead a competitive process to appoint a network operator to design, build, finance and maintain the new transmission infrastructure in the REZ.

EnergyCo will undertake extensive community consultation and technical studies to refine the transmission alignment prior to lodging an Environmental Impact Statement for the project in early 2023.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:

See original here:

Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone (REZ) to deliver billions of investment and almost 4000 jobs - Daily Liberal

What if a critically endangered bird could be given a shot at survival by protecting 7% of Tasmanian native forests earmarked for logging?

And what if the forestry industry had for different reasons already argued that logging should be reduced by roughly that amount?

Thats the case made in a proposal that ecologists and environmentalists believe could halt the steep decline of the swift parrot, a migratory species that experts say could be extinct in 10 years if no action is taken.

Monitoring the worlds fastest parrot is challenging. It spends the winter in Victoria and New South Wales before nesting in different parts of Tasmania each summer, depending on where its main food source, the blue gum, is flowering.

But no one disputes that swift parrot numbers have slumped. A CSIRO-published birds guide released in December puts the population at about 750, down from 2,000 roughly a decade ago.

A new report released by BirdLife Australia, the Wilderness Society and the Tasmanian group the Tree Projects says the primary cause is the loss of large, hollow-bearing trees used for breeding.

It cites a peer-reviewed study that found nearly a quarter of Tasmanias southern old-growth forests were logged between 1997 and 2016 evidence, it says, of a systemic failure by the state government to act on repeated scientific advice that protecting parrot habitat was crucial for the species to survive.

Dr Jennifer Sanger, a forest ecologist with Tree Projects, says while the parrot faces other threats, including predation from sugar gliders and worsening bushfire risk due to the climate crisis, habitat loss from logging remains the number one issue.

Unfortunately what weve seen from the government is inadequate policies over the past decade that have been exacerbating the decline, she says. The habitat is still being logged.

The Tasmanian Liberal government says it has an answer. In late 2020 it released a policy, known as the public authority management agreement, under which it has promised to set aside 9,300 hectares of southern forests from logging.

The report, On the Edge of Extinction, argues this is misleading as 69% of the newly set aside area was already excluded from logging, either due to operational constraints or parts of it already being in reserves.

In reality, it says, the new policy would stop logging in only 2,900ha, and leave other areas with the mature trees the swift parrot relies on available to the forestry industry. Scientific advice to the government says all swift parrot foresting and nesting habitat on Tasmanian public land should be protected to give the species a chance.

This is not a new argument but the report includes what the groups say is a new calculation of what this would mean. It says a swift parrot protection plan would require the industry to give up just 7% of the forest area on state land available for logging. It would protect 40,000ha more mature forest and 20,000ha of regrowing forest that could provide future habitat.

It says this could be achieved by listening to the board of the state-owned forestry business, Sustainable Timber Tasmania, which in 2016 told the state government logging was not profitable if it had to meet a legislated quota of providing 137,000 cubic metres of sawlogs a year. It called for this to be cut to 96,000 cubic metres a 30% cut in timber supply.

The call by the industry body was rejected by the state resources minister, Guy Barnett. The Liberal state government was elected in 2014 on a platform of ending a Labor-Greens peace deal brokered between the industry and environmentalists after decades of conflict and expanding native forestry to support jobs in regional communities. Barnett says the existing sawlog quota could be met by selling timber for higher prices while looking for lower cost areas of forest to log.

The groups behind the report say the quota should be dropped entirely, but that reducing it to the level nominated by Sustainable Timber Tasmania could be enough to stabilise parrot numbers. Sanger says it would also help other species, and retain a significant amount of carbon stored in the states mature wet eucalyptus forests.

In a perfect world there would be no native forest logging, but to protect the parrot they really dont have to do much, she says. At the moment they are doing nothing, really.

Asked about the report last week, the Tasmanian environment minister, Roger Jaensch, said cutting the legislated sawlog quota was not part of our thinking. He said the government had committed $1m to implement priorities from a swift parrot recovery plan and he was getting advice from officials on how that money should be spent. Weve already made significant changes to harvesting arrangements in areas where there is swift parrot habitat, Jaensch said.

Suzette Weeding, a general manager with Sustainable Timber Tasmania, says the current policy is a significant step forward in swift parrot protection, the agency recognises its responsibility as a land manager and a management plan including additional measures is being developed. She suggests the industrys economic circumstances have changed since it called for the sawlog quota to be reduced in 2016.

Sustainable Timber Tasmanias annual reports show it has posted an operating profit for the past four years. The economist John Lawrence says it would have recorded losses if not for accounting measures and government grants.

Dr Eric Woehler, an ecologist and the convenor of BirdLife Tasmania, says the government and agencys plans do not go far enough to halt the catastrophic decrease in parrot numbers, and the strength of the report is that it basically aligns with what the industry has asked for.

What it shows is that, with some strategic thinking and planning, we are in a position to ease the pressure on a critically endangered species, he says. Its not rocket science.

The only thing standing in the way, according to Woehler, is political unwillingness.

The problem is well-known, has been for decades, and weve seen a weakening of protection and a business-as-usual approach to land management in the state, he says. Its a recipe for the extinction of a species.

