Mediaboss Marketing

Sporting royal blue vests, the Portland Peace Team has been among the crowds of various Portland demonstrations for nearly a decade.

At past LGBTQ Pride parades, climate change marches, rallies for immigrant and refugee rights and Black Lives Matter protests, the peacekeepers act as witnesses.

A neutral presence, members of the Portland Peace Team say they observe and monitor peoples behavior, listen for disagreements -- and sometimes, intervene.

Now, theyre spreading their philosophy of non-violence through a partnership with the city of Portland.

Earlier this month, Mayor Ted Wheeler announced his office would fund de-escalation training sessions to any Portlanders who want to learn peacekeeping tactics for protests, marches and rallies. Founded in 2012 by Tom Hastings, a conflict resolution professor at Portland State University, the Portland Peace Team is contracted to provide the training to free via Zoom, and the mayors office will fund the $50 per person.

The cap is $15,000 from the mayors office, which would allow 300 people to take the training. The Portland Peace Team consists of about a dozen members, and the training is not necessarily for recruiting members, but for spreading an anti-violence philosophy.

Portlanders are passionate about peacefully practicing their First Amendment rights, and many want to do their part to keep events safe, Wheeler said in a news release. This is an opportunity for community members to learn proven de-escalation techniques that help achieve that goal.

The initiative comes after a year of frequent protests and clashes between demonstrators and police that have often turned violent, and as Wheeler has condemned ongoing property damage in downtown Portland. In recent months, a small group of protesters clad in black has continued to protest and has often started fires, broken store windows, painted graffiti and targeted police facilities.

Asena Lawrence, a senior policy director for the mayors office who helped organize the partnership, said the city wanted Portlanders to express their First Amendment rights, because the goal is not to silence people, we just want grandparents and children to be a part of these movements and for it to be safe, so families can feel like they can demand change from the government in a way that will not escalate.

Not everyone feels like the the initiative is the right approach. As June marks one full year of racial justice protests in Portland, some on-the-ground protesters say they wonder why the city is asking for the public to learn de-escalation in an environment where police have been witnessed escalating violence at protests.

Why cant that money be used to expand the Portland Street Response Team or other social services? said Rabbi Ariel Stone, a leader of the Portland Interfaith Clergy Resistance, a group that has actively supported the Black Lives Matter movement.

The partnership between the city and the Portland Peace Team is not official, Hastings said -- its an experiment at this point, and not funded from the city budget. The seven training sessions, which are being conducted via Zoom through the summer, are a small effort to get back in touch with Portland demonstration culture.

Hastings argues that the small group with anarchist burn it down tactics dont represent the broader public opinion in Portland.

The idea is to make [protests] productive again, Hastings said. If the goal is to change public, corporate or institutional policy, some people are kind of stuck on stupid. Or, at least they are not being strategic in terms of getting something accomplished.

A long time activist and peacekeeper, Hastings said this wasnt the first time Portland has had an outside reputation for social unrest. In the early 1990s, he recalled former President George H.W. Bush and others referred to Portland as Little Beirut because of its history of protests.

Hastings said that during years of anti-Iraq war protests in the early 2000s, he and a handful of other pro-peace demonstrators confronted the groups who were perpetrating the violent elements of protests.

We didnt change their worldview or how they operated, but we did convince them to stop hijacking our large, family-friendly events, Hastings said. The dynamic now, though, is pretty dysfunctional. Twenty years ago, we did this work by devoting ourselves to going out and having conversations directly with organizers who used different tactics.

The gaping divide in demonstration culture is in some ways the definition of violence and the different belief in tactics.

To Hastings, violence is the threat or action of bodily harm. But he understands his definition is not shared by the greater Portland community.

But violence is in the eye of the beholder, and if the average citizen thinks graffiti and window-smashing is violent, the tactics then become counterproductive to the cause, Hastings argues. The general public will start to drive away, or even lean towards the other side.

In a recent Oregonian/OregonLive poll, 47% of residents who took the survey said they did not approve of how the city was handling protests.

We believe in nonviolence, so we dont carry weapons, Hastings said. So when we ask questions, its taken as a sincere inquiry. When police ask questions, people are scared of being interrogated. Its a whole different dynamic, which means that police need really radically different training in de-escalation than unarmed civilians.

Patrick Nolen (back left) Soriah Hamide (back center) with Jennifer Tinorio (middle left), Pat Adams (middle), Adam Vogal (right) and Tom Hastings (front center) attend a demonstration as peacekeepers.

Jennifer Tinorio, a member of the Portland Peace Team since 2014, used to be in law enforcement.

She was a border patrol agent in El Paso, Texas. She says it taught her skills that translate to peacekeeping: confidence, self control and a commanding presence. She can read body language and knows how to respond with compassion and empathy.

One of the things Ive learned in making that transition from law enforcement officer to peacekeeper is that cops automatically escalate a situation by carrying a gun, Tinorio said. Ive seen cops escalate unnecessarily, and Ive seen protesters do things to intentionally provoke or put a cop in a compromised position.

