HinesSight

Gulf oil spill shows why government is important

Ah, delicious irony.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal now is begging for government assistance as the BP oil spill threatens his state's fisheries, shipping, tourism, and coastal environment. This is the same guy who said this in response to a speech Obama gave to a joint session of Congress:

We place our hope in you, the American people. In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the National Democratic view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, to empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and to create jobs.

A Salon article about Jindal's "oil spill crisis of faith" says:

The parallels are obvious. After Wall Street broke the U.S. economy -- call it a "financial sector failure" -- Obama pushed through a stimulus bill aimed at jump-starting demand and providing assistance to the millions of Americans who lost their jobs and homes as a result of the financial crisis. This week, after BP broke the Gulf economy, Jindal is seeking aid for citizens of his own state. It's always a different story when your own ox is the one getting gored.

Yes, indeed. As the saying goes, corporate America likes to privatize profits and socialize losses -- a sentiment shared by Republican politicians and right-wing talk show hosts.

You can bet that there will be a chorus of conservative criticism about the government's response to a private sector oil spill. Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster. This oil spill is corporation-caused. 

BP says that it will pay for the clean-up costs. The government intends to bill BP for the deployment of all the federal resources being used to deal with the oil spill. And it's not surprising that BP's stock price is sinking significantly.

That's as it should be. But hopefully people will take away a larger -- and marvelously simple -- message from this mess: government is us. The collective "we care" side of us.

We all spend a bunch of money by ourselves, for ourselves. Through our taxes we also contribute a bunch of money for stuff that benefits us all (including ourselves, obviously.)

Health care. Education. National defense. Scientific research. And yes, dealing with environmental disasters.

Tea Party types who claim they want government to stay out of their lives are being hypocritical. They don't want to give up their government benefits: their Social Security, their Medicare, their portion of the Interstate highway system that they drive on.

We're seeing this play out in Louisiana, where suddenly the government is supposed to be the state's savior, rescuing it from the mistakes made by BP. Well, hopefully citizens across the country will learn a broader lesson from the Gulf oil spill.

Bad stuff happens. Cancer. Hurricanes. Earthquakes. Financial meltdowns. Global warming. Species extinctions. Wars. Terrorist attacks.

Yes, people need to act individually to deal with serious problems. However, we also need to act collectively. That's what government is: people coming together to do what individuals can't.

Why collective action in pursuit of the common good is demonized by government-haters baffles me. I guess they are the selfish side of the American citizenry, people who only care about themselves, not about helping others.

Until they need help. Then, like Governor Jindal, they become a lot fonder of the government that they claimed was so useless and unnecessary.

Marion County commissioner plays the "you lie!" card

Republicans are strangely fond of calling people they disagree with liars. I say "strangely," because Republican politicians certainly are as prone to lying as their more progressive counterparts.

Yet rather than debate the merits of a policy issue, their tendency is to resort to ad hominem name-calling -- which fans the flames of our already incendiary public discourse.

Today, in a front page story, the Statesman Journal reported that Marion County (Oregon) commissioner Sam Brentano considers the people who are backing citizen initiative 24-292 to be "liars."

Brentano and the two other commissioners, Janet Carlson and Patti Milne, have spoken against the home rule charter. Brentano, of Sublimity, is one of the home rule charter's most vocal critics. At public debates and in interviews, he readily calls proponents of the home rule charter "liars."

Those are fighting words, Sam. Especially since you can't back them up. A public apology is in order.

I know some of the people who went to a heck of lot of work to gather 5,828 valid signatures from registered Marion County voters to get this initiative on the May ballot.

I'm one of those proponents myself, as is my wife. And I resent Brentano calling me a liar. I don't know anyone in favor of Measure 24-292 who is a liar.

There are different ways of interpreting what the Measure will do. Some are more defensible than others. In my opinion, it is the opponents of the Measure who are stretching the truth to the breaking point.

But I haven't called them liars.

In the posts below I've written about this proposal to add two people to the Board of Commissioners (making a total of five, in line with every other large county in Oregon), along with electing the board on a non-partisan basis by district. 

Marion County to vote on enlarging county commission
Why Marion County government needs improving
Facts and fictions about Marion County charter change
"No on Measure 24-292" letter is full of untruths
Marion County charter change: desperation breeds deception
Taxes and Marion County charter change: no worries

I'm as passionately in favor of the Measure as Sam Brentano is against it. But I've done my best to talk about issues, not people. When I've criticized opponents of the Measure, my reason had to do with what they were saying about it, not their character.

Brentano has given Marion County voters an excellent reason to vote "yes" on Measure 24-292.

We need to make county government less political, less divisive, less partisan. And more democratic, more accountable, more responsive to the people rather than special interests.

