"For issues like this, folks need to learn to tone down the automatic cynicism... you know, for those few times when ::most:: of us can get behind a policy? If you take an US vs THEM mentality to every issue, you're quite simply going to be that cranky jerk down the block who greets door-knockers with a shotgun. Believe it."

(Comment posted to BoJack: PC all the way to the dump)

[AnonymousPoster], With all this support Randy should have had no problem organizing a March on Metro to insist, like any joe, that they use THEIR power to require something particular from garbage haulers.

Seriously, the city could pay outside counsel a couple hundred bucks to say the very same thing.

I thought I'd save the city a few bucks, by offering a hair-ball instead.

My earlier comment:

This would be a jurisdictional question, not one of the wisdom or folly (or contractual bargaining power) of placing such a condition upon the grant of a franchise.

ORS 268.317 Solid and liquid waste disposal powers.
Metro Charter

Suppose Metro said that they want to assert jurisdictional power and control over Portland's Water Billing system?

Would anyone in Portland city government be a fool NOT to say "Be My Guest!"

Randy -- Did you offer Metro a trade?

More vigor here:

I won't stop Randy from going to Metro and politely asking them to require biodiesel use by garbage haulers as a condition of the grant of any future franchise agreements. The current contracts might have to be renegotiated, in light of any difference in costs associated with conforming to the new requirement.

If any one of the haulers objects to the assertion of jurisdiction by the City of Portland and it causes any higher costs to the city I believe that the City Attorney should have to pay those costs personally. She has the power, as is noted in the statutes, to simply tell the City Council that she cannot support their position on the legal matter of jurisdictional overreach.

I guess after the PGE deal and the multi-million dollar legal advice (legal advice as public relations where payment is conditioned on the guarantee of results -- wink, wink, nod, nod -- , remote from Florida, at the law firm where Abramoff taught the tricks of the PR trade) to obtain extraterritorial jurisdiction one cannot today be troubled by little matters of conforming one's conduct to the law.

I am humored by the head-cheese at HP claiming that she relied on advice of counsel (as a recognized defense to criminal intent) only to have a Congressional committee extract from that counsel the public assertion of a claim to the protection in the Fifth Amendment against being compelled to testify against oneself. The buck here lands on the Portland City Attorney. Randy, upon being denied the support of the City Attorney, can simply do like Diane Linn on such matters of arbitrary conduct and obtain a letter of advice from outside counsel saying that Randy and the City does indeed have the claimed authority, and then back that up in arguments in a court, if anyone should actually challenge the ordinance today or twenty years from now.

Randy could, even after being denied the legal support in-house or from outside counsel, make a good show of refusing to conduct any city business until such time as Metro, of their own free will, adopt the condition that Randy seeks. This is called a bully pulpit kind of thing, to draw attention to a matter.

Randy does not have the rudimentary consent of the public, as evidenced by the legislatures grant of such power and imposition of a duty to some other public body, and also by reason of the Metro Charter. Sure, it would be a hassle to take Randy to the mat on this little puny issue. But it would be unfair to argue that opposition and cynicism is in any way unwarranted.

That you should feel the need to paint opposition as somehow extreme or filled with the hate and driven by a sense of helplessness that spawns blind violence is rather odd. In reality, it is Randy that is the one that is fighting an uphill, and unsustainable, position . . . given the clear and unequivocal result in a court action to void his little requirement. It is just not worth the cost of the filing fee and opportunity cost of time to put the arguments onto paper in the proper from and submit them to a court for review. It is worth, at most, a blog-comment hair-ball.

My beef is confined to whether, in the interest of obtaining a more durable support for a pro-biodiesel agenda that, Randy should have the public pay a couple hundred bucks to an outside counsel to raise (or address) precisely the same jurisdictional objection that I have raised. I know the words that would be used, and the ultimate conclusion. I thought we could save a few bucks, by offering a few words.

It is Randy that is running around, around the law, half-cocked, without a leg to stand on. It is funny.

Back to the notion of folks that might "greet[] door-knockers with a shotgun."

Suppose I wear a black ski mask with just the eyes and mouth exposed when I attend a City Council session. Would I be placing my very life at risk? My only tool would be a camera to capture the Kodak moment to place on the internet for all to see.

I could assert that I must remain anonymous as it has become quite clear that folks in these parts tend to favor the absence of the rule of law, even down to most minor details, through characterization of ANY OPPOSITION as somehow leading to violent acts of civil disobedience.

While you, [AnonymousPoster], way actually hold the view that any opposition is wholly unexplainable, and thus somehow crazy, this is entirely your own opinion, and certainly not a statement of fact.

Here is a funny, and not-so-funny, response to a statement by Jack Straw to Muslim women to not veil their faces:
Blair: Veil row is part of crucial debate

The row over the Muslim veil is a crucial part of the wider debate on how to integrate different communities into society, Tony Blair argued today.

