          
|
|
 |
 |
Take Tommy FarFlung (please!), for example. Sen. Hartung -- who once dated Sacagawea -- began his first term in the House in 1967, the year I graduated from high school in Roswell, N.M. This was four years before Sen. Ryan Deckert was even born. Deckert, or TK (The Kid), was recently initiated into the BFC after passing probation and showing his ID to the bartender at the Ram. Another BFC member, Wally "the Wrestler" Miller has served for 20 years. Golly, his constituents up there in Lake Oswego must have been asleep at the wheel for the past two decades; Wally's been trying to get self-service gasoline and a 75-mile speed limit since his first wagon train ride. I'm gonna get him a copy of Don Quixote for a retirement gift. But, even as we speak, the BFC is recruiting new members. We have invited two members who have exhibited the behaviors -- savoir faire, panache, homeliness, eruditity, pointlessness, and insincere camaraderie -- that we cherish in our caucus: Kate Brown and Bev Clarno -- gender balance and all that -- we need more sports talk and bad jokes. Term limits has its serious side. Lenny Hannon's leaving after 29 years, Mae Yih 26 years, Cliff Trow and Peter Courtney 18 years -- 13 people in all with 200 years of experience in the process -- gone from the Senate. I went out to dinner last week with Bryan Johnston, Mike Lehman, and Terry Thompson. We were freshman Democrats in the House in 1995, good friends to this day. Even the most irascible, hard-hearted lobbyists will tell you that there are bonds created by serving in the Legislature that last for life. The process is not as much fun without Bryan, Mike and Terry, and the process suffers from them not being there; but I still call them for guidance. Did you know that of the 21 D and R legislators elected to the Oregon House in 1995, I am the only one left? If I got re-elected in 2002, and finished my 12 years in 2006, I would be the longest serving legislator in the building -- scary thought. Maybe we should put term limits on lobbyists? Dave Barrows and Ted Hughes have been around since the old Capitol burned down in 1935.
It's true, legislators are more frantic these days about getting their bills done and passed in both chambers. My Katie Lovelace crime bill is still stuck in Ways and Means, because of an expensive amendment added in committee; but my bill to use excess timber revenues for rural schools has risen from the dead. I finally got to see the first redistricting map put out by the Republicans. It appears the R's hired an outside contractor, perhaps Cedric Hayden Family Dentistry, to help drill, I mean, draw the lines. My home District 44, as proposed, would start in north Douglas County (Yoncalla), and then continue to head north all the way through Lane County, Linn County, up through Marion County -- and finish just north of SALEM! After the tears of laughter and rage produced by viewing their map, Courtney showed me the Republican map of U.S. congressional redistricting. Current U.S. House member Darlene Hooley was moved out of her district, as was current U.S. House member David Wu. Wu was moved into current U.S. House member Earl Blumenauer's district. And the UO and OSU were moved into the same 4th Congressional District. Imagine the Ducks and Beavers in the same district -- I think we passed that bestiality bill just in time!
Tony Corcoran of Cottage Grove is minority whip in the Senate and represents portions of Lane and Douglas counties in Senate District 22. He can be reached in Salem at (503) 986-1722 or e-mail corcoran.sen@state.or.us Back to Top
In Seligmann's article we hear from Mary Broadhurst, an IEP lawyer who studied to be a special education teacher, but, upon learning of the high burnout rate, went to law school instead. With all due respect, her story puts a new spin on the old adage: Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Those that can't teach, apparently become lawyers. Alice Duffy, LCSW, is quoted, "I tell parents if you want to get an IEP (individualized education plan) for your kid you better show up with a lawyer." Let's give Alice the bridge-builder of the year award. Her statement certainly raises the morale of both teachers and families in the special education trenches. The boring truth is that the vast majority of IEPs are designed, and implemented by families and educators in a kind, open, and mutually supportive atmosphere. We work together, with what we've got, in the best interest of the student. Good teachers the world over have the same goal in mind for all students, Long before any legislation emerged, the public schools provided education to students with any number of disabilities, both physical and psychiatric/psychological. Samuel Kirk coined the term learning disabilities in 1963, but practices and policies existed to "accommodate" that population long before the label emerged. Again, in the vast majority of cases it did not take an act of Congress -- no pun intended -- for students' special needs to be recognized and addressed by educators and family members. Don't get me wrong, an IEP, or something like it, certainly has its place. In cases of severe disability a formal plan is an obvious and necessary tool for both educators and families. In the primary grades an IEP for "under achieving" students aids in accommodating for special needs, and remediating basic learning goals. Legislation doubtless helped to formalize the process and protect families from gross negligence. However, in many cases, formalizing the process may be counterproductive. By the same token, placing accountability at the federal level may have been a huge mistake. Very often, bureaucrats, lawyers, and