You are viewing an archived issue of the Eugene Weekly. To return to our current issue, please click here.
 |
  |
 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
Trent
Lott-lite Our Senate Rules Committee heard five measures dealing with campaign finance reform last week. Senate Joint Resolution 3 would amend actual campaign donation limits into the Oregon Constitution. SJR's 10, 15, and 20 would amend the Constitution to allow the legislative assembly to enact laws limiting contributions. That would make both Republicans and Democrats nervous. Labor could see a Republican Legislature and governor doing them some real harm without affecting corporations. And vice versa. Any referral would require a vote of the people. Our Senate Revenue Committee heard testimony this week from school districts supporting a "local option" plan for school funding. I really struggle with this issue. Schools need more funding, but I'm not sure allowing the wealthier districts to increase their own taxes will help us fund all schools at least to the Quality Education Model. Property-poor districts would be hard pressed to raise taxes, even if there were matching grants from the state. On a related matter; the Hillsboro school board isn't going to name a building after Senate Education Committee Chairman Charles Starr any time soon. He writes to a constituent: "I tell any parent who will listen to run — not walk — to remove their children from public schools. … Children are being taught the Humanist/Socialist world view. They are taught that the mores/morals of parents are outdated, to be questioned and discarded." Charles is a nice man, a sincere man, he really believes this stuff. He ultimately issued a tepid apology: "It was certainly not my intent to run-down (sic) public schools." Constituents and statewide groups were calling for his head, but the leadership of both parties, rightly so, won't move him. It would be a spooky style of free speech infringement. Charles believes what he believes, and he's honest about it. His party chose to place him as chair of the Senate Education Committee — knowing his views — that's their right. And it's part of the deal that got us the current leadership structure in our 15-15 senate. Senator George sent out an e-mail to a huge group, including all 90 legislators, defending his buddy, righteously. "Senator Starr has been a firm supporter of public education. When you are a firm supporter of an entity, it does not mean that you believe it is the best option available." Huh? I snapped and did a bad thing. I hit that little "Respond To All" e-mail button and said: "Having Senator George defend Senator Starr as a strong supporter of public education is like having Lars Larsen defend Bill Sizemore as a strong supporter of public employees … In fact their voting records are quite the opposite, whether it's vouchers or inadequate financial support for public schools."
More PERS bills have made it to my General Government Committee — new mortality tables, new composition of the PERS board. The next big bill is still in the House: removing the 6 percent employee contribution from the plan. It is the 8 percent guarantee on that 6 percent for Tier 1 that is a major cost problem. In brief — all sides agree — the courts will rule. No matter what compromise is reached, we'll be in litigation for years. There is a rush to get the mortality tables done so it will have a positive impact on the employer rates for next year. I hope that will give us the impetus to put all the elements of a solution on the table quickly. We need to get on to more important discussions on budgets, but we need to fix this first. I get into a PERS discussion daily with someone in the building. The other morning I'm yakking with two of the attorneys from Legislative Counsel, and I unfortunately offered my usual unrequested view of our Oregon economy and PERS. After one particularly bad piece of information from me, the elder of the two mouthpieces, Marianne — who calls herself "The Old Troll" — bellowed: "This is Armageddon! And Armageddon the hell outta here right now!" What wordsmiths! It was quiet on the homefront this weekend. Jeannie got in a fight with a hoe Friday, stepped on it, no witnesses, got a real nice shiner. The hoe ain't talkin', what a rake! Sorry, I couldn't resist. No gardening this weekend, something about Jeannie being afraid of her tools … cut my chore list in half. Sen. Tony Corcoran of Cottage Grove represents portions of Lane and Douglas counties in Senate District 4, which includes the UO area. He can be reached at sen.tonycorcoran@state.or.us
Food
for Thought Here's a news flash: Tom Lininger is thinking about food again. Actually, I'm not just pondering my next meal. I'm wondering whether government can do more to support the growers in our area. When I was campaigning last year, I learned that farmers aren't too fond of county commissioners. I met a farmer who grudgingly gave me permission to put up a campaign sign in his pasture. The farmer watched me put up the sign, and then he watched as a heavy wind blew the sign over into a pile of horse manure. When I picked up the sign, my name was covered with a brown smear. The farmer snickered. "Now that's what I call truth in advertising," he said. As our conversation continued, I heard familiar themes: Our land use policy favors developers over farmers; government gives big subsidies to corporations, but not to farmers; and the first time a farmer is likely to see a government official is in bankruptcy court. On the scale of agrarian malcontent, with 10 being Tom Joad and 0 being Mr. Green Jeans, this guy was about a 7, and the needle was in the red whenever I mentioned county government.
