|
Viewpoint:
Working the system -- Minimum turnout law can actually discourage
voting.
Viewpoint:
Expanded Access -- New policies will better serve and inform
the public.
Viewpoint:
Tampering with the Truth -- Media and public pass on propaganda.
Letters:
EW readers sound off.
Working
the System
Minimum
turnout law can actually discourage voting.
When you voted in the last election (and I hope
that you did), you may have noticed in your
green Ballot Booklet the following words included in the summary of
each city of Eugene tax or bond obligation measure:
"This measure may be passed only at an election with
at least a 50 percent voter turnout."
Well, that sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? The
idea, of course, is that money cannot be extracted from the voters
without a robust turnout to demonstrate that the people are truly
willing to pay for whatever is being proposed. But this voter turnout
law can do some very peculiar things to the election process.
Let's look at a hypothetical election where,
for simplicity's sake we'll assume that there are just 100 registered
voters. A measure appears on the ballot calling for a tripling of
property tax rates in order to build a mayor's mansion. The Eugene
electorate, having money to burn, is clearly in favor of this wise
proposal, and every poll indicates that the support is overwhelming.
On election day the ballots are counted, and indeed
the polls are correct: 47 out of the 100 registered voters have voted
"yes" on the measure. Only a paltry two voters have pooped on the
party by voting "no." (The rest of the electorate is on vacation in
Belize, and having way too much fun to bother voting!) The numbers
look like this:
"Yes" votes: 47 percent. "No" votes: 2 percent. No
shows: 51 percent. Voter turnout: 49 percent
So what happens? Sadly, despite overwhelming support,
voter turnout fails to meet the 50-percent requirement. The measure
goes down to defeat, and the mayor must do without.
Now suppose in a slight variation of the above scenario:
At the last minute, one vacationer decides that the new tax might
actually cut into her jet-ski budget. She locates her ballot, finding
it wedged between the sunscreen and the piña colada mix, and
hastily fills it out, voting "no" on the ballot measure, and mailing
it in. Now the tally looks like this:
"Yes" votes: 47 percent. "No" votes: 3 percent. No
shows: 50 percent. Voter turnout: 50 percent.
So what happens? Our civic-minded vacationer has single-handedly
managed to reverse the election results. (Who says your vote doesn't
count?) But amazingly, she has reversed it in the direction exactly
opposite from how she voted. By voting at all, she has validated the
election, having brought the voter turnout up to the required 50 percent.
In voting "no," she has effectively voted "yes"!
And you thought that the Electoral College was nuts!
The minimum turnout law can actually discourage people from
voting against measures they oppose. My friend Neil told me that he
in fact refrains from voting in elections containing ballot measures
that he opposes, in order to avoid validating those elections. He's
hoping to defeat measures that might otherwise pass. It is a manipulation
of the system, carried out at the cost of disenfranchising himself
from the opportunity to vote for or against any other issues and candidates.
How many more "Neils" are out there? Enough to distort a real election?
When support and opposition on a revenue measure are
relatively even, and voter turnout is expected to be high, as in a
presidential election, those opposed to a revenue measure will of
course do best by voting against it. But when voter turnout is expected
to be low, as in an off-year election, the best strategy may well
be to simply not vote and thus tank the election.
Such an approach violates the basic concepts of democracy
and citizenship, turning the election process into a game. According
to Annette Newingham at Lane County Elections, the most recent election
is the only off-year election in the last decade to meet the 50 percent
turnout requirement for revenue measures. This is disgraceful in and
of itself. Compounding the neglect of democracy with this ill-conceived
law is wrong. We should repeal it.
Gordon Kaswell is a freelance writer
(usually) on science-related issues, and a musician who performs regularly
in Eugene.
Back to Top
Expanded
Access
New
policies will better serve and inform the public.
On May 16, Eugene Weekly reported that a
new "press pass policy" adopted by the Eugene
Police Department will allow police to decide which media may cover
protests. As a member of the Police Commission committee that developed
the policy recommendations, I ask readers to take a few minutes to
review the facts.
The committee had two goals in mind when reviewing
police policies on media:
1) to ensure that police policies and practices maximize
media access to events, recognizing that limitations will exist (e.g.,
privacy rights of involved parties, protection of crime scene evidence);
and
2) to ensure that the procedures for release of information
are inclusive, consistent and fair, recognizing both traditional and
modern media.