paper shufflers are better served than children and families. IEPs are frequently the byproduct of a poor education at the elementary level. A struggling middle schooler is "judgmentally" identified and labeled "learning disabled." Nationwide this "judgmentally" identified population makes up three-quarters of those students being served by IEPs. Curiously, Seligman makes no mention of the fact that a disproportionate number of minority students are identified as learning disabled; sad and profound evidence that erroneous labeling is as large a problem as failure to identify. Witness the current attention deficit disorder mania. When a learning disability is indeed justified, the IEP, at the secondary level, too often suggests that the world at large is going to accommodate your learning disability. Sorry. Neither Bill Gates nor Ronald McDonald is going to accommodate you. Therefore, at the secondary level, the IEP should be based primarily on learning coping skills, and identifying strengths. What's really disturbing about Seligmann's article -- and so many others like it -- is that there is absolutely no mention of student responsibility. We ought to, very early on, be telling our children that they are ultimately responsible for their own education. Along with entitlement to a free education comes a huge responsibility to seize upon it. In that spirit, an IEP at the middle and secondary level ought to include goals and objectives that reflect personal responsibility: Student will: 1) turn off the TV, 2) do his/her homework, 3) seek assistance where/when necessary, and 4) remember that education does not begin and end with the sound of a school bell. Should the school district and community relinquish their own responsibility in educating young people? Certainly not. But, we need to get beyond Buschesque rhetoric: "No child shall be left behind." Such rhetoric implies that all students are headed in the same direction to the same place. We need to provide students with schools, facilities, and curriculum as varied as the students themselves. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act states very clearly that parents are to be equal partners with the school district. Many thanks to those parents who are indeed my partners. Their support, encouragement, and insights, are invaluable. One parent even brings me a meal now and again. Want to get your kid an IEP? Bring a teacher lunch. It's cheaper than lawyers and probably more effective.
Dave Sheehan has worked as head teacher at Churchill Alternative High School since its inception five years ago. He has taught for 20 years and holds an MS in special education from Montana State University.
Back to Top Did your family have a problem with it? What was it like telling them? Did they reject you? Are they nice to your -- what is it you people call your partners -- your spouse? Oh, husband and wife, that's a cute term. You look like you could be brother and sister! You probably get that all the time. Anyway, have you ever felt discriminated against? Has anyone actually singled you out and made fun of you, or treated you differently? Did you ever wish you could take a pill and not be straight anymore? I, for one, think it's great. People should be themselves. But some people are uncomfortable with certain aspects of it. Nobody wants their kids around heterosexuals -- you know, the child molestation thing and all. Naturally we're protective. You can understand that, can't you? I'm glad you're not militant about it, not shoving it down anyone's throat the way some of them do. I know this is personal, but I don't have any other way to find these things out. We didn't touch on the straight lifestyle in college psychology class. I thought the "Deviant Behavior" chapter would have covered it. But those up-tight professors were too embarrassed, so they skipped it. If you don't mind I'd really like to ask you something. I have always wondered what it's like living in a dual-gendered household. I can't imagine it. I mean, what do you do about the toilet seat? Up? Down? I'll bet that takes some getting used to. I don't know if I could do it. And what about going out? That's got to be tough. How do you feel at parties where you're the only mixed couple there? Are your friends OK with it? Do they mind if you dance together? It must be hard always having the same partner lead. Do people stare at you? Or do you go ahead and do it anyway? That is so brave! I really admire you. A lot of places ignore mixed couples now so you can pretty much get away with it, can't you? Deep down, we're really all the same, aren't we? Hell, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom. I don't even want to think about it. But why do some straight people have to flaunt it all the time? I'm not prejudiced, I think everyone should live and let live. Don't you? A person can't help it if they're straight, or an alcoholic or whatever. Hey, I have a heterosexual cousin in Omaha -- a lot of you are from there aren't you? I was wondering if maybe you knew her. She's single and doesn't know where to go to meet people. I'll bet you know where the straight bar is there, don't you? Gee, it must be hard trying to find a partner, or to even have the self-esteem to get out there and meet people. I never thought about that. The straight community has its own church, doesn't it? I wonder if I could come along sometime and see what you do. I think I'd be OK being around all those straight people. As long as none of them tried to make a pass at me! Ha ha, just kidding. But seriously, I've been mistaken for straight before. Once I saw a straight person I thought was very attractive. That doesn't make me straight, does it?