In the Portland Peace Team trainings first session in mid-May, 15 people from different backgrounds and generations joined the Zoom call, many expressing concerns about the shift in protest tactics, the damage to property downtown and the diminished image of Portland.

They meditated together and discussed nonviolent peacekeeping ideology. The training is centered around a global standard for de-escalation called the CLARA method (Calm and Center, Listen, Affirm, Respond, Add). CLARA was created in Portland in the early 1990s by Reverend Cecil Prescod, Bonnie Tinker, and Love Makes a Family, Inc.

Its rooted in the practice of empathy and understanding, of approaching people with different ideologies as humans first.

Methods like CLARA should be the first thing taught to law enforcement, Tinorio said.

Seeing humanity first should be the priority, but thats not what were taught in law enforcement, she said. Youre taught to secure the scene or put someone in handcuffs before youre taught to give them a glass of water.

But the Portland Peace Team is not trying to replace police, Tinorio said.

We dont expect people to come to a two hour Zoom meeting and then go to a black bloc protest and somehow stop violence, she added. But there are so many beautiful ways to practice non-violence and make an incredible statement.

Like on June 2, 2020, Tinorio said, when thousands of people laid on Burnside bridge for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in silence, in remembrance of George Floyd who was murdered by Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin.

Or in 2017, at a protest of former President Donald Trumps travel ban on predominately Muslim countries, when there was an approved protest at the Portland International Airport where the Portland Peace Team was invited. There were speakers, music, children dancing and, to everyones surprise, counter-protesters, Tinorio said. One of them pointed at a woman in a hijab and shouted into a megaphone she has a bomb, Tinorio remembered.

We stood in front of the man who was saying hateful things to the people on stage, so he couldnt get any closer, Tinorio said. Peacekeeping is about protecting the person who is being targeted by verbal violence, with the goal of keeping it from escalating to physical violence.

Protesters took to the streets of Portland, Ore., for the 11th consecutive day of demonstrations on Sunday, June 7, 2020. The calls for change started after the May 25 death of George Floyd.

Ariel Stone called the mayors partnership with the Portland Peace Team another big, ugly Band-Aid.

Its the police that should be trained in de-escalation because they are the ones escalating not citizens, Stone said. Telling citizens to take a de-escalation course is exactly the wrong focus because its not the citizens who are dangerous and its not addressing the real problems. Stop militarizing the police, and fund the social services needed in Portland.

The Interfaith Clergy Resistance is a group of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Wikkans and other religious leaders who first organized in 2017 over their concerns of police brutality at gatherings during inauguration weekend. They were dismayed, surprised and outraged at the police tactics of rubber bullets, kettling, teargas, and beating people with sticks.

We wanted to pray not with just our words, but our bodies, because we care about the first amendment right to assemble and speak freely, Stone said. Were there because we believe that the holy voice that cries out for justice is in the streets. And confronting injustice sometimes means, as my Christian colleagues would say, You have to overturn the tables.

Unlike the Portland Peace Team, the clergy are not a neutral party, nor do they see themselves as peacekeepers, Stone said. They come in support of the movement so that when police or the mayor push a particular narrative about whats going on, we have credibility and authority, and can either vouch for that narrative or point out our different perspective.

And when it comes to Wheelers equivalence of broken windows and violence against human beings, the clergy group rejects that, Stone said.

We believe that there are people on the streets who are expressing a larger existential problem in our society. They are not the problem, they are a symptom of a much larger problem.

The de-escalating training initiative comes just a few weeks after Wheeler asked the public to help un-mask self-described anarchists after a group of about 80 people gathered in Northeast Portland and some smashed windows at the Blazers Boys & Girls Club, causing nearly $20,000 in damage to the club in early April. Wheeler asked residents to note the license plates of people who wear all black clothing and grab shields or weapons from their cars.

Former mayor Sam Adams, who now works for Wheelers office, said the mayors been consistent in asking the community to help solve crimes.

People have a right to be passionate and express their opinions, Adams said. Our job is to protect and promote that, but its also our job to address criminal acts.

--Savannah Eadens; seadens@oregonian.com; 503-221-3423; @savannaheadens

Read this article:
City will fund training for Portlanders to learn how to keep the peace at protests - OregonLive

CLEVELAND, Ohio Tariq Shabazz thinks he should have already been in Congress by now.

Shabazz, a 27-year-old Cleveland native and Navy veteran, ran against then-Rep. Marcia Fudge in the 2020 Democratic primary, contending that the 11th Congressional District needed younger, fresher leadership. That bid proved unsuccessful as Fudge cruised to re-election.

However, Shabazz said he wasnt deterred and is aware his 2020 candidacy was, in most ways, quixotic.

Now, with Fudge relinquishing the seat to become U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Shabazz is once again making a go at the open seat.

Shabazz sat down with cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer for an in-depth interview on how he would handle some policy areas should he emerge victorious.

___________________________________________________________________________________

The Democratic primary for the 11th Congressional District is crowded.

Thirteen candidates will be on the ballot for the Aug. 3 primary, with a chance to succeed former Rep. Marcia Fudge, now the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The district is one of the most heavily Democratic districts in the country, making the winner of the primary the likely winner.

Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer talked to each of the most high-profile candidates the six who have been most active in campaign events throughout the district to try and get a deeper understanding of some important issues.

____________________________________________________________________________________

About the interview

Shabazzs interview was conducted May 6. It has been edited for grammar and clarity.

Cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer started with a uniform set of questions for each candidate. However, there may be some variation, for instance, when a candidate answered a later topic earlier in the interview or was asked a follow-up question.

Generally speaking, candidates full responses are transcribed, though some responses may be cut off if they veered off-topic or their answers were repetitious.

Do you support single-payer health insurance?

Yes, I support Medicare for all. I support that. Absolutely. Medicare for all would save up to $27 trillion in the first year of implementation, which was stated by the Congressional Budget Office. So, if anyone is one of those fiscal hawks who dont believe in it, look right there. Statistically speaking, youd be saving more money as opposed to the private option right now and its current status.

As well as, the most important part is health care is recognized as a right. The individual has the ability to go seek out any form of care or treatment, anything they need without having to worry about the financial implications that come with that visit to the doctor in any shape way or form.

Even if single-payer is the ideal approach from your perspective, are you willing to entertain incremental changes to get there? If so, what changes?

When we use generalized terms like incremental, we need to change right now. Not so much the incrementalism that weve been pursuing for so long.

When we look at it, we have a majority of bankruptcies associated with medical debt. We have so many people throughout the country who are either uninsured or underinsured. These incremental approaches, they dont actually really account for much. Because what it does is its a way for politicians to say, Hey, look we did something. The reality is the situation still exists, that people are still under the standard of living. People dont have the access they need that is so necessary.

Lets be realistic right now. Were going through a pandemic. The pandemic wasnt just the ultimate issue that created all the problems in our existing health care structure. It was already existing. What it did is it exacerbated these situations and made it much worse. It made you see the crumbling infrastructure that exists currently.

Number one, as a legislator you always have to be prepared to compromise. Its very important for me to state that today. The second thing I want people to understand is we need a person like me to get on Capitol Hill because Im very stern when I believe we need a certain policy in a certain direction. And I understand how to work with people. I served in the United States Armed Forces. I know how to work with people who, when we dont agree on things, I know how to get a job done.

There are always going to be uphill battles. Look at it right now. We have a Democratic House, a Democratic president and a president as the executive leader, the commander in chief. We have to still be mindful if we want to still utilize the authority and responsibility we have, if other players arent trying to come to the table to bring forth a policy that would exponentially improve the lives of not just their constituents, but all the constituents in this country, then we have to utilize those majorities we have, even when theyre slim. Ultimately, that policy is going to be how we maintain said responsibility and authority in those positions. That is how we do it. We change the lives of people we represent.

Yes, I am always willing to compromise. That is something that is very important to get legislation done. We have to be pragmatic. Theres 435 members in the House, 100 in the Senate and youre dealing with different administrative and parliamentarian procedures in the chambers. Weve got to be realistic. There may be some times that we may need to compromise on some things. But, ultimately, I will never make a compromise that leads to my constituents demise. I wont do that.

How should the federal government address racial inequities in policing and criminal sentencing?

I think we need to change the perception, the lens, of how we view policing in America. We have this conversation far too often that its a couple bad apples, one bad apple and whatnot. These are phrases that we utilize that dont really equate to whats really going on. We have a system of injustices that have occurred throughout this country that have existed prior to today, prior to George Floyd, prior to Daunte Wright, prior to Breonna Taylor. This is since the inception of this country. The inception of this country was founded on the principles of racism.

Some people have a hard time saying it and calling it what it is. The reality is yes, we have a racist system of policing in this country. When we talk even about our amendments, people talk about their Second Amendment and the First Amendment. Then we gloss over the fact about cruel and unusual punishment, the 13th Amendment. The First Amendment in how its constantly violated in terms of policing. And the justice system itself where we see that America is 5% of the worlds total population yet were 25% of the worlds prison population. And the largest number of people who are in those prison systems are Black and Latino.

One has to acknowledge the difference in policing as well as sentencing as well as the construction of law that allows for so many Black people and minorities to be harbored into incarceration sites. Because theyre not about rehabilitation. Theyre about the value of dollar per body. We invest more in putting that young man or woman in that prison cell rather than putting those funds into the community.

Number one, it takes a leader who is willing to stand up and call it what it is. This is no different than when I served in the Navy and you had to tell one of your leaders, this cannot happen because of something. You have to be able to tell people bad news. You have to be able to stand up and have that courage to face that adversity regardless of what kind of backlash may come from it. You have to be able to stand up and say these things.

In terms of policing, I think the George Floyd Policing Act, which is HR 1280 I believe. I believe we have to have discussions about banning no-knock warrants and chokeholds that are I dont like to say excessive force. I like to say assault, because thats what it is.

What youre seeing right now is a large level of state legislatures and general assemblies pushing back, especially within Republican supermajorities. Were seeing it every day. Were seeing anti-protest bills like HB22 in Ohio. Which is predicated on what? Arresting people who they perceive are creating a problem because they are tired of incremental change. They want some kind of radical change.