The new policies have accomplished these goals, and
have the support of not only the Police Commission, but also the local
chapters of the Society of Professional Journalists and the American
Civil Liberties Union. The police department plans to implement the
policies July 1.
The new policies emphasize the essential role media
play as the eyes and ears of the community. Prior to these changes,
police policy was to treat the public and the media the same in terms
of gaining access to incidents. While that may seem like the most
equitable approach, the downside was that when the public was restricted
from an area, so too were media. Now, by simply wearing an identification
card, any member of the media can obtain greater access to events
than that provided to the general public.
These identification cards are not issued by the city,
but by the news organization that the media representative is affiliated
with, or can be self-generated by independent media. Identification
cards will only be necessary in cases where police have restricted
access to an incident. Examples might be crime scenes, car accidents
or public events that involve police enforcement actions. The intent
of this change is to create an easy mechanism to distinguish media
from other members of the public and then to provide those media with
closer access to incidents.
The new policies also allow those media with identification
cards to remain in an area following a crowd dispersal order from
police, unless the dispersal order specifically includes the media.
When all other options for accommodating media access fail, the policies
provide for the formation of a media pool, with the pool composition
determined by members of the media, not the police. These changes
represent expanded access opportunities for media, and will facilitate
newsgathering activities during dynamic events.
The policies take a common-sense approach to
those media who want to both participate in the event and document/report
on the activities. People are free to be in dual roles unless they
want to gain access to restricted areas. If they use their media identification
cards to get closer to police actions, the policy requires that they
limit their activities to newsgathering functions when inside restricted
areas. The new policy also states that decisions on whether a person
may be excluded or removed from the media area should be based on
conduct, not group affiliation.
The policy revisions do not impose new restrictions
on media. Media representatives who are philosophically opposed to
wearing an identification card will have the same reporting and access
rights as they did prior to the policy revisions: the same as the
general public. Individuals who want to maintain dual roles as both
event participants and media will continue to have the same access
as before.
Tensions between the police and media, both
of which have a legitimate and important responsibility
to the public, are not unique to Eugene. The policy changes adopted
offer pragmatic solutions to a complex set of issues, and are fair
and inclusive of all media. And while they may not resolve everyone's
concerns, keep in mind that policies are living documents that can
and will be modified over time.
On behalf of the Police Commission, thanks to all
those who worked with us over the past nine months to revise these
media policies. By ensuring broad media access, we believe that the
new policies will better serve and inform the community. More information
on this topic and other Police Commission activities is available
on-line at www.ci.eugene/or.us/policecomm/index.htm
Police Commissioners Bonny Bettman,
Munir Katul, Carla Newbre and Angie Sifuentez contributed to this article.
Back to Top
Tampering
with Truth
Media
and the public pass on propaganda.
I received an e-mail from Bethlehem the other day.
The author was a Palestinian academic whom I had interviewed
for an article about a month back, and I was one of a long list of
recipients, mostly academics and writers. The message was supposed
to have originated in Jenin at the height of the fighting, written
by a Palestinian man cowering in his home as Israeli soldiers raped
the female members of his family in the adjoining room. The text was
graphic and the tone was one of raw fear and immediacy. It had been
forwarded under the title "JUST READ IT!!!"
As I sat in my home in Jerusalem, a mix of emotions
overwhelmed me. Revulsion and anger mixed with resignation and a certain
hardening of the self that I find myself undergoing with increased
frequency these days. Underlying it all though was a sense of doubt.
Something about the message rang false and every instinct I possessed
told me that I was looking at a piece of propaganda. But how to prove
it? More importantly, in the absence of proof, how was I to feel about
it? How would that affect my postion in the midst of this conflict?
In the end I saved the message and filed the decision away in my mind
amidst a host of similar shades of gray and half-digested questions.
The news was bad that day and I had work to do.
Two days later I received another message. It was
from another of the list-serve recipients whose initial reaction to
the forwarded account had been one of dismay. The story had raised
some red flags with him too, though, and he decided to check it out.
He looked for families in Jenin by the names cited and/or for records
of such atrocities. Instead he found undeniable evidence that the
message was a hoax. The Palestinian academic who had forwarded the
original message contacted us all and apologized, ending as usual
with platitudes of peace. They rang hollow for me, though, and the
whole experience represents a disturbing trend.