Proponents of this Measure aren't liars. They are citizens who see BIG problems in how county government currently functions.

Sam Brentano's dismissal of these concerns as "lies," rather than as issues to be openly examined and discussed, shows why Measure 24-292 should be approved by Marion County voters.

How to fix your iPhone wi-fi location

I love my iPhone.

But it bugs me when I'm at home and I fire up some cool app, like Siri, which needs to know my current location to function correctly, and it thinks I'm many miles away -- down in Albany, Oregon -- rather than where I actually am, rural south Salem.

A bit of Googling shows that my wi-fi router apparently is being mislocated. Turning wi-fi off results in accurate mapping, but our AT&T signal is crappy at our house. So now my location-based iPhone app won't work quickly or reliably.

Here's a fix, which I learned about here.

(1) Go to Skyhook Wireless, which is the service used on the iPhone to map wi-fi access points. Submit a wi-fi access point.

(2) If you're like me, you'll have no idea what your "MAC address" is. Or even what it is. No problem. Skyhook tells you how to find it. If you have a Mac with Snow Leopard, download the free iStumbler. It tells you what the MAC address is for your wi-fi network.

(3) Type that into the Skyhook submit form. I kept being told that the MAC address was wrong until I added another "0" to the first "0" in the address iStumbler gave me (meaning, I submitted 00:... instead of 0:..., which made Skyhook happy).

(4) Type in the CAPTCHA code and click "submit." If all went well you'll get an email from Skyhook saying:

It can take up to a few weeks before you see your Access Point in some of our production systems. In the mean time you can download Loki to start using Skyhook's Wi-Fi Positioning System on your laptop or desktop. Go to http://loki.com/download to start using Loki today.

Happy Mapping!

The Skyhook Team

Optimistically, I just tried Suri again on my iPhone. Bingo!

My location is spot on. "Maps" has me pinpointed perfectly. I don't know whether Skyhook updated my wi-fi access point super quickly, or whether a glitch in the iPhone locating system fixed itself.

Regardless, this is an easy way to help assure that your iPhone knows where you are when you're using a wi-fi network that currently thinks you're somewhere else.

Boycott Arizona and all the other crazy states

We need to boycott crazy states. "Crazy" admittedly is in the eye of the beholder. But since this blog reflects my view of the world, I'm calling the crazy shots:

Arizona, because it just passed a "show me your papers" anti-immigration law that even a Kansas editorial board called unworkable, likely unconstitutional, and clearly inhumane.

Kansas (sorry, editorial board), because the Board of Education tried to introduce intelligent design into the state's curriculum. Plus side: this brought us the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of creation.

Texas, because its equally wacky Board of Education has rewritten history to suit the political leanings of its members. Goodbye, Thomas Jefferson. Hello, Ayn Rand.

Oklahoma, because the Governor just vetoed a bill that would require women seeking an abortion to be forced to have a ultrasound probe inserted in their vagina (guess these Republicans didn't get the talking point message about not allowing government to come between patients and their doctors).

Mississippi, just because. I included it because I like to spell this state's name, and I'm sure something crazy is going on there that shouldn't be.

The Arizona boycott is well underway. 

Calls grew across the US today for a boycott of Arizona over its new law giving the police the most draconian powers in the country to deal with illegal immigration.

Democratic members of Congress, religious leaders and leftwing activists urged a boycott of hotels, convention centres and other economic targets in the state. At least one nationwide group has responded by cancelling a convention planned for the autumn.

Inspired by the spectacle of refried bean swastikas being smeared on the Arizona state Capitol's windows, I am proudly proclaiming that I will support human rights by not eating refried beans until the anti-immigration law is repealed.

(Humble disclaimer: if anyone chooses to consider me as committed as Gandhi to sacrificing my welfare for the good of humanity -- which you are entirely welcome to do -- I should point out that I hate refried beans.)

In the spirit of retroactive outrage, I also am going to request a refund of my daughter's out-of-state tuition from the University of Arizona, where she spent four expensive years from 1990 to 1994.

I feel somewhat torn about taking this action, because I have the (sort of) fond memory of having her call me midway through her senior year and proudly telling me, "Dad, my sorority has given me an award." I made the mistake of asking what it was and heard, "Biggest partier!"

Yes, Arizona is a fun place to visit. I love northern Arizona. The Sedona area is beautiful. But the crazy actions of the state legislature make me happy that I live in comparatively sane Oregon.

We're normal here.

We're legally required to sit in our cars while someone pumps our gas for us. If we're terminally ill, assisted suicide is an option. Medical marijuana soothes the pain of certain medical conditions. We have a city, Silverton, with a transgendered mayor who favors miniskirts and high heels. Portland has a vegan strip club.