The lenses that we view in America are very different. If youre a Black person coming up in America, policing may be something different to you than a person in a white, rural area. Or even an area that doesnt face that much of a police state.

Theres a very big issue I hear around the country where they want to put more police, more police, more police in these communities that they talk about that are high in crime. Why arent we investing in those communities? Why do we have to wait until the situation is so bad and we have high levels of gun violence and violent crime?

I worked in maintenance. The best thing you could ever do is preventive maintenance, because you dont have to treat the problem. You already prevented it from ever occurring. Thats why I approach things like reparations. We talk about crime in cities like Chicago, St. Louis and Cleveland, we need to be investing in those communities. Reparations itself would single-handedly uplift the community and reduce the racial wealth gap and allow individuals to create their own businesses, have an education system that isnt predicated on sending you straight into prison.

Its not just reimagining policing. Its reshaping the lenses we view in everything in policing, the justice system, politics. We have to be an informed citizenry and be a people who are moving into a pathway where we are trying to stop racism from permeating and progressing even more.

We just saw we had a president who led an insurrection. As a veteran, I was horrified. As a Black man, I did not perceive that as crazy. Its a difference in the lenses of how we view America.

You touched on it there, but what sorts of criminal justice reform measures should Congress pass?

HB 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act should definitely pass. There are some more things I would like to be inside the bill. But this is what we talk about in terms of compromise. If this is the bill we can get out, I think it definitely captures many of the issues that are affecting people throughout the country. I saw some really good thoughts about the data reporting. Thats extremely important because we need to highlight the fact we have officers lets call a spade a spade.

In Cleveland, Ohio, you have (the officer who shot Tamir Rice) Timothy Loehmann, who we saw why he was fired from the Cleveland Police Department. It was because of information acquired from another police department that wasnt disclosed. We need to have better reporting to determine what people consider the bad apples in policing, they cant just go to a place and shield the facts of what they did prior or that they shouldnt have been in policing itself.

We need to really approach more of these police shootings that are happening and call them what it is. Some of these are hate crimes. We have to be realistic. We all have our biases. We all have them. And when some of these officers who arent from these communities walk into these communities, they are already viewing it with a hostile perspective. They feel they need to step up the level of their animosity as theyre rolling into these areas.

Ive seen it in real life. When I was a kid, I saw a young child and this is another issue a young 12- or 13-year old was on house arrest. He cuts off his bracelet, runs away and the police officers see us outside. We had no idea where this young man went.

Im still a minor at this point. The police officer says, Where the F is this person at. I say, Well I dont know.

The police officer says, If I find out any of you mother F-----s knew where this kid is, Im going to bust all of you. (Shabazz did not actually use profanity when describing the incident.)

Thats the type of language and rhetoric that is being expressed in these communities. I understand why some of these people in rural communities see nothing but police going in and doing things in their favor. I see why they see it that way. The reality is that we have different fishbowls. Our perceptions are different. Our realities are different.

Thats what the military taught me. People come from so many walks of life. The question is can we get people to sit down long enough to, not just understand it, but actively work against and dismantle the systems in place that are destroying communities, leaving these communities behind.

Its not just the police. Its the prosecutors. We look at Kentucky. The attorney general. Just the things we saw going on in (the Breonna Taylor case) and what was happening with the grand jury.

There are so many issues at stake right now. We have to be cognizant that its not just policing. Policing is the tip of the spear. Its looking at the tip of the iceberg and not realizing theres more under the surface.

Like cash bail. There shouldnt be a cash bail system in place. It creates a stipulation that your financial status is tied to whether or not you should have pretrial detention or release. Again, if you come from a area where you have no funds or resources and some of these crimes people are committing because of economic insecurity. And then we put them into a prison cell and then the rehabilitative side of it goes in terms of how they think of the recidivism rate we put them back out into that community where they still have economic insecurity. Then we say we dont understand why these people are coming back into these jail cells.

We need to start being realistic and pragmatic. If you think youre being tough on crime by putting more police officers in the street, youre absolutely incorrect. The only thing youre going to do is theyre going to start arresting more people. These things will start occurring. More profiling. Racial profiling of people. These things will happen.

Why not just invest into these communities and it will be much more efficient, much less bloodshed and we can improve the actual crime rate in these communities by providing the security we know were not providing right now economic security, food security.

I still believe in the idea, philosophically, of policing. I dont believe in abolishing the police. I believe the police system has a place. And I want everyone to know who is a police officer, you have a very difficult task and a very difficult duty. People may hate you without knowing you. One of the things about that is just as another person who took that oath is we have to always maintain our perseverance and do the right thing. When you see something wrong is happening in the community with a fellow officer, it is your duty. You took that oath. The rule of law. You have to hold that person accountable. Whether you have to inform the chain of the command, do those things. We have to be courageous if we want to see a better future.