Sally Sheklow has been a part of the Eugene community since 1972 and is a member of the WYMPROV! comedy troupe. Her column, which began at EW, also runs in several other newspapers around the country.
Back to Top These are the same Democrats who overwhelmingly voted for Gale Norton. Many of them helped install Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. We need to tell the Democrats we want some progressive actions to show that they are not simply the GOP-lite. Don't just nibble around the margins of the right-wing agenda that has targeted working families. If there aren't clear differences between the Democrats and the Republicans they are replacing, they will lose any momentum that could be gained going into the 2002 elections. How about repeal of Taft-Hartley? Living wage bills? Put Social Security on a sound footing by assessing FICA taxes on all income, not just the first $70,000 or so of wages. Universal single-payer health care. Since we are unlikely to see anything close to that, we can still chortle "don't let the door hit you on the way out, Jesse." "Don't go away mad, Orrin, just go away." "Bwah-hah-hah." Douglas Hintz SOUND THE
ALARM Yes, shabby election equipment and flawed procedures added to the tension and confusion that tempted the five Justices to vote their political preference for a bloodless coup d'etat in favor of George W. Bush. To date the justices' low estimate of U.S. intelligence appears correct. Only a few Paul Reveres have saddled up to sound the alarm. Acclaimed L.A. prosecutor and author Vincent Bugliousi wrote a stinging indictment in the Feb. 5 Nation magazine. The size and quality of the reader response, according to the Nation's publisher, were unprecedented in its long history. His book The Betrayal of America has just been published. About 673 law professors at 137 U.S. law schools have weighed in to sound the alarm. About a third of that number, early last January, expressed their indignation in a full page advertisement in The New York Times. These lawyers zeroed in on the erring Justices for tarnishing the Supreme Court's legitimacy by acting as political partisans, not as judges of the court of law. Not a trivial concern in a democracy. The five Justices, like Benedict Arnold, betrayed their country. They must either apologize and resign or prepare to defend themselves before a nation soon to be fully awake to the grave danger our nation faces and to the solution happily set forth in our Constitution: impeachment. Charles O. Porter PROTECT
ANIMALS The shelter has only 30 kennel spaces for dogs, and six to eight of those are taken by long-term boarders scheduled for court cases and bite quarantine. This leaves only 22 to 24 spaces available for lost dogs. The situation for lost cats is even worse. Unbelievably, LCARA has only 10 cages for holding cats, in spite of the fact that an average of 31 dogs and 35 cats are brought to the shelter every week. During the past 10 years, even though our county's population of people and pets has increased dramatically, five staff positions have been eliminated from LCARA. This has resulted in cuts in public service, cuts in education programs, cuts in adoption programs and cuts in licensing programs. This chronic shortage of kennel space and staff means that an estimated 1,412 healthy, adoptable animals (370 dogs and 1,042 cats) were killed during the last year alone, really for no good reason, and usually before the public had sufficient time to retrieve a lost pet or adopt a new one. This is inexcusable in a community that considers itself to be civilized and humane. I urge caring people to contact their county commissioners and ask that LCARA's budget be increased to the level necessary to adequately serve our growing community and to protect our animals and ourselves. Diana Huntington INACCURATE
PORTRAYAL Mr. Pittman's article asserts that persons subpoenaed to the grand jury can be jailed for refusing to testify. While true, the process is complicated and the witness has a number of rights. Legal counsel can also help narrow the questioning to avoid many problem areas without the need to risk contempt. My point to Mr. Pittman was that a grand jury witness who has concerns in this area needs to have counsel. Similarly, Mr. Pittman attributes to me the explanation that grand jury testimony can be used against the witness or others at a later criminal trial. This statement is deceptive. The government can rarely use grand jury testimony affirmatively at trial against anyone. Doing so would ordinarily violate the defendant's constitutional right of confrontation and the rules against hearsay, although there are narrow and limited exceptions. The statement in the article greatly overstates the government's ability to use grand jury testimony at later proceedings. Mr. Pittman finally asserts that a witness can only invoke a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if the prosecutor has first identified the witness as a subject of the investigation. This statement is wholly untrue. Being identified as a subject of the investigation can affect one's right to court-appointed counsel under the federal Criminal Justice Act. It has nothing to do with Fifth Amendment rights. It does not serve the public to try to summarize the grand jury process in two sensationalistic paragraphs. Interestingly a relatively good, albeit general, article on the investigative process, including a section on grand juries, can be found on the Earth Liberation Front web page (www.earthliberationfront.com). Bryan E. Lessley