Too many these days speak of peace on the one hand
while carelessly starting fires
with the other. Those who rally behind the bits of propaganda that
are generated often have good intentions. What they seem to lack is
knowledge, a sense of history and a willingness to understand that
every conflict has at least two sides. Such ignorance is easily played
upon by pro-Palestinian media sources producing increasingly anti-Israel
invective
Recent events in Jenin present a good example. The
Palestinian media, human rights organizations and individuals, immediately
claimed "massacre" and even staged fake funerals ("corpses" were captured
walking away on camera). Palestinian leaders in Jenin encouraged the
digging up of 2-year-old bodies to dump in mass graves, and refused
to allow decomposing bodies to be cleared away in order to increase
"evidence" of Israeli offenses. But when the initial uproar had subsided,
consensus among human rights organizations, foreign reporters and
the UNRWA was unanimous. No "masasacre" took place in Jenin.
In fact, according to Fatah numbers only 56 Palestinians,
many armed and returning fire, were killed during fighting. Rather
than just bombing the area — the norm amongst Western armies
— the IDF entered Jenin on the ground, reflecting a desire to
minimize civilian casualities. Israeli forces also bused out civilians
before beginning operations. In contrast to terror tactics that target
civilians indiscriminately, Israeli action does not reflect a policy
of wanton destruction of human life. But even though there was no
"massacre" in Jenin, the damage of this fabrication has already been
done.
By introducing into the public consciousness a concept
as horrendous as "massacre," Palestinian sources established the point
from which any ensuing dialogue must proceed. Therefore, even as it
emerged that no such atrocity took place, ground has already been
gained in that a certain percentage of the international population
was prepared to believe the worst of Israeli forces, regardless of
the reality of the situation.
A Palestinian leadership that falsely claims as
many as 500 people dead, and human rights
organizations that create fictitous accounts like the one I received,
are disturbing. Even more disturbing are international media outlets
that uncritically promote these lies, whether in print or online,
and readers that immediately accept them as fact. Encouraging blatantly
anti-Israel opinion in this way only affirms for Palestinian leaders
that they can generate sympathetic coverage regardless of the truth,
and shamelessly manipulate both the media and the public. Supporters
of human rights and peaceful coexistence cannot ignore the implications
of such actions. Nor can we escape becoming implicated ourselves,
unless we learn to listen fairly and critically to the voices
that are crying out from both sides of this conflict.
Avi Neuman is a former Eugene resident
living in Jerusalem. He has a masters in folkore and anthropology from
UO (2000) and works as a grantwriter and advocate with the Israel Association
for Ethiopian Jews.
Back to Top
ON
THE SAFE SIDE
Kathleen Tyson's letter (5/23) misrepresented
my opinion (4/25) about the ethics of publishing information implying
"HIV is harmless" without any cautions. I agree that the suppression
of scientific dissent is unethical, but so is misleading gay men into
acquiring HIV via bareback anal sex.
Peter Duesberg, the leading scientist who believes
that "HIV doesn't cause AIDS," refuses to prove it by infecting himself
because he is worried that an undiscovered co-contaminant might cause
AIDS, according to the carefully documented interview notes in Edward
Hooper's book, The River, which links African HIV infections
to 1950's polio vaccine shots. Everybody should be scared of being
infected given that Duesberg is scared.
Duesberg's personal decision to avoid being infected
with HIV required no scientific proof. Duesberg is also right that
much stronger scientific proof should be required before harmful anti-HIV
drugs are prescribed to delay the onset of AIDS or "just to be on
the safe side" as Lucas Spiegel (5/9) said. The iatrogenic harm that
was caused by AZT is tragic, but it is irrelevant in making a decision
to avoid infection.
Before you volunteer to become an HIV-infected human
lab rat, in an unethical experiment to prove Duesberg is right, please
read "The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS" (11/29/2000 www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm)
by the National Institutes of Health. Don't donate your life to science
on a whim!
Thomas Kraemer
Corvallis
MAN
POWER
This letter is in response to Kari
Johnson's letter (5/9) "Who Decides?"
I must say I've been a feminist for a long time, yet
I have a huge problem with pointing fingers at an entire sex. Saying
men are in "low level warfare against women"? What about all of the
males that love and honor their mates, mothers, daughters and grandmothers?