Here's the big difference between right-wing and left-wing weirdness: the former restricts people's freedoms ("thou shalt..."), while the latter expands individual liberty ("do your own thing"). 

I feel for progressives who live in Arizona and have to directly experience the Big Brother actions of the state legislature. Like this blogger:

Things are truly the worst here in Arizona. I was born and raised in this beautiful state. It's been a challenge but it's not been insane - til now.

...So we can use some loud voices in support of the national economic boycott of Arizona called by Raul Grijalva. Already the American Immigration Lawyers Association has dropped plans to hold their convention here.

If you know of any other organizations who are planning events here, if you know people who are planning vacations (the Grand Canyon is fabulous but stay away until it is safe to come), moving a business, buying anything from us (especially citrus and other agricultural items), tell them to stop.

We are fighting against our own apartheid, our own flirtation with ethnic cleansing.

Abortion laws show Oklahoma Republicans hate freedom

What happened to Republicans standing tall for defending our "land of the free"? We have a national election in 2008, Obama is freely elected, and now right-wingers are fond of calling him a tyrant.

Huh? A tyrant is someone who takes control by his own means, not under constitutional power.

Which precisely describes attempts in the not-so-great state of Oklahoma to take away the constitutional freedoms of pregnant women.

Reading our local newspaper this morning, my wife called out to me, "This is disgusting. You're not going to believe what's going on in Oklahoma." Well, I ended up believing it. But like Laurel, I find the state's new draconian abortion laws to be appalling. 

Fortunately, the governor has vetoed them. But as the AP story says, there might be enough freedom haters in the state legislature to overrule his veto.

Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry vetoed two abortion bills Friday that he said are an unconstitutional attempt by the Legislature to insert government into the private lives and decisions of citizens.

One measure would have required women to undergo an intrusive ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting abortions. Henry said that legislation is flawed because it does not allow rape and incest victims to be exempted.

"Intrusive untrasound" means a probe up the woman's vagina. Forcibly. Without her consent. Since that is the medical equivalent of rape, this helps explain why rape and incest victims are exempted from the legislation.

However Rachel, a women's health blogger, wonders why there should be any distinction between women who have gotten pregnant because of a rape, and those who had consensual sex.

Let’s think about the implication of that statement: it leaves room for the notion that women who consent to sex, should they get pregnant and seek abortions, somehow deserve to be forced to have an object inserted into their vaginas (regardless of medical need or consent) in order to obtain that legal procedure.

Or, if they don’t “deserve” it, it doesn’t really matter, it’s no big deal. It would be “unconscionable” to subject immediate-past rape victims to such an act, but women who haven’t already suffered through rape, whose own experiences of sexual assault may be in the more distant past, who consented to sex, well, it’s the dildo cam for them!

I’ve said before that I don’t think abortion exceptions for rape and incest make any sense from a purely pro-life, “every life is sacred” position. If every life is sacred, it doesn’t matter how it arrived. Those exceptions do, however, make perfect sense from a position that pregnancy and childbirth is the proper punishment for sex.

Last night we watched Bill Maher interview Dr. Jack Kervorkian on his Real Time show. Kervorkian blasted the medical profession, saying "they follow religious ethics rather than medical ethics."

He was mainly referring to end-of-life decisions, where a person's freedom to decide how he or she wants death to come gets tangled up with religious fundamentalism -- such as an irrational belief that God forbids dying under one's own control.

The same religionist attempt to take away individual freedom is evident in the Oklahoma abortion laws. If legislators want to believe in the sacredness of a embryo, that's fine.

But they have no right to impose their religious beliefs on other people. Including pregnant women who have a constitutional right to an abortion.

I'd like to propose that from now on Oklahoma legislators be forced to watch the South Park "anal probe" episode before they vote on any abortion-related bill. And ideally, to undergo that procedure themselves whenever they go to the doctor.

Taxes and Marion County charter change: no worries

Opponents of Measure 24-292, the Marion County (Oregon) charter change, have been using scare tactics in an effort to preserve the county government status quo.

I guess they think government is working so wonderfully, we, the people, shouldn't try to improve it. Well, polls show that most citizens want more control over government. They're tired of politicians working for special interests, rather than the general good.

One of the be scared! approaches of some No on 24-292 folks is to claim that the Measure will lead to increased taxes. On page 27 of the Marion County Voter Pamphlet that came in the mail yesterday, the three current county commissioners say:

Vote "NO" on 24-292 to: PROTECT your right to vote on county tax measures

Some recent letters to the editor in the Salem Statesman Journal have echoed this talking point. But also without providing any evidence that the Measure threatens the right of voters to approve new county taxes.

So I did some research today. And concluded that we taxpayers don't have anything to fear from Measure 24-292. That's the bottom line.

Here's what led me to that conclusion: Basically, freedom and democracy shouldn't be feared.