The Weyerhaeuser spokesperson has reiterated that their offer is "competitive" with respect to the other companies in our venue. If making two to three dollars less than the competition is competitive, then I would like to see their dictionary. I guess if you are in a race and are in the last 10 percent of the participants, you are still competitive. Doesn't make sense to me, how about you? This facility in Springfield has gone downhill terribly in the last few years. Leadership does not occur through working together. Fear and intimidation is rather the upper management's choice of modus operandi. So, it came as no surprise that contractor language, already bargained off the table, was put back into the negotiations at the final hour. This is an unethical way to bargain or treat your "most valuable resource, the workers." All I ask is that Weyerhaeuser treats us, the hourly employees of AWPPW, Local 677, ethically with trust and respect. Give us a contract that is dignified and commensurate with our accomplishments for you. Weyerhaeuser claims to be a first class company. Please refrain from treating us, your employees, as second class citizens. Ronald R. Slater SELF-CENTERED
IDIOTS I detested your article. I felt attacked, like you categorized all straight people as being self-centered idiots. Nobody should be made to feel bad about their sexual preference. Shouldn't you of all people know that? I feel you should apologize for your lack of tact in this article. I have read your columns in the past and have always found them to be well-written and courteous, but not this one. I agree with you that people should be enlightened about homosexuality, to let go of their fears, but this isn't the way to do that. You made the inquiries seem so negative! Have you ever thought that the person asking you all these questions about your sexuality might be trying to learn something about themselves? You made it seem like someone should be ashamed to ask these questions when the best way is to talk about it and let people know that it's OK to be interested! That's one baby step toward a better society. You're moving backwards when you separate people by their differences. Brianna Jackson CLEANING
HOUSE Now discussing withholding financial support and overdue payments to the U.N., the House may react against its symbolic blow where it counts in monetary politics. Although the situation involves many complexities, why aren't we talking about the high rate of human rights abuses in the U.S., one of the highest violation rates in the world (recently cited by Amnesty International as police brutality, abuse of children, prisoners, asylum-seekers and others, and the use of high-tech tools of repression and torture), and why is this factor in its ejection from the committee not being discussed? There is an old saying that one must "clean one's own home before cleaning others." This is sound advice. Rachel R. Rosner A FLUSTERED
MOM These were children and parents having trouble getting help from the system and they were classified as needing help. I have a child I haven't been able to give an official "label" to and therefore he does not qualify for ANY help. At this point, the only label anyone will agree on is that he is an at-risk teenager. However, no funds are available for a child with that title. I could not even get anyone to let him into an IEP (individualized education program) -- because he did not fail/pass the test that would qualify him as a special needs child. For a long time, I have said my son has fallen through the cracks of the public school system. Helping him through has been a full-time job. A sizable amount of kids are falling through at this point, a lot of wayward teenagers cruising our streets, getting no help. I'm a dedicated mother, spending countless hours trying to help my son and watching what sometimes feels like a loosing battle. I think of the children who don't have love, patience, support, and a parent with the time it takes. I'll share a small sample of my trials in the system. I go to the councilor, who is on our side. I say, can we agree my son is at risk? Yes, that part is easy. Can I then get him some tutoring to help him pass? No, no funding, no available tutors. Fine. I'll pay for it. Can we give him some school credit? No -- no program available for that. Fine. Well, do it anyway. Can we give him a room during school hours. Yes, a corner in the resource room. Fine. The tutor comes one time. The second time he says that since my son is not a labeled special ed kid, he does not get a room. We would have to pay $14 an hour to use a room in his school during school time. Ahh! But before I get to rant and negotiate, he gets suspended. Lisa Stein
|
