Anna Griffin gets it right in The Oregonian:

A bit of friendly advice to the fine men and women of the Portland Police Bureau: 

If you give a rat's tail about how you're perceived by the people you're paid to protect – the people who also happen to pay your salaries -- take off those T-shirts and go back to work. Because right now, you bear a startling resemblance to a bunch of out-of-touch thugs. 

Some 650 people, Portland officers and their friends and families, rallied downtown Tuesday to protest recent command decisions. They carried signs and wore freshly printed blue T-shirts bearing the motto, "I Am Chris Humphreys." 

Humphreys is the 10-year veteran at the heart of two recent high-profile incidents of police force. Three years ago, he chased and then fell on James Chasse, the schizophrenic man kicked and Tasered by police after they spotted him urinating on a Pearl District sidewalk. Chasse died in police custody from blunt force trauma to the chest. 

Earlier this month, Humphreys shot a 12-year-old girl in the thigh at close range with a non-lethal bean-bag shotgun. The girl had slapped another officer and resisted attempts to remove her from a MAX train. 

Humphreys faces a two-week suspension in Chasse's death and, last week, was placed on paid leave while internal affairs investigators look into the bean-bag shooting.

As Griffin notes, most police are good and decent people.  But the Bureau is spiraling out of control.  The police union - which has a long history of defending excessive force and even racist behavior - did little more in their rally yesterday besides show the ugliest side of the force.

I'm disappointed in the Portland City Council for their blind statements of support for the Bureau this week.  Right now the Council and the Mayor look like puppets of the chief instead of the leaders we elected to have oversight responsibility.

Related Link: Portland Police Bureau Out Of Control

But Bishop Tobin's actions were political.  Why is it that Democrats are targeted over and over again in this fashion while pro-choice Roman Catholic Republicans are largely ignored?

Why is it that pro-choice Democrats are denied communion when Roman Catholic Republicans who vote against children's health care, against foreign-aid to prevent hunger, against climate change legislation and for war - all positions contrary to Roman Catholic teachings - are ignored?

One can only assume that these Bishops who deny communion to Democrats do so because of a personal partisan political bent that has nothing to do with theological principles.

Photo Credit: US House of Representatives

Steve Duin outlines the litany of recent complaints about the Portland Police Bureau in an article for The Oregonian:

In the brutal chain of personalities and events that have licensed Portland police to turn a beanbag shotgun on a 12-year-old girl, the aloof commissioner, absentee mayor and anything-goes police chief aren't nearly as significant as James Chasse Jr., Eunice Crowder and Barbara Weich. 

Chasse, of course, died after Officer Christopher Humphreys pancaked the 145-pound schizophrenic when he had the audacity to flee the cops' approach. 

Crowder? In 2003, police pepper-sprayed the 71-year-old blind woman with such enthusiasm that her glass eye popped out of its socket, then used a Taser on her four times as she lay in the dirt. 

And Weich? In 2005, the 58-year-old gallery owner tossed a derogative term at one of Portland's finest -- Officer Greg Adrian -- after the motorcycle cop gave her a ticket, she says, then mocked her annoyance. 

Adrian followed Weich over the Hawthorne Bridge and pulled her over again. "He then hit her in the face with enough force to leave bruising on her cheek and neck," said Greg Kafoury, her attorney. "He then grabs her arm, pulls it out the window, twists it, puts his weight down on it ... fractures the arm." 

Weich subsequently moved to rural Idaho. "She was shattered by the experience," Kafoury said. 

Adrian? "He received no discipline," Commissioner Randy Leonard reminds us. 

Portland police are all about imposing discipline, not exercising it. For years now, escalating displays of excessive force have prompted nothing but shrugs from the police chief and six-figure settlement offers from city attorneys.

KXL invited me to discuss this most recent incident - where a 12-year old girl was shot with a bean bag gun - with C.W. Jensen, a former police bureau official.  The "debate" aired yesterday morning and you can listen to the podcast here:

Download Pcast 11-20a

Our conversation starts at about the 1/2 point on this 8 minute recording.