My last thing on policing, Ill approach it with this. We should start asking more people to start looking at things from a macro level. Lets look at the United Nations providing the peacekeepers. They go out in various regions and countries to help preserve order as well as promote peace and progress toward the government that may be being constructed or established. When a peacekeeper goes into a community that is facing civil unrest, disdain and distrust in the government, its imperative that those peacekeepers are there to promote the ideas that I just referred to.

If at any time they violate those things and are given immunity to anything theyve done, whats happened is youve now worked against the very interest youre supposed to be there for.

People dont trust you anymore. They no longer trust your system. This is why we need more people to understand when a police officer kills someone in the street, it is not the same thing as when two people from those communities kill each other. Those are crimes of proximity. When a police officer does that, it is now an extension of your system. Theyre a public official, whether theyre elected or not means nothing.

Should marijuana and/or other drugs be legalized both in Ohio and federally?

I do still believe and perceive that state legislatures have their right in some form or fashion to do some things. But from the federal government standpoint, I believe its high time we promote recreational and medicinal legalization of marijuana. Prior to that, we need to make sure we go through and expunge all records we can of people who have nonviolent offenses associated with marijuana and of that nature. And we still need to be equitable in the process of how were constructing these businesses. Lets be realistic, marijuana being criminalized and put as a Schedule I federal drug under the Controlled Substances Act was really attacking the Black community and minority communities.

Lets be realistic, Ive been in these affluent areas as well as areas with low socioeconomic status. I believe theres more drugs in the more affluent areas. They have the resources and the capability. Ive seen more in those places. Obviously, this is me talking from an anecdotal standpoint.

But, again, this goes back to the way were viewing everything in policing and the justice system. Were seeing more states open up either recreationally or medicinally. I believe that is very important. The federal government, we could redirect our resources definitely down with Customs and Border Patrol to technological advances about how people are transporting drugs across the border. Were seeing more advances in drone technology.

When we move the task of trying to stop marijuana come in, we openly legalize it, we put together whatever tax we have to in terms of collecting and raising funds and ensure whatever laws we have in place most states, at 21 I dont necessarily have many views regarding that. I will say people who are 18 years old and can go serve the country, I believe you should be afforded all the things that come with it as well. But Im not the type of person who is going to fight for reduction of the drinking age or anything like that. Im not even going in that direction. Just from the philosophical standpoint, we have to be pragmatic but still understand our roles as public officials.

We have to change the stigma of so many things that are associated with marijuana.

With drugs in general, even the way we treated it look at the crack epidemic versus the opioid epidemic. We see the clear contrast of how the government has recognized it. The crack epidemic was recognized as a criminal justice issue as opposed to now with the opioid epidemic which I believe they both shouldve been viewed the same way is viewed as a health crisis. Which it really is.

Mass addictions are health crises. We can look at all of world history to highlight that. Whether were talking China in the 1800s when opium was brought in by the British, French and even with assistance of the U.S. Theres a reason why the United States of America constructed the Chinese Exclusion Act. It wasnt just over immigrants. It was over this perceived fear that addicts were going to spread that culture of being on drugs.

Again, we have to be looking at things from that perspective that these are public health crises and we need to help people who are addicted to substance. The next part is holding accountable companies that have wronged. If we put them through hearings and we find out they were pushing known addictive substances and did not tell all the risks associated with it, we need to deal with all those things.

These are major policy reforms when we really view it. And from the economic improvement standpoint, we know its going to generate in the billions of dollars with the federal legalization of marijuana.

Cleveland is currently mired in a recession caused by the coronavirus pandemic, but things werent going particularly well for people before the pandemic hit. If elected, what can you do to address economic revitalization in Northeast Ohio?

For me going to the federal legislature, my job is to work to ensure we bring home resources. Thats what we do. Working in collaborative efforts with my state legislators that are here that represent Northeast Ohio. That means working with these mayors and city council members.

Right now, I realize things can be a little more inorganic throughout the campaign process because politicians are going to endorse who they would like to work with. But I believe its absolutely imperative that we understand that no matter what, when these politicians say who they want to work with, once Im elected I will work with these lawmakers because they represent the people in the community. It would be in the best interest of myself and other elected officials to do the due diligence on behalf of our constituents.

Ive looked into numerous ways we can do certain things whether its how to give contracts in certain areas. Theres going to be a real push in the next few years honestly starting now to get people into the cybersecurity world. Why cant Northeast Ohio be the turning point of pushing large businesses and industry into the cybersecurity world? Or when they were left out due to the pandemic in 2020, to get young Black men into these areas? Now were starting to see that paradigm shift where before we saw people being left behind.

We have to be realistic, because were facing gatekeepers too. We cant gloss over the fact we have politicians who have been caught essentially taking money from the people. Those are other things that have to be taken account of. We have a 66% literacy rate in Cleveland right now. A functional illiteracy rate. There are so many things that have to be addressed. When you have lack of transparency that is going on in municipal governments, county, state, whatever it is, what occurs is less people know whats going on. Unless people know whats going on, people tend to get away with more.

In terms of improving these areas, we have to make sure the resources arent just going to the land, its going to the community. I am supportive of policies where were investing more grants and loans in these communities that have been left behind for so long.