The proposed charter change moves the county from being governed by state law, to a "home rule" governance. As the first page of this Law Review article says, in 1906 Oregonians approved a change to the state Constitution that allowed cities to claim extensive lawmaking authorities through their charters.

In other words, home rule.

Pretty much as states have powers not granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, after 1906 Oregon cities enjoyed the right to have powers independent of state government.

In 1958 Oregon voters, by referendum, extended the privilege of home rule to counties. Currently nine counties (out of 36) have taken advantage of the home rule option. Marion would be the tenth.

This morning I emailed our three current county commissioners, asking them the basis for their statement above -- that the right to vote on county tax measures needed to be protected with a "no" on Measure 24-292.

Commissioner Janet Carlson replied quickly, which was much appreciated. She shared a question that had been addressed to the county legal counsel, and the response.

Question:  May a county with a home rule charter impose a tax without prior voter approval?
 
The short answer is no, as to property taxes, but generally yes, as to other types of taxes. 

Under Oregon Constitution Article XI, section 11g, all counties seeking new or additional ad valorem property taxes against real property on or after December 5, 1996 must get voter approval.  ORS 203.055, requiring voter approval for a county ordinance imposing or providing an exemption from taxation, does not apply to home rule charter counties. 

Unless otherwise restricted in the charter, a general grant of powers "to have authority over matters of county concern to the fullest extent granted or allowed by the laws of the United States and the State of Oregon, as if each power comprised in that general authority were specifically granted by the charter", includes the power to adopt an ordinance for most types of taxes. 

Examples of restrictions on taxes in charters include Josephine County Charter, prohibiting a county income tax, and Lane County Charter, limiting county income tax, if imposed, to 2% and restricting uses.  Voters in home rule counties have the right to referendum on any ordinance, including one imposing a county tax.

Carlson also included a link to a lengthy (125 page) "County Home Rule in Oregon" study that was prepared for the Oregon Association of Counties by Tollenaar and Associates in 2005.

I fired up my web browser's search function, typed in "tax," and speedily read through the 88 uses of that word in the document.

My admittedly non-lawyerly (since I'm not one) conclusion is that the county legal counsel may be correct when she says that "generally" a home rule county can impose non-property taxes, but it seems to me that this requires a vote of the people.

So I think the legal counsel is wrong about home rule counties that operate under a charter not being subject to the Oregon law (ORS 203.055) requiring a vote on tax measures.

Page 21 of the study says:

To summarize the effect of statutory county home rule, ORS 203.035 delegates in the most comprehensive terms local legislative authority over “matters of county concern.” The delegation has some restrictions, however.

County ordinances enacted under the delegation that make changes in the form of county organization or that impose taxes or exemptions from taxation must be submitted for a referendum vote of the people. Also, such ordinances may have no effect inside incorporated cities without the consent of the city governing body or city voters. [emphasis added]

This sure seems to say that a Board of Commissioners in a home rule county can impose a tax, but it has to be submitted for a vote of the people. Checking the actual relevant Oregon Oregon laws bolsters this interpretation.

ORS 203.030 says:

As used in ORS 203.030 (Definition for ORS 203.030 to 203.075) to 203.075 (Payment of assessments in installments), "governing body" means the representative body vested with legislative power by statute or charter. [1973 c.282 §1]

Thus this defines "governing body" as used in ORS 203.030 - 203.075 to mean either a county governed by state statute or a home rule charter. Meaning, the laws in those sections apply to all counties.

Turning to ORS 203.055:

Referral of revenue related ordinance

Any ordinance, adopted by a county governing body under ORS 203.035 (Power of county governing body or electors over matters of county concern) and imposing, or providing an exemption from, taxation shall receive the approval of the electors of the county before taking effect. [1973 c.282 §6; 1975 c.736 §3] [emphasis added]

So it's possible the county legal counsel has confused (1) a home rule county being able to pass an ordinance for a new tax, with (2) that ordinance going into effect. Because it seems like ORS 203.030 and 203.055 require that voters must approve a tax-related ordinance in home rule counties before it takes effect.

Regardless, the 2005 Oregon Association of Counties' study devotes only one short paragraph to the subject of "Exercise of Revenue Powers." That's because there isn't much to say about how home rule counties have used their taxing power.

Oregon counties have made very little use of their home rule powers to raise revenue. Several counties have enacted transient room taxes, two counties (Multnomah and Washington) have real estate transfer taxes, and two counties (Multnomah and Lane) have taxes on car rentals.

Multnomah has a business net income tax, Gilliam charges a major landfill operation a “host fee” that produces general revenue for the county, and Washington County has enacted a traffic impact tax on new development based on the amount of traffic expected to be generated by the type of development.