Since my election to the Board of County Commissioners, I've been looking for ways to help farmers in our area. Last week I took part in an excellent conference organized by Kim Leval, a Eugene resident who works with the Center for Rural Affairs. Among other topics, speakers discussed the need for the government to assist farmers with direct marketing of their produce. The term "direct marketing" means cutting out the middleman. Examples include farmers' markets, "u-pick" farms, and marketing by mail. Direct marketing helps growers by increasing their profits and helps consumers by providing fresher produce at lower prices. (If you like those Chilean grapes with more genetic alteration than Dolly the Sheep, then direct marketing is probably not for you.) One good suggestion I heard at the conference was to allow the use of food stamps (or Oregon Trail cards) at farmers' markets. Currently it's easier to use a food voucher for a box of Ding Dongs at Safeway than for a bag of fruit at a farmers' market. Another speaker came up with the idea of using rural schools as farmers' markets in the summer. My son likes this idea because it would allow him to hone his food-fighting skills on school grounds over summer vacation. Several speakers suggested the county should promote "agri-tourism." For example, we could put together a map of u-pick farms in Lane County, similar to the brochures for covered bridges and bike trails. How about a tour of u-pick farms and wineries? We could call it the "berries and booze" tour. Okay, so I don't have degree in marketing. But you get the idea. Maybe the government should offer subsidies to farms that agree to give their produce to the needy. This alternative might be more cost-effective than a "second harvest" of fancy leftovers at local restaurants. By the way, in case Lane County wants to change its logo again this year, be forewarned: I've taken out a copyright on the sign with a commissioner's name and a brown smear. Tom Lininger is the county commissioner for the East Lane District.
Sorting
It All Out As an editor of historical journals and books, one of the more interesting things I learned while doing research is that the news sources of the day were rarely balanced. One report said one thing, another report said another. The hindsight perspective from years later often revealed that both sides were usually right. And that both sides were usually wrong. The historian sorts through conflicting reports to construct an accurate interpretation of an earlier time, place, or event. Today, however, we must all become instant historians, searching out and sorting through conflicting reports on our own, just to get the news of the day. We are fortunate in that so many information sources are available to us. But in a world where news, entertainment, fact and fiction blur, it is hard to know who to believe, or where to turn. Many of us already know that the mainstream news outlets on TV, radio, in print and even on the Internet are insufficient for gathering an accurate and complete picture. As noble as an editor's or producer's intentions may be, their companies exist to make money, and the satisfaction of investors takes precedence over satisfaction of the public's need to be informed. While talk of war, terrorism and fear commands our attention, the Federal Communications Commission is considering removing restrictions on ownership of media within single geographic areas. According to syndicated columnist Molly Ivins of Austin, Texas, only 10 companies control over 90 percent of media outlets. One company, Clear Channel, states on its website that it owns more than 1,200 radio stations, 39 TV stations, and three quarters of a million outdoor advertising displays. To think that this promotes a healthy and competitive news environment is both naive and dangerous. Where to turn? The Internet remains the only media outlet that has not yet been tamed, trimmed, and tied down to wring the highest return from the lowest investment – although that, too, is changing, as even the most egalitarian search engine companies sell the top visible slots on their listings pages. Still, information can be found. But how to sort through the seemingly endless listings? During the past year, I have searched countless news and opinion outlets, asked people for their recommendations, and come up with a list of what might be useful entry points for comparative news and opinion sources. These sites were chosen not only for their diversity of political and geographical perspectives, but for their links to further sites. Think of them as doors, each with a sign describing what's inside. Open that door and explore as far as you like. Open other doors, especially the ones you may not find attractive. Read the views of people who disagree with you. Try to imagine why someone else might find those views worthwhile. Liberal news portals: www.alternet.org and www.commondreams.org and for stronger liberal stands: www.truthout.com and www.truemajority.com Conservative news resources: www.weeklystandard.com and www.washingtontimes.com and for bolder conservative views: www.newamericancentury.org and www.empoweramerica.org Non-U.S. perspectives from Canada: www.cbc.com, and Egypt: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg. Visit the BBC at www.bbc.co.uk and Netherlands Radio at www.rnwl.nl. This is hardly a comprehensive list, but it is at least a place to begin. We are being hammered relentlessly with messages meant to sway our opinions and direct our actions. Now, more than ever, we must read and compare news from different sources. But still people are asking, "Where do I start?" Start here. Our system of representative democracy is not foolproof; it requires constant and careful vigilance. This means looking beyond the one or two convenient outlets that give us just one side of the news. How well we do, history will show. In the meantime, it is both our duty and our responsibility to be informed. For an uninformed citizenry is the single most grave threat to the single most important thing we identify with America: Freedom. Steve McQuiddy (mcquiddy@efn.org) is a Eugene writer and former editor of the Lane County Historian. |
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