Because we do say we have declining lifeshare, but were still giving away tax abatements. Fifty years, were still giving away $100 million? Im very aware we have budget shortfalls. But to be realistic and pragmatic, who are the people in these legislative seats, who are the people voting on these measures, and why is there no backlash when they vote against the best interests of the people. Thats what Im talking about, gatekeepers.

We have all these resources. Downtown Cleveland is an absolutely beautiful and vibrant place. But when I see Cleveland, Ohio from the places Im coming from, they have still not improved. At all. That means we need to change the way were prioritizing our revitalization efforts. Because were not revitalizing these areas. Theyre getting left behind. We have so many abandoned homes. The revitalization process has to be highly prioritized. Community investment into the people in those communities is so important.

I am paying very much attention to the people who are running in the mayoral race as well as city council. Im very much being attentive to that process.

What can you do as a member of Congress to encourage job growth in Northeast Ohio?

Lets talk a little bit about what I just said prior with the advancements were seeing in cybersecurity. Thats where were at right now.

The food bank was hacked not too long ago. They had a breach. But they handled it quickly. They had insurance on things. Thats great. Thats all great. But not everyone can afford to have those things.

We are seeing an increased percentage of cybertheft, cyberattacks, whether its on government or agencies, whether its on small businesses, corporations, federal agencies. We saw that last year with the 2020 Solar Winds cyberattack, which was recognized by our intelligence departments that Russia was the culprit.

From the congressional level, how much of a role should we allow the statutory ability for the commander in chief to commit offensive cyberattacks against other states.

There are some of these questions that are coming up that are very pressing. This is the future. From my standpoint, to bring some of these jobs back, thats so important. This is the future. Everyone is utilizing the internet. Social media, all of these things. There are so many people who are using these systems online where this is clearly we need to be investing.

Or in things like the Green New Deal. Or Bidens $2 trillion infrastructure package. The former representative of District 11 is now the secretary of HUD. There are so many ways to improve the plight of the people, whether its expanding diversity on contracts, pushing to make sure more people can actually get into this process that were going to be rebuilding and reshaping this country.

This is the largest amount of spending were probably ever going to see in our lifetime. That amount of spending, we have to be very controlled and efficient and make sure that were not leaving people behind.

And its not just a racial wealth gap. The wealth gap between the top 1% of earners and the bottom 99% of earners. Things like the $15 an hour minimum wage. People have asked questions before like what are my views on the small mom and pop shops or sole proprietorships or small businesses who cant afford to pay that $15 an hour? Yes, thats a door that may be in front of us. But were trying to be in these positions of public officials because were trying to be forward thinking.

Im supportive of things like tax credits or payroll deductions, all of these things to make sure equity is established is important. Lets be equitable. Because we have not been for so many years. Large corporations have not been paying their fair share of federal taxes. Yes, they have been paying payroll taxes and things like that, but theyre not paying the larger part of their share.

And then in some of these states, to put their headquarters or move them around, you see them getting tax abatements or receiving more tax dollars from municipal, county or state governments.

We have to be equitable when were trying to reduce our wealth gap, as well as the racial wealth gap and bringing those jobs in places like the cybersecurity realm, the environmental jobs that may be coming. You saw President Joe Biden talks about having more electric vehicles, more energy efficient and renewable resources around. Lets get more of these people into those jobs. Thats how we do it.

Do you support the return of earmarks?

In terms of earmarking a bill itself, earmarking does have their place. Theres times youre supportive of them and times you arent. Its the same way we view progress. Do we like the open rules or the closed rules in the U.S. Congress where individuals have the ability to put up an amendment whether or not they are on the committee that is assigned to that bill.

There are places, I would say, from a philosophical standpoint. But we have to get more straightforward to putting the policies out that are specifically necessary.

What tends to happen sometimes with earmarking things into some bills, some people may not be reading those bills. You can see thats happened. A perfect example, the COVID-19 bill, the last bill passed under President Trump, that bill was 5,592 pages. Now, thats a lot of room for people to put things into for what they want. Yes, it was an omnibus bill, but we have to recognize these things.

We can really change and shape what the bill is worth by getting something into it that has nothing to do with the bill itself. I would say that I am undecided as of right now, but I will educate myself further.

Name three federal infrastructure projects in Northeast Ohio you would make a priority if elected.

Number one, like I said what were seeing with the $2 trillion infrastructure bill were looking at, I would like to see more of these energy efficient and renewable resources constructed in the area. I would like to see the jobs that come with those things. I would like to see the process for restoring houses here.

Anyone who lives in Cleveland or in the communities, a lot of peoples homes are falling apart. Yes, in Cleveland city government, they have paint grants and whatnot. But I think we should do more to assist with the federal government level to make sure everyone has a place to live. A home. Not just somewhere to lay their head, but an actual home. A community. Its much safer and much more vibrant.

I do support things like increasing more of the tree canopy throughout the city. Weve always had greenery. It creates a much more aesthetically viewpoint. But, again, these are the projects Im all in for.