The prime minister said cabinet colleague Jack Straw was right to raise the issue, and supported his comments that the veil was a "mark of separation".

Mr Blair said it would be "going too far" to suggest people should not wear the veil, but admitted it made people from outside the Muslim community feel uncomfortable.

If opposition and reasoned debate is viewed as if it were the equivalent to a violent act of rage, and thus open to demonization, and justifiable fear, have we not moved a step closer to a position where folks that presently wield the power of government can use that position, like a religious figure, to oppress opposition to that power itself in much more seemingly benign ways?

If I were seducing a lady and unbuttoned just one single top button to her blouse, how would I interpret the lack of any physical restraint to that act? Need she smile approvingly or just shrug, or must she reach out and slap so as to make clear her lack of consent?

The City of Portland has been denied the consent that you believe is inherent merely by the lack of court action to rebut the grasp for that which you desire. Yet your advances are not seductive to me. The lure of biodiesel is not enough for me to give up my support for the Rule of Law. I will have none of it.

Slap!

I will go one step further. Any single employee of the City of Portland that is charged with implementing this pro-biodiesel plan, for which the City of Portland is not authorized to "mandate," could refuse to participate on public policy grounds . . . . under the risk of being fired for insubordination . . . after which they could get a healthy settlement to cover their economic loss. It is a risk-management type issue, the risk of payment of a large sum of money from the public. Randy need only obtain an outside counsel opinion, for then it would be their ass that I could take to task. This is not too great a cost. The only cost (or risk) really is that they would say just exactly as I have said, and I believe that Randy already knows this.

Pity to lower level workers that must tow the party line according to [AnonymousPoster] and his masters.

Go read Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990), where in these words are found:

"We therefore determine that promotions, transfers, and recalls after layoffs based on political affiliation or support are an impermissible infringement on the First Amendment rights of public employees. In doing so, we reject the Seventh Circuit's view of the appropriate constitutional standard by which to measure alleged patronage practices in government employment. The Seventh Circuit proposed that only those employment decisions that are the "substantial equivalent of a dismissal" violate a public employee's rights under the First Amendment. 868 F. 2d, at 954957. We find this test unduly restrictive because it fails to recognize that there are deprivations less harsh than dismissal that nevertheless press state employees and applicants to conform their beliefs and associations to some state-selected orthodoxy. See Elrod, supra, at 356357 (plurality opinion); West Virgina Bd. of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). [n.8] The First Amendment is not a tenure provision, protecting public employees from actual or constructive discharge. The First Amendment prevents the government, except in the most compelling circumstances, from wielding its power to interfere with its employees' freedom to believe and associate, or to not believe and not associate."

[AnonymousPoster] -- your hyperventilation makes the very case that an employee would need to make to win, AND to refuse to act unlawfully to serve the party platform. (There are also nice state-level laws too, to buttress any federal Free Speech related claims.) This is nothing new at all.

The court case goes on:

Whether the four employees were in fact denied promotions, transfers, or rehire for failure to affiliate with and support the Republican Party is for the District Court to decide in the first instance. What we decide today is that such denials are irreconcilable with the Constitution and that the allegations of the four employees state claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1982 ed.) for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Therefore, although we affirm the Seventh Circuit's judgment to reverse the District Court's dismissal of these claims and remand them for further proceedings, we do not adopt the Seventh Circuit's reasoning.

Petitioner James W. Moore presents the closely related question whether patronage hiring violates the First Amendment. Patronage hiring places burdens on free speech and association similar to those imposed by the patronage practices discussed above. A state job is valuable. Like most employment, it provides regular paychecks, health insurance, and other benefits. In addition, there may be openings with the State when business in the private sector is slow. There are also occupations for which the government is a major (or the only) source of employment, such as social workers, elementary school teachers, and prison guards. Thus, denial of a state job is a serious privation.

The court offers all the coercive power I would need.

(I should add: Look up the phrase "ordinary fortitude." Then figure out which side of that line I might fall, even if staff may not.)

UPDATE: Here is an example of just-slightly-more-than-ordinary-fortitude:

People sometimes say the darndest things to rationalize irrational conduct:

Arrested for ski-mask protest

A spokesman for Suffolk police said: "Police were called to The Walk by concerned members of the public, who reported that the male was approaching passers-by to ask for signatures for a petition, whilst wearing a balaclava.

"When approached by officers the male refused to cooperate with them and was subsequently arrested for causing a Breach of the Peace.

"This action was taken because of the man's conduct towards the officers and also for his own protection, as his actions were drawing a negative response from those around him."

Whatever?

The City of Portland leaders could simply be wearing Metro Councilor masks and pretending to be lost.