Is the hate you feel really for "men," as a massed
together conglomerate, or for a certain type of mentality that exists?
In the last line of your letter, you liken men to
"rich, colonizers." You liken women to "poor, colonized." How can
you declare such a massive generalization? Is it really that black
and white? I think there are quite a few spirits born into male bodies
this time around that would disagree with you.
I also believe it's quite possible that your narrow
point of view comes from experiences in a somewhat isolated section
of one country in the entire world of people. All of the stereotypes
you place on others, will many times fall back on you. And remember,
you can't have a yin without a little yang.
Janet Smith
Eugene
IGNORING
FACTS
Mayor Torrey made some statements
in reference to the newly elected City Council in Wednesday's (5/22)
Register-Guard that were presumptuous and simplistic. He said
that electing Jennifer Solomon and George Poling is a clear message
from voters for predictability on the council and "... when the voters
tell you to put a road in west Eugene, you put a road in west Eugene."
He ignores the fact that David Kelly won his ward handily with 71
percent of the votes cast. This does not sound like a clear message
of predictability to me. As far as the voters saying they want a road
in west Eugene, I would like to remind Mayor Torrey that almost 50
percent of us voted against the parkway.
Parkway proponents spent a whopping $6 per vote to
wage a campaign of misinformation that only managed to garner a slim
majority of votes. All this showed was that advertising works. We
already knew that!
I challenge the new City Council to follow the recommendations
of the Eugene Planning Commission, who represent us all, and vote
"no" on the parkway.
Janice Sunseri
Eugene
OUTSIDE
YOUR BOX
I typically exist outside of the
political sandbox and have little use for a liberal "feel good" advertising
rag like EW. I am interested in a social movement that strives
to understand the immensity and immediacy of our situation and the
fundamental change that is required to put an end to the brutal authority
being imposed over the entire planet.
I have been mostly ignoring the predictable and moralistic
pleas from pacifists demanding that we utilize only their symbolic
and ineffective tactics, their condemnation of anarchists who would
dare to suggest the use of "violence" as an act of self defense or
for revolutionary change, and the numerous personal attacks and slander
toward anyone with the courage to publicly state their complete opposition
to this system. Although I have little desire to continue down this
endless rhetorical dead end, after a letter from a self-righteous
authoritarian, named Kenneth Cater (5/16), I feel that it is important
to add just a few comments.
Cater calls us "agents provocateur ... secret agents
hired to penetrate some organization to incite trouble ... as a way
to turn public opinion against progressive causes." Well, Kenny, most
anarchists, while being open to individuals who might identify as
"progressive," want nothing to do with your "liberal organizations,"
which only work to legitimize the state and make you feel good.
He goes on, "I believe that all advocates of violence
are agents provocateur, knowingly or not, and should be treated as
such by the progressive movements. ... something needs to be done
to keep them from discrediting the moral causes they would destroy."
You seem to be clear that you align yourself with
the apparatus of the state, much like those who assaulted and snitched
on window breakers in Seattle. You promote a method of change that
arrogantly reproduces the same repressive society we currently live
within.
I will continue to disturb the "peace" of "business
as usual" in this death-culture that you wish to see "progress" and
I wish to destroy so that we may all live a harmonious existence with
all of life.
Robin Terranova
Eugene
THE
WRONG QUESTION
Society does not change overnight.
When some anarchists ask why we do not live in a perfect utopia as
a result of nonviolent movements, they ask the wrong question. The
meaningful question is whether society is being moved in more humane
directions.
Nonviolence has been anything but "passive." Issues
confronted include slavery, women's right to vote, expulsion of colonial
powers, civil rights, Vietnam, farmworkers, nuclear power and weapons.
In every case, disciplined nonviolent resistance successfully brought
the issue into sharper focus and shifted public opinion. Abundant
documentation (requested by anarchist letter-writers) can be found
in the book The Power of the People: Active Nonviolence in the
U.S. and at: www.warresisters.org
Replacing the "belly of the beast" (corporate capitalism)
with a nonviolent economics based on democratic cooperatives (see
www.coop.org) and a non-consumptive lifestyle (see www.ic.org) is
urgently needed. Achieving change within the current framework is
not a "sell-out" that confers "legitimacy" on the system. This anarchist
analysis fails to comprehend the critical need to slow down the corporate
juggernaut's assault on life-sustaining ecosystems WHILE we work to
dismantle it. Apathy toward powerful efforts to establish this slowdown
— such as initiatives banning corporate money from elections
— brings glee to corporate boardrooms.