Improving where our bridges are. If we have any bridges that are in a condition that is unsatisfactory to improve on those things. Our roads. Lets be realistic, anyone who lives in Cleveland, the roads, the federal government can assist in that process.

Now having the HUD secretary being the former District 11 Congress person, that puts us in a more advantageous position because she does recognize, more so, the issues that affect this district in terms of the crumbling infrastructure that is here now. That will give us some room to try and bring more packages and resources to these communities to ultimately improve all of these things.

And, in terms of infrastructure, I support working on broadband. Making sure broadband is more accessible. I support the idea of it being free. I have no problem with that. The biggest question is how do we get that policy to work in terms of the financial aspects associated with it? Thats one portion of it.

But I support it because, again, Im the one talking about an increased utilization of the internet. Better government and things like that. When we increase the ability of people to use the internet, it allows for a more equitable future. So, I think we should allocate more of our resources to things like public broadband so everyone has access to information as well. Ive walked down these streets before and they dont even know whats going on. Theyre a week or two behind unless they happen to turn on the news. Because they cant pay for those things.

Should Burke Lakefront Airport remain open? What can you do to address the issue from the federal level?

I believe I need to go into more of the information into Burke Lakefront Airport so I can give you the best answer possible. I dont want to give you any fluff right now. I need to go into more depth in terms of the information into that.

Originally posted here:
Tariq Shabazz Q&A: where the major 11th Congressional District candidates stand - cleveland.com

Actually, anti-royalism is a fundamental element of the American way of life you are adapting to. Our Constitution expressly forbids both federal and state governments to grant titles of nobility. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, extolled that ban as the cornerstone of Americas republican system. Perhaps the one thing we Americans never argue about and as you know, we are regularly at daggers drawn over just about everything is whether wed be better off with a monarch. When we turned our backs on royalty in 1776, it was for good.

You know what else is a cornerstone indeed, a bearing wall of Americas democratic republic? The First Amendment, about which you were rather disparaging in a recent interview.

Earlier this month, on the Armchair Expert podcast, you were bewailing the intrusiveness of the paparazzi and the brazenness with which they stalk celebrities. The interviewer noted that while the relentless photographers may be obnoxious, what they do is legal under the First Amendment, which protects the right of the press to gather and publish information.

I dont want to start sort of going down the First Amendment route, because thats a huge subject and one which I dont understand because Ive only been here for a short period of time, you replied. But you can find a loophole in anything. You complained that even though laws were created to protect people, the media are allowed to disregard peoples privacy so that they can make more money and they can capitalize on our pain, grief, and this general self-destructive mode.

Then you added: Ive got so much I want to say about the First Amendment, as I still dont understand it. But its bonkers.

No, Harry, the First Amendment isnt bonkers. It is indispensable to Americas astounding history of achievement and to the way of life that has made this country an unprecedented haven for men and women who yearn to speak or write, or learn, or teach, or report with a freedom unknown in their native lands.

There is no First Amendment in Britain, where people can get arrested for online crimes of speech if their social media posts are too offensive. In the United States, by contrast, the government is commanded by the First Amendment to let people have their say, no matter how reprehensible. To be sure, there have always been efforts to get around that command, from the Alien and Sedition Acts in Americas early years to the atrocious speech codes on many modern college campuses. Freedom of speech and of the press always require vigilant defense. Fortunately, those who defend them have the First Amendment on their side.

There is no question that unbridled speech and irresponsible journalism can have terrible downsides. I cant fault you for detesting the paparazzi who have no respect for the feelings of the celebrities they pursue. You were just a young boy when your mother lost her life in a car wreck while being chased through Paris by paparazzi. Its understandable that you might think it bonkers for the First Amendment to enshrine a right to ferret out and publish information about people against their wishes.

Its true: Freedom of speech and of the press have often led to embarrassment, annoyance, and unfair publicity. But far more often, they have been the spotlight that exposes truth, illuminates corruption, reveals misjudgment, publicizes problems, and uncovers remedies. What society gains from the First Amendment vastly outweighs the price it pays.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson complained bitterly about the way the public papers were afflicting John Jay, among the greatest statesmen of that generation. It was outrageous, he wrote, that a devoted public servant like Jay should have his peace of mind so much disturbed by any individual who shall think proper to arraign him in a newspaper. Nevertheless, Jefferson avowed, to stifle the press would be much worse: Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. To the sacrifice of time, labor, fortune, a public servant must count upon adding that of peace of mind and even reputation.

You told your podcast interviewer that laws were created to protect people, but the First Amendment was created to protect a certain kind of culture: one in which liberty is valued as both a means and an end. In which even powerful officials, famous celebrities, and wealthy titans can be questioned, rebutted, or denounced. In which sacred cows can be slaughtered and prevailing dogmas mocked.