(some browsers - like Firefox or Google Chrome - will allow you to simply click on the link and listen...otherwise click with the RIGHT mouse button on the hyperlink and choose “Save Target As” and save to your desktop or other folder – once downloaded click on the file to listen).

Now On ITunes

You can now subscribe to my podcasts on ITunes by clicking here. 

Today the Portland Police Bureau announced that Officer Christopher Humphreys had been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation into an incident this weekend – caught on video tape – that showed Humphreys’ shooting a 12-year old girl with a bean bag gun at a MAX stop. The girl was resisting arrest. Regardless, the use of force is disturbing and raises fundamental questions about the Portland Police Bureau and our elected officials. 

Officer Humphreys’ was one of the officers involved in the 2006 death of James Chasse, a Portlander who died violently under police custody. Just recently the city decided to give Humphreys’ a 2-week suspension for his role in Mr. Chasse's death. Many, me included, have called for Humphreys’ to resign over his conduct in the Chasse matter. 

The incident under investigation today shows a police bureau out of control. Increasingly, Portlanders have less and less confidence in the leadership of Mayor Sam Adams, Portland City Commissioner Dan Saltzman (the city’s police commissioner), and Police Chief Rosie Sizer. 

Obviously, Humphreys’ cannot and should not be allowed to remain on the force. At the same time, however, this case raises the question as to whether or not the right people are at the helm of the Portland Police Bureau. The Portland City Council has thus far failed to adequately address the issues surrounding the death of Mr. Chasse, whose memorial I helped to officiate. Police officials dragged their feet for three years on their internal investigation of incident and the city is fighting a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Chasse family when they should simply admit fault. 

In police custody, Mr. Chasse was shot with a Tazer by Officer Humphreys and received fractures on 16 of his ribs and 26 different broken bones in the front and back of his rib cage. His crime? The police thought he was peeing on the street. 

And Officer Humphreys’ punishment is a 2-week suspension?  Mr. Chasse received a death sentence.  

Sgt. Scott Westerman, the president of the police union, attacked the city today for both the proposed 2-week suspension and the administrative leave placed on Officer Humphreys this afternoon. The Oregonian reports that Sgt. Westerman defended the shooting of the girl: 

"This action was appropriate," he said. "It was just. It was warranted." 

His comments only go to show that the culture of the Portland Police Bureau is out of sync with the values held by the majority of Portlanders.  They routinely defend the inexcusable. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: 

Over the years the Portland Police Association has served as a right-wing noise machine that often obscures the good work done by the bureau. PPA is, in the end, a political group with a conservative social agenda that does not reflect the values that have made Portland an open and progressive city. 

There is a big mess to clean up in Portland. Ultimately, that should be the role of the mayor. Will he finally step up or are his self-inflicted political wounds so deep as to leave the bureau out of control without effective civilian oversight?

The Senate may vote as soon as Saturday on health care reform.  The New York Times reports:  

WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders in the Senate on Wednesday unveiled their proposal for overhauling the health care system, outlining legislation that they said would cover most of the uninsured while reducing the federal budget deficit. 

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said at a news conference that the legislation, embodying President Obama’s signature domestic initiative, would impose new regulations on insurers, extend coverage to 31 million people who currently do not have any and add new benefits to Medicare. 

Mr. Reid said the bill, despite a price tag of $848 billion over 10 years, would reduce projected budget deficits by $130 billion over a decade because the costs would be more than offset by new taxes and fees and by reductions in the growth of Medicare.

Now is the time to contact you senators.

Republicans have vowed to fight the legislation at every turn, saying it represents a dangerous expansion in the role of government that would increase taxes and insurance costs for millions of people. “It’s going to be a holy war,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. 

Though broadly similar to the House bill, Mr. Reid’s proposal differs in important ways. It would, for example, increase the Medicare payroll tax on high-income people and impose a new excise tax on high-cost “Cadillac health plans” offered by employers to their employees. 