It's interesting that among the Voter Pamphlet arguments in opposition to Measure 24-292, no one other than the three current county commissioners is arguing that Marion County taxes could be increased without a vote of the people if the charter change passes.

If there was solid evidence that this would happen, you'd think that others would be raising the taxation issue as a reason for voting "no." And it also would seem that there would be tales of how Oregon's nine current home rule counties have raised taxes willy-nilly without allowing voters a say.

Hasn't happened, so far as I know.

I'll end by sharing a few quotes from some old Eugene Register-Guard newspaper stories about Lane County's changeover to home rule back in the 1960s. I came across these in the course of my Google research for this post.

This August 1963 story was titled, "Lane County's Transition to Home Rule a Smooth Operation." 

Whereas last fall Lane County department heads generally had a cool outlook towards the proposed charter, the situation now, commissioners believe, is a team determined to make home rule government work.

...Any problems? Although there were many worries about the complex shifting of the sheriff's tax collection division to the Dept. of Assessment and Taxation -- to name just one worry -- no one around the courthouse will now admit to any concern about the transition.

Making changes that will improve county government and make it more accountable to citizens can be threatening to employees who are used to doing things a certain way. However, the Lane County experience shows that moving to a home rule charter isn't difficult.

In May 1968 there was an effort to repeal the Lane County charter. An editorial, "Home Rule Gives Us More Local Control," argued why citizens should vote to keep the home rule charter -- which is what happened. 

But if home rule is abandoned... In Lane County government of the people, by the people and for the people would be set back one important step from local voting booths. Repeal of home rule would be the same as saying, "We don't want the maximum local control state law will allow us -- we'd rather have our county government designed and more completely controlled by the Legislature."

...Repeal would disarm us of our present right to hold our county commissioners accountable for many significant courthouse department actions. It would turn back the clock to the days when buck-passing was the acceptable practice in county affairs.

Forty-two years later, these are still good reasons for county residents to vote in favor of home rule. Citizens of Marion County, vote "yes" on Measure 24-292.

I'm strangely proud of my Starbucks gold card

This is my Starbucks gold card. I haul it out of my wallet and show it to people whenever it seems appropriate. And also, when it isn't.

On the front it says: "Brian Hines  Cardholder since 2008"

Wow! That's two years ago. I deserve this prestigious card! Well, semi-prestigious, considering all I did to get it was use my old Starbucks rewards card 30 times.

At least that's how I believe it came into my adoring hands. Starbucks says so, thus it must be true. I'm a cult member. I've even joined the Starbucks Passion Panel. 

What that means is, periodically Starbucks emails me a notice of a customer survey that I'm supposed to fill out online. It takes about 5 - 10 minutes.

I don't get anything for answering the questions. But that's what cults are good at: sucking people in, then getting them to serve The Cause. My last Passion Panel experience involved a lot of questions about potential oatmeal toppings.

I was pleased to spend some of the remaining minutes in my life, which rumor has it are decreasing steadily, pondering how much I'd enjoy a fruit topping on Starbucks oatmeal compared to (ugh!) chocolate something or other.

In my more rational Starbucks-related moments, I wonder why I'm so committed to a mega-business that I used to view as disgustingly corporate and sterile compared to Salem's independent coffehouses.

And why I love to whip out my Gold Card, point it at a friend's face, and wiggle it back and forth while warning them that if they don't close their eyes, the bright laser'ish light reflecting off its surface could be blinding.

I guess the marketing department at Starbucks knows its stuff. For some reason I'm happy to load my card with $25 of VISA-supplied value, then let Starbucks enjoy an interest free loan for a month or so until I use up the balance.

Via their iPhone app, I then get a thrill out of reloading my Starbucks card.

Eventually I'll probably be able to use that app to order and pay for my coffee myself, thereby providing Starbucks with additional gratis cultish service (and adding to the company's profit margin).

For the past seven weeks I've been diligently carrying around the Starbucks Something Bold promotion card in my wallet.

I'm seriously committed to having baristas place a sticker on each of the eight "bold" coffees featured weekly. To get my sticker, all I have to do is hand over my Gold Card and have $1.85 subtracted from the balance for a Grande bold whatever-it-is that week.

Getting a sticker for some accomplishment was free when I was in elementary school, but otherwise the experience feels the same.

Recently I've taken to asking the barista at the downtown Salem Starbucks to be extra careful when she places the sticker on my card, so it lines up just right with the box where it is supposed to go.

Week #8 starts on April 26. Just six days away! Ooh, ooh, I can't wait! Once I've collected my eighth sticker I'll be able to take home a free pound of bold coffee.

Well, yeah, it'll have cost me $1.85 times eight, or $14.80.

But when you're a Gold Card member of the Starbucks cult, who cares? When I pull out my card to pay for coffee, aiming it at the light for maximum dazzling of other customers in the store, I feel like I'm special, a member of the Starbucks inner circle. 