In recent months, you have had plenty to say on topics ranging from your mental health to race and the royal family to your fathers shortcomings as a parent. Your views have provoked sympathy and admiration in some quarters, fury and contempt in others. Thanks to the First Amendment, your freedom to express those views is unassailable. So is everyone elses freedom to say what they think about you. It isnt a perfect system, but it is the best one ever devised for holding the mighty accountable and unshackling human minds. That isnt bonkers its a blessing. And as an American resident, you share in it too.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jeff.jacoby@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jeff_jacoby. To subscribe to Arguable, his weekly newsletter, visit bitly.com/Arguable.

The rest is here:
No, Prince Harry, the First Amendment isnt bonkers - The Boston Globe

Poor Prince Harry! After surrendering his royal position in the House of Windsor last year to start life anew in the United States with his actress wife Meghan Markle, hes had a tough time adjusting to our countrys ways.

It seems certain aspects of our American society leave the prince befuddled. In a recent podcast interview, Harry suggested he doesnt have much regard for the First Amendment:

I dont want to start sort of going down the First Amendment route because thats a huge subject and one in which I dont understand because Ive only been here a short period of time.

But you can find a loophole in anything. And you can capitalize or exploit whats not said rather than uphold what is said. Ive got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers.

Of course, for us Yanks of non-royal, non-British pedigree, individual rights like those protected under the First Amendmentfreedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom of petition and assembly; and freedom of associationare anything but bonkers. Theyre the very foundation of a free and civilized society in which citizens can thrive and flourish.

Harry did admit hes only been on American soil for a short period of time. So, lets give the erstwhile monarch a pass for his dismissal of a core American liberty, and trust he will take time to educate himself on the Constitution while hes here.

But heres who doesnt deserve a pass: the U.S. media entities whose coverage of Harrys gaffe suggests that caring about the First Amendment is a conservative obsessiona prepossession blared from the headlines alone:

Newsweek: Prince Harry Calls First Amendment Bonkers, Sparks Conservative Backlash

The Mercury News: Prince Harrys bonkers First Amendment quip fuels outrage among top U.S. conservatives

Entertainment News: Prince Harry Calls The First Amendment Bonkers and He Makes a Good Point

Vanity Fair: Prince Harry Called the First Amendment Bonkers and Gave Some Talking Heads an Excuse to Relitigate the Revolutionary War

The lead sentence in the Vanity Fair piece is particularly revealing: A contingent of conservative-leaning politicians and talking heads are up in arms afterPrince Harryoffhandedly dubbed their beloved First Amendment bonkers, VFs Emily Kirkpatrick explains.

There was a time when journalists were champions of key liberties like freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Such liberties, as protected under the First Amendment, werent conservative valuesthey were shared and cherished by all Americans who valued freedom of expression and opinion.

That was certainly my experience as a working journalist: The First Amendment wasnt something beloved just by conservatives, but by all Americans. It makes one wonder what budding reporters are taught in journalism schools these days.

Todays journalists would do well to reacquaint themselves with the core liberties protected under the First Amendment, particularly freedom of speech. A good place to start would be with this blog post from my PLF colleague, Wen Fa, who explains Why Free Speech is Important. Wen notes that in many countries (his native China included), government entities are not shy about squashing and punishing dissent by clamping down on those who try to exercise free speech. But thats not the case in the United Statesthanks to our robust constitutional protections.

America offers a richer tradition, Wen writes. People are free toexpress their ideas, even if those ideas are unpopular, unconventional, or wrong (though, in many cases, they may eventually be proven right). Americans are thus free to participate in peaceful protests, wear black armbands to school, and evenburn the nations flag. A speaker may say things that are unpopular, uncomfortable, or downright grotesque. But in a free society, we engage dissent through discussion and debate, rather than through censorship and punishment.

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans enjoy stronger protections for free speech than people in most other countriesand thats a great thing, even if it means we sometimes have to contend with unpleasant or unpopular opinions. Prince Harry may or may not come to appreciate the value of American free speech protectionswe certainly dont begrudge the Duke of Sussex his right to talk to a podcaster, Oprah Winfrey, or anyone else he wishes, about whatever he wishes. We have, after all, the right not to listen.

However, media figures should make more of an effort to stand up for the values enshrined in the Constitution. Failing to do so, when their own livelihoods depend so deeply on the First Amendment, is justbonkers.

Read the original here:
Royal Pain: Prince Harryand his media fansneed educating on why the First Amendment matters - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)

Recently, we've witnessed the introduction of the Equality Act with its stated purpose of affording LGBTQ citizens equal protection under the law. Ostensibly, this is a laudable goal.

The threat that it poses to religious freedom, however, is disconcerting.

To understand this, its necessary to recall the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act during the Clinton administration. It passed in Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The essence of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is to protect the citizenry from encroachment by government on First Amendment freedoms including conscience. If the Equality Act were to pass, the restoration act would essentially be gutted, and LGBTQ rights would trump the First Amendments free exercise clause. The subsequent trampling of religious liberty would be unconscionable.

Given this scenario, Thomas Jeffersons trenchant declaration remains so ennobling: I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. Whenever ones conscience is overridden by an ideological imperative its time to seek accommodation for ones God given right and wrong.

Ron Domel

Texas City

Here is the original post:
Equality Act is a threat to First Amendment - Galveston County Daily News