If anything is decided from all this money spent, nothing will eventually be accomplished. But the members will feeeeeeel good about themselves, pat each other on the back and still continue to b!t&# about the police.

Speaking of feeeeeelings... http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2008/05/county_fucks_up_mental_health_asks_people_with_mental_illness_how_does_it_feeeeel.php I swear, I'm going to start a consultancy called "SLUG IT OUT." We're going to specialize in a no-nonsense approach to problem solving and success. I'll be the "facilitator," which means I bring the gloves.

Has anyone actually straight up asked the city and police whether the answer is yes or no to the following proposition? "We believe African Americans are more likely than whites to commit crimes. Knowing nothing else, we think a random black person is more likely than a random white person to be a criminal." Getting an answer to that basic question is essential. Because if the city thinks that is true, then there are certain policy paths that can be followed. If the city thinks that is a false statement, then an honest look at the stop data can follow. Will anyone actually commit to an answer to that basic fundamental question?

18 months with no results, or even apparent goals. Some touchy-feely dialogs planned but no action or commitment to action. Portland would have been better off if this farce committee just masturbated for the last 18 months. No one would be screwed, everyone would feel better, and there would still be a huge mess to clean up.

Quote of the year.

Also, check out this military sabotage manual from 1944. http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/11/sabotage-manual-from.html (1) Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions. (2) Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of per­sonal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments. (3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and considera­tion.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible — never less than five. (4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. (5) Haggle over precise wordings of com­munications, minutes, resolutions. (6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision. (7) Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reason­able” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on. (8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision — raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the juris­diction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.

Boy, that sounds like a lot of strategic planning meetings I've been to. To be honest the devil is in the details and if your not the party in power you have little else but these tactics to try to affect change