Which is a pretty damn large circle, undoubtedly.

Hmmmm... if I keep on buying coffee several times a week at Starbucks, maybe a Platinum Card will arrive in the mail one day.

Ah, something to hope for. It's great to have goals. Thank you, Starbucks, for making my life so meaningful.

Marion County charter change: desperation breeds deception

Wow! When ordinary people try to make the government that their taxes pay for work better, the big money guys who profit from the status quo get frantic.

In the Salem Statesman Journal today there was another bunch of desperate untruths from Dick Withnell, a Salem Chamber of Commerce board member -- adding to the stack in a letter that I debunked recently.

The business interests opposing improvements to county government must be super-scared of Measure 24-292, a citizen initiative to be voted on in May that would enlarge the Board of Commissioners from three to five members and elect commissioners by district on a non-partisan basis.

(Get the facts about the Measure here, from the group sponsoring the initiative: Have a Voice Everyone, HAVE. Update: the HAVE website reports that the Keizertimes has endorsed Measure 24-292. Read the reasons.)

Doesn't sound like a radical proposal, does it? That's because it isn't. Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington, Lane, Hood River, and Clatsop counties all have five commissioners. Marion is the only large county in Oregon that doesn't.

Withnell's opinion piece is full of slanted statements that don't make any sense. It's sad that he felt he had to resort to such deceptions rather than argue the pros and cons of Measure 24-292 on their merits. 

Read my previous post, "No on Measure 24-292" letter is full of untruths, and learn how Withnell is parroting the Chamber of Commerce party line, which is at odds with the public interest in much the same way that Wall Street vs. Main Street is a key demarcation in national politics.

Here I'll simply correct several stupendously untruth'y claims in Withnell's opinion piece.

Deception 1. A five-member commission fosters "back room decisions." Utterly wrong. Oregon's public meeting law prohibits the Board of Commissioners from making decisions outside of public view.

All Measure 24-292 will do is allow two commissioners to discuss an issue without constituting a quorum of a three-member commission.

This is exactly what members of the Salem City Council, state House of Representatives, and state Senate are able to do -- along with every other governmental body in Oregon that has more than three members.

So Withnell's scary talk about two commissioners "meeting in secret" and privately debating stuff that currently is debated in public is just fear mongering. Again, members of virtually every public body in Oregon do just that: discuss issues with each other prior to a meeting.

And Withnell doesn't mention that currently taxpayers are forking out well over $300,000 a year for high-paid assistants to the county commissioners. These assistants already do what Measure 24-292 would allow: talk about a policy issue outside of a public meeting.

Marion County has to spend all this money on the assistants because currently the commissioners can't talk with each other because of the public meeting law. So the assistants serve as go-betweens for the commissioners, which is a big waste of money.

We citizens are paying double: once for the commissioners, who each cost over $100,000 a year, and once for their assistants -- who do what the commissioners would be doing if the county only had a five-member board, as the Measure will require.

This is why Measure 24-292 will save the taxpayers' money, as shown at the bottom of this page. Which leads to...

Deception 2. Vital public services like public safety will be cut. Withnell really stretches the truth to breaking on this claim. There is nothing, repeat, nothing, in Measure 24-292 that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the Sheriff's Office would be affected by passage of the citizen initiative.

But this is what special interests do: when the people demand that government work better for them, those who are benefiting from their current cozy connections with politicians try to distract voters by spreading falsities.

Measure 24-292 eliminates the county treasurer position, transferring those duties to the finance department. Here's how the changes pencil out:

Do the math:

Now: Three commissioners, three policy advisors, plus an elected treasurer and staff = $902,112

With the Charter: Five publicly elected and accountable commissioners plus transferred fiscal staff = $630,238.

So how does $272,000 in savings with the passage of Measure 24-292 translate into cuts to the Sheriff's Office? Answer: it doesn't. Withnell isn't telling the truth.

Read Rick Stucky's countering opinion piece, "Plan would bring better representation," for a refreshing dose of truthfulness about the initiative. Then, if you're a Marion County voter, check "Yes" next to Measure 24-292 on the May ballot.

Doing nothing, do everything: Taoism is cool!

I'm a big fan of doing nothing.

My wife can testify to that, especially when she feels its time to attend to some household chores and I've got something less vigorous on my day's to-do list.

Like napping.

So I couldn't pass up going to a talk by Qiguang Zhao at Salem's Willamette University yesterday. I heard about it from a fellow Tai Chi student, who emailed me that Qiguang was going to speak about "Do Nothing and Do Everything."

From a Taoist perspective. Ah, nice.

I figured the talk would offer me more ammunition to fire at anyone who dared to consider that my seeming laziness was anything but a profound philosophical and spiritual stance.