Mr. Reid’s bill would not go as far as the House bill in limiting access to abortion. And while he would require most Americans to obtain health insurance, he would impose less stringent penalties on people who did not comply.

As you'll remember, the House passed their historic version of health care reform on November 7, 2009.

The Senate is different from the House in many ways.  On Saturday, Democrats will need 60 votes to prevent a filibuster.  Then more debate will take place over the next several weeks before a final vote is taken.  But if 60 senators fail to move the debate forward meaningful health care reform will die.  

Congress needs to hear from you!

Related Link:  Letter to President Obama On The Public Option

I called CafePress.com and asked them to explain their reasoning for allowing the product to be sold.  No answer so far.  But I also called the Secret Service to alert them.  That's what anyone should do when threats against the president are made.

President Obama has been subject to large numbers of death threats from extremists.  This is troubling.

What make it even more sickening is when Holy Scripture is used to justify such threats.  It is a perversion of the faith.

UPDATE: Monday, November 23rd

It appears that CafePress.com has removed these items from their website.  That was the right move.

Religious leaders are praying that Joe Lieberman's heart softens.  The LA Times reports:

...an interfaith group of clergy is lobbying him to drop his plans to filibuster any healthcare bill that contains a public option. Their strategy: prayers.

During a Sunday night vigil, a crowd walked from Stamford High School, Lieberman's alma mater, to his condo building across the street. According to the Stamford Advocate's Devon Lash, residents went out on their balconies to listen to rabbis, ministers, priests and imams speak from behind a sidewalk pulpit.

"We are praying for the senator to change his heart and his mind," said the Rev. Tommie Jackson, of Faith Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church in Stamford. 

Then Monday, a multi-denominational group of clergy sent a letter to Lieberman asking him to abandon his filibuster threats. "A lot of groups who have historically supported [Lieberman] are praying for him to come back home," Rabbi Ron Fish, leader of the Concerned Clergy Of Connecticut.

Visit the new Yes on Measures 66 & 67 website at http://www.voteyesfororegon.org/ .

My grandfather Rock Bright with his dog "Mac." Today Rock was honored during a program at his nursing home for his service in the Navy during WWII. He helped to build ships. My mother and I are in South Carolina with him this week.

Happy Veteran's Day to all.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, suggested today in an op-ed on Politico.com that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops should lose their tax exempt status because of their advocacy for the Stupak amendment, which was added to the Affordable Health Care for America Act. The amendment adds unfortunate restrictions to the right of women to make their own reproductive health care decisions. 

But Woolsey’s call would undermine religious freedom in America. 

First, her words:

The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy. 

They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure. 

And this political effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the Council enjoys tax-exempt status. 

When I visit churches in my district, we are very careful to keep everything “non-political” to protect their tax-exempt status. The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections. 

Given the political behavior of USCCB in this case, maybe it shouldn’t be.

Churches are governed under the 501 (c) 3 code of the IRS.  Partisan political activity (advocating for candidates or political parties, for example) is prohibited.  Issue advocacy is protected.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops did nothing different in advocating for the Stupak amendment than what the United Church of Christ and others have done in favor of pro-choice legislation.  Churches have to be free of government interference.

Just this week religious leaders issued an Open Letter from Religious Leaders to Members of Congress Supporting Inclusion of Abortion Services in Health Care Reform, which I supported. 

The best statement that I know of on the role of church and state comes from the United Methodist Church.  It reads:

We believe that the state should not attempt to control the church, nor should the church seek to dominate the state. The rightful and vital separation of church and state, which has served the cause of religious liberty, should not be misconstrued as the abolition of all religious expression from public life.

Congressman Woolsey's threat against the Bishops is a threat against all churches  - whether the theology be progressive or conservative - and undermines the Constitutional protections afforded all people of faith.

If we were to take away the tax exempt status of every group that politicians disagree with it would injure our freedoms.

All people - regardless of faith or party - should condemn Rep. Woolsey's comments.