Here is the original post:

Its not rocket science: how the worlds fastest parrot could be saved - The Guardian

As an organization nearing 50 years of working with politically engaged artists, Creative Time is continually challenged to evolve to the political conditions we live in. Following decades of groundwork laid by artists and activists calling for systemic overhauls of our institutionsart and otherwiseand 2020s tipping point initiated by the pandemic and a resurgent uprising for racial justice and decolonization, we found ourselves questioning how to move past cycles of protest and reform and into long-term transformation.

Indeed, the extent to which nearly every issue we face today intersects with arts and cultural productionfrom gentrification and workers rights, to totalitarian violence and climate changeonly proves that siloing the arts from the rest of society is an illusion. Arts and culture should be not only illustrators or illuminators of justice or injustice, but necessary points of intervention.

This once-novel belief of the avant-garde has now broken through to the general public: a recent survey found 76 percent of U.S. respondents saying arts organizations have a responsibility to tackle social issues.And so, in 2021, we launched the Think Tank to ideate how transformation happens, and the role arts and culture can play in this change.

Following an open-call process, the final group included writer and scholar Che Gossett; choreographer and Indigenous rights organizer Emily Johnson; professor and writer Hentyle Yapp; professor and disability justice organizer Kevin Gotkin; curator La Tanya S. Autry; educator, curator, and director of the Critical Craft Theory program at Warren Wilson College Namita Wiggers; social practice programmer and cultural organizer Prerana Reddy; and poet and cultural organizer Sonia Guiansaca. Creative Time staffersDiya Vij and Alex Winters facilitated the sessions.

This week, we released the culmination of this labor, Invitations Toward Re-Worlding, in which we offer no easy answers or metrics for success, but instead a new framework for challenging the distinction between artistry and administration. Its our position that administrationthe processcan be just as creative, iterative, and generative as the art thats made. We refer to our framework asadministrative intervention. Here are a few examples of how this re-worlding might be approached.

We hear a lot about how institutions and organizations are in listening mode, paying attention to their audiences and the communities they impact, including their staffers. Question-asking and dialogue are critical, but must be approached, fundamentally, as a search for actionable answers; simply hearing is not the goal.

Autry, the cofounder of the #MuseumsAreNotNeutral movement, argues that liberation only happens when individuals understand each others meanings. To combat violent structural forces rooted in anti-Blackness, dialogue must move beyond simple conversation and toward collective action. As she says: Im stirring up energy for changing conditions, creating more of a true sense of us, leaning more into good trouble, to borrow that expression of the late Civil Rights activist John Lewis.

Similarly,Gotkin advocates for accessibility as an ecologynot just as a checklist or compliance act, but to benefit the whole of any space and its audience. This requires us to release the hypothetical. Instead of pursuing endless circles of abstraction about access design, we focus attempt to know more precisely who is involved. This requires us to speculate less about the needs of our communities, so that we actually discuss, adapt, and know their needs.

Reddy calls on organizations to re-evaluate how their budgets provide for the needs of artists and workers as people, and not only as producers. Can the institution provide healthcare, childcare, and housing? If thats not possible, how do budgets account for the time, flexibility, and resources needed to support the artist as a person? Does the budget allow for debrief and aftercare? Beyond budgets, what do overall salaries say about what and who you value?

This leads to changes beyond payments made for services rendered. InJohnsons Decolonization Rider, which outlines some necessary steps for organizational decolonization, she puts forward the idea of using a standard operating document that forces the contractor and contractee to come to terms around a shared understanding of values.

To a wider point, Johnson pushes for true budgetary accounting for the violence of settler colonialism through land-use fees or taxes to support local Indigenous land back or land preservation efforts.

Yapp suggests we reach beyond existing liberal paradigms that position the individual as the ideal subject for resistance and change. The art world, in particular, is steeped in the myth of singular greatness, though anyone working within it knows the legions of staff, studio assistants, and production and installation crews that accomplish any individual work.

Rather than dismantling this white supremacist myth of individual genius, a rare few exceptional individuals get identified as representatives of the well-beings of entire groups or communities. This allows institutions to continue perpetuating exclusionary, harmful, and demeaning systems under the pretense of progress and change.

Instead, we should work against rewarding exceptionalism at the expense of collective efforts, especially in long-marginalized communities, and instead promote holistic repairs with communities that have been excluded or under-valued.

Since concluding the Think Tank at the end of 2021, weve been working to develop and evolve our practices to better serve the artists we work with, and the communities were a part of.

Some of this takes the form of concrete plans: our commitments include (but are not limited to): staff cultural competency training; workshops with Indigenous and accomplice leaders; strategies to add Indigenous representation to Creative Times board, advisory councils, staff, and programming; continued prioritization of community-led safety and de-escalation services in place of the police; and working to implement a land-use fees or a land tax to fund local Indigenous and/or Black-led rematriation and reparation efforts.

Transformation demands continual and scalable action, so with the release of the Think Tanks study, the work is just beginning. This is why the Think Tank cohort has named its recommendations programming scores: a score may be planned, but only in practice is it performed. Every performance will differ.

What you will see at Creative Time in the next year and beyond is a move toward transforming our most elemental practices to bring us in better relations with the communities we encompass and work in. Yet the Think Tank didnt make Invitations Toward Re-Worlding for Creative Time, but for all of us. We are asking you to perform these scores with us, as a concrete step toward collective transformation.

Natasha L. Logan is the deputy director at Creative Time;Justine Ludwig is the executive director.

Original post:

Creative Time Organized a Forum for 8 Illustrious Thinkers to Imagine How Institutions Can Do Better. Heres What They Said - artnet News