Qiguang is the Chair of Asian Languages & Literature at Carleton College. He's written a book with the same name as his talk, contributing both the words and the illustrations.

I enjoyed the style and substance of Qiguang's talk. Taoism is about flowing with life, rather than fighting what's happening. A skilled Tai Chi practitioner, several times Qiguang used wordless movements to point to what can't be expressed in words.

I've written a lot about Taoism on my other blog, but I'm still trying to grasp the ungraspable nature of this profound,yet simple, philosophy. Here's my recollection of Qiguang's essential message -- an expansion of notes I took on my laptop.

In Tai Chi we trust the body, just as in Taoism we trust nature, which has its own rules. Often we needlessly worry in the present while fearing the future and regretting the past.

People think they are God, that events should happen as they desire. This creates guilt when the inevitable disconnect between what we intended and what happened occurs. We are part of the universe. We cannot control the world.

Recognizing that we are not separated from the cosmos, that our actions are part and parcel of everything and everyone in existence, we do nothing and do everything at the same time.

Meaning, action becomes relatively effortless when we surrender the notion that we are in charge ("relatively," because there are no absolutes; change is the only unchanging fact of life; movement in one direction inevitably ends, or takes a U-turn).

The Taoist religion evolved from Taoist philosophy. Religious Taoists believe it is possible to live forever and to fly. But we moderns have our own ways of living longer and of flying which aren't magical.

Confucianism is about details. Taoism is about the big picture. Both philosophies have co-existed in China for a long time, complementing each other. With so much increased stress in China now, many people are turning to Taoist practices such as Tai Chi for relaxation.

The Olympics motto is "faster, higher, stronger," reflecting Greek/Western philosophy. In Tai Chi, core movements are slower, shorter, and weaker, just the opposite. This fits with the Taoist emphasis on wu wei, effortless doing: yielding like water while being as strong as a crashing wave.

The most beautiful places are where two phenomena meet, like at the beach (land and sea). Also, when two cultures meet, such as when the modern meets the ancient, or East meets West.

Live afloat, like a boat loose from its moorings. Eat your fill and do what you will. Feel small, and your problems will be small. Take care (a Confucian sentiment) and do not tip the boat. Take it easy (a Taoist sentiment) and enjoy the scenery.

After Qiguang ended his talk, I asked him a question. I was curious about his extolling of imagination, since it seems that nature -- which Taoists emulate -- isn't at all imaginary.

In nature, something either is, or it isn't. There's no in-between. By contrast, I said, religions are full of imagination. People believe in an imaginary God. They imagine that Jesus saved them from sin and will take them to heaven after they die.

Since philosophical Taoism isn't a religion, why the emphasis on imagination?

Qiguang's answer was appealingly subtle. He agreed that nature is real. However, we can't know the essence of its reality, which is called "Tao." The Tao is wordless, beyond human conception.

So imagination fills the gap between the nameless and our propensity to name. We use our imagination in an attempt to understand what can't be understood, to gesture in the direction of the Tao -- even though there is nothing that can be pointed to.

"No on Measure 24-292" letter is full of untruths

Here's another good reason (in addition to those I've written about here, and here) for Marion County, Oregon residents to vote Yes on Measure 24-292 next month:

Big-business opponents of the citizen initiative are so afraid they'll lose their insider lobbying connections with the county commissioners, they're willing to spread Big Time untruths about what the Measure will do.

Measure 24-292 gives ordinary people more control over county government, and promotes better decisions by the county commissioners.

It changes the Marion County charter in positive ways, including:

-- Adding two members to the Commission, for a total of five, bringing us in line with other similarly-sized counties in Oregon.

-- Electing the commissioners on a non-partisan basis by district, instead of the partisan, county-wide elections we have now.

-- Eliminating the treasurer position and transferring those duties to the finance department for significant cost savings.

These are facts. Opponents of the Measure should face them head on.

Instead, two members of the Salem Chamber of Commerce (CEO Mike McLaran and board member Dick Withnell)  have mailed a letter to county residents that is filled with untruths.
Download Measure 24-292 untruths

(In blacking out the name and address of the person who got this "No on Measure 24 292" letter, I inadvertently blacked out some of the reverse side also, so I've written in the illegible words.)

Untruth 1. "Measure 24-292 will add over $500,000 in cost." No, it won't. Actually it's projected to save over $270,000 for taxpayers. Check out the truth (chart near the bottom of the Have a Voice Everyone (HAVE) home page).

The commissioners set their own salary/benefits, and hire their own staff. The current commissioners each have a high-paid personal "policy advisor" who makes more money than the commissioners do.