I applaud Alice Parman's call (5/23) for an end to
personal character attacks, and hope this applies to all debate participants.
If Zerzan does not "advocate violence against living beings," why
not un-muddle this message by disassociation, from a publication (Green
Anarchy) which does?
The world is already saturated with violence —
both structural and overt. Hearing a "solution" of yet more violence
(political rather than self-defense), many rightfully hesitate. If
anarchists wish to "strike a blow" for the "liberation" of Earth,
may it be a strike against the pervasive violence itself that already
oppresses us all.
Spruce Houser
Eugene
CONSTITUTION
HIJACKED
Most of the damage that has been
perpetrated on Oregon in the past few years by con artists, highbinders
and other scammers has been by way of constitutional amendments put
on the ballot by paid signature gatherers and sold to the public by
spacious advertising campaigns. As a result, the Oregon Constitution
must be about the size of War and Peace by now.
The only way to put a stop to this hijacking of our
legislative process is to vote down constitutional amendments —
all of them.
Unfortunately, this will work some hardships until
the Bill Sizemores and others of his ilk learn that the constitutional
amendment route is closed.
I invite other voters who are weary of this mischief
to join me in turning down all proposals to amend the Oregon Constitution.
Jim Estes
Deadwood
VIOLENCE
1-2-3
I'd like to refute some of the inaccurate
statements recently made by pacifists.
1. Violence can't achieve peace. Has a peaceful society
ever been achieved through non-violent means? No. Contrary to pacifist
myths, Gandhi's "peaceful revolution" didn't create peace. The only
remotely peaceful societies I'm aware of came from violent revolutions.
During the Spanish revolution of the '30s, anarchists
defeated Franco through a combination of methods, including violence.
For a time, anarchists "seized the means of production" and divided
wealth equally. This revolution was later crushed, but it provided
a glimpse of how society could be. This was a peaceful society achieved
through violent revolution. Peace can't be achieved until the state
is destroyed, which necessitates violence.
2. Violence is cowardly. This statement is reflective
of the arrogance of pacifists. Do pacifists really believe that the
Yanomami Indians who fight against the colonizer do so because they're
cowards? These people use violence against colonizers because it's
often an effective method. Those who've died during confrontation
with oppressors aren't cowards who don't have the "intelligence" to
have "peaceful" dialogue with the oppressor. Armed struggle occurs
because oppressors don't negotiate with the oppressed.
3. Violence brings repression. Violence brings repression
because effectiveness brings repression. Effective struggles, violent
or not, are met with repression.
4. Anarchy is fascism. Anarchists have always fought
fascism. Anarchists combated fascism in Spain/Italy/Poland during
the 1930s-40s. Today, many anti-racist organizations have anarchist
membership. Because anarchists will use violence against oppressors
hardly means they'll use violence against anyone. On the occasions
anarchists have used violence, it was against tyrants (like McKinley).
Steven Gider
Eugene
FROM
DOWNSTREAM
The article "Under Seige: LandWatch
fights to preserve shrinking resource lands" (EW 5/16) contains
many errors. I have not authorized anyone to speak for me. My position
on the Camp Yale property is limited to this statement sent to the
hearings official on March 12:
"My husband and I were the former owners of the property
located at 58980 Old McKenzie Highway in McKenzie Bridge. That lot
is now being considered as a site to build two 15-unit lodges. I am
not opposed to the construction of the lodges, but I do have concerns
about details of those plans.
My concerns center on the potential adverse impacts
of sewage disposal. A preliminary map of the project shows a subsurface
sewage disposal area near the property's edge and running parallel
to the Old McKenzie Highway. That piece of ground slopes away from
the road with runoff collecting in a small pond that floods and then
dumps into a creek that flows year 'round. The other adjacent lands
are also very wet. Over the last 60 years I have often seen water
standing on the surface of the property in many areas.
Because of those conditions, I am worried that the
potential for contamination is quite high. I currently live downstream
from this site and use the creek to water vegetables in my garden.
My well is also adjacent to the creek, which makes me worry I might
lose my source of drinking water if the creek becomes contaminated.
Two other families live downstream as well.
One solution might be to pump sewage further away
from the lodges to drainfields located in better soils on the Camp
Yale park grounds.
I urge you to consider my concerns closely and make
sure this project does not cause any harm to its neighbors."
That is all.
Frances Yale
McKenzie Highway
FILLING
THE COURT
Keep up the good work and help us
keep Bush from filling the supreme court with Nazi-like nominees.
This country is enough of a police state already.
John Tribolet
Eugene
DOUBLE
STANDARD
Once again we have flaunted international
law. In an unprecedented move, the Bush administration recently unsigned
a treaty on International Criminal Court signed by Bill Clinton in
1998. By unsigning the treaty on ICC, we are in violation of the Vienna
Convention on the law of Treaties. This 1969 pact, signed by the U.S.
and most of the countries of the world, details the obligation of
nations to obey international treaties. The law states that once a
treaty is signed, the signatory is prohibited from acting to defeat
the purpose of that treaty.
No one, not even some of the world's infamous rogues,
have done what our leader has just done. This blatant, opportunistic
move will have far-reaching consequences world over. While preaching
rule of law to the world, we have once again gone outside the law
in order to protect our leaders and soldiers from war-crimes prosecution.
This flagrant violation of international law comes
on the heels of several other treaties we have violated recently.
We will not abide by the Kyoto treaty on global warming because it
is not in our "economic interest." We want to undo the ABM treaty
with the Russians because it is "outdated" and prevents us from developing
a new "star wars system." We are for "free trade" when it favors us,
but are all for protective tariffs and subsidies when it comes to
supporting our steel industry and our corporate agricultural interests.
So much for the "rule of law."
Pete Mandrapa
Eugene
PINT-SIZED
PEACE
I am writing this letter in support
of the Eugene Peace Academy/Little Peace School. The vision of this
school is exactly what our community (and country) needs right now.
For children to be encouraged to embrace their own
individuality and to be educated on practices of other cultures could
be the first step in creating a world of oneness and peace. If our
children are exposed, at an early age, to identify with and respect
differences we may create a world without bias, prejudice, conflict
and violence.
This community is known for its celebration of cultural
diversity and its fondness for the environment. Having an educational
forum which correlates and overlaps with how so many of us choose
to live our lives is an amazing thing.
I had the pleasure of meeting the director and teachers
(of The Little Peace School). They are all remarkable people who are
truly dedicated to making a difference. I want to commend them on
their devotion and energy they are putting into this program.
I believe that a program like this is essential for
our future if we want our children to live in a world of peace, love,
respect for our environment and respect for all beings.
Lory Bianchi
Eugene
BUCKLE
DOWN
Attention ladies and gentlemen! The
government has come up with another way to take your money! In case
you haven't noticed, there is a drive to ticket everyone driving without
using their seat belt.
It is one thing to criminalize behavior detrimental
to others and another thing to criminalize behavior detrimental only
to yourself. How is not using a seat belt, or wearing a helmet if
you're a motorcycle rider, detrimental to others? I was told everyone's
insurance rates go up in the case of a crash because injuries are
more severe. Bogus! If you get a lot of tickets or are in some wrecks,
insurance companies simply raise your rates, not others'.
Is this a measure to compensate the insurance companies
or simply to fill police coffers? You decide.
But remember to use your seat belt. Big Brother is
watching!
John DeLeau
Springfield
FIRST
IMPRESSION
I was surprised at EW featuring Highway
99 as a "strange and wonderful strip" gateway to Eugene (5/16). Along
with West 11th, it presents one of the ugliest first impressions of
our city which one could imagine. Just bring in a guest from the airport,
and try to rationalize why we have such examples of poor planning
and low standards. We could have done better.
Kess Hottle
Eugene
LETTERS POLICY: We welcome letters on all topics
and will print as many as space allows. Please limit length to 250
words, and submissions to once a month. E-mail to editor@eugeneweekly.com,
fax to 484-4044, or mail to 1251 Lincoln, Eugene 97401.
Back to Top
Table
of Contents
| News | Views | Arts & Entertainment
Classifieds | Personals
| EW
Archive
|