If five commissioners tighten their budgetary belt, like almost everyone else has to these days, the cost to the taxpayer should be reduced when Measure 24-292 is approved. Presently the commissioners pay themselves about as much as the Governor gets, over $100,000 in salary/benefits.

Untruth 2. "Measure 24-292 could force additional cuts in public safety." No way. The three current county commissioners are the ones who have cut fourteen positions from the Sheriff's budget while retaining their own highly paid personal assistants.

As noted above, this Measure should save the county money. Read more about this untruth here. The Chamber of Commerce is using scare tactics, which is reprehensible. Public safety is too important to be used as a childish Boo! that is supposed to make people jump in the direction a selfish special interest wants them to move.

Marion County voters need to see through this game, which citizens are tired of. Failing to face facts, while diverting attention to extraneous issues, is how lobbyists like to play the political game. The Chamber of Commerce mailing is just more of the same.

Untruth 3. "Measure 24-292 would allow secret government meetings." No, Oregon has a strong public meeting law that promotes openness and accountability. The Measure doesn't change this in the slightest. It simply enlarges the number of commissioners from three to five.

Because currently two commissioners constitute a quorum, the present three-member board uses "policy advisors" (who are paid more than $100,000 a year) to shuffle messages between the commissioners.

The Measure will allow two commissioners to discuss issues without running afoul of the public meeting law, just as elected officials in every other body with more than three members is able to do.

If the Chamber of Commerce is so afraid of "secret government meetings," why isn't it trying to reduce the size of the Salem City Council (now with 8 members) to three? Along with the Oregon House of Representatives (60 now) and Oregon Senate (30 now)?

Here's the truth about this.

Untruth 4. "Measure 24-292 would greatly limit your voice in local government." No, not at all. Exactly the reverse. The Measure simply elects five commissioners by district, instead of countywide.

This is how Salem City Council members are elected: by district, instead of citywide. And this is how state Representatives and Senators in Oregon are elected: by district, instead of statewide. 

Most people would much rather have a politician from their own area represent them, rather than someone who isn't accountable to local citizens. But the Chamber of Commerce feels differently, because special interests like to lobby behind closed doors and leave ordinary people out of the loop.

So vote "Yes" on Measure 24-292.

I wrote and paid for a voter's pamphlet statement in favor of the Measure because I believe Marion County government needs to be more efficient and better represent the citizenry.

If you learn the facts about Measure 24-292, I'm confident you'll come to the same conclusion. Don't let the Chamber of Commerce's untruths distract you from making up your own mind on this important upcoming vote.

Read this before you choose a Regence "Evolve" plan

Like I said in a previous post, Regence of Oregon's enforced switching of individual health insurance policies to their new "Evolve" plans is bad news for members.

Benefits are reduced considerably, while premiums are rising for many families, since each child now has to be on a separate policy. The Evolve plans' individual premiums for my wife and myself would only be a bit higher, but we were seriously disturbed by the benefit reductions.

For example, the Regence Evolve Core plan only covers a maximum of $1,000 a year for prescription drugs. We're pretty sure that our current "Blue Selections" plans have no limit. My wife, Laurel, noticed that the Regence Evolve Plus plan has a prescription drug benefit that covered a maximum of $4,500 a year, albeit with a $500 a year deductible.

However, the letter she got from Regence informing her of the changeover to Evolve plans said that she'd be switched to the Evolve Core plan, as this most closely matched her current policy.
Download Regence of Oregon new plan comparison

When she phoned Regence to ask about getting the Evolve Plus plan, at first she was told that this wasn't possible since Plus had greater benefits. Thus she'd need to fill out an application for an entirely new policy, which would be subject to underwriting and almost certainly rejected because of her pre-existing conditions.

Laurel argued with the Regence employee, saying, entirely accurately, that the switch to either Evolve plan amounted to a reduction in benefits from what her current Blue Selections plan offers. So how could moving to Evolve Plus be viewed as a benefit increase?

She didn't get anywhere with that argument. Reason and logic don't get much respect in the health insurance industry. Nor does the adage, "the customer is always right."

Overhearing Laurel's conversation -- her side of it, at least -- I could tell that it wasn't going anywhere productive. The Regence employee was stonewalling her request to be switched to the Evolve Plus plan, whose only redeeming quality was that it was somewhat less crappy than the Evolve Core plan Regence intended to move her to.

Then I had a good idea.

I picked up the "Important Notice of Benefit Plan Replacement" that had come in the mail from Regence. I dropped it in Laurel's lap while she was still on the phone with the Regence employee. I pointed at a section and whispered "read that to her."
Download Regence Evolve letter

What if I want a plan other than the one that was chosen for me? We've enclosed a plan summary comparison so can compare your current coverage with all our new plans. If you find another plan that's better for you and the deductible amount is the same as or more than the plan we chose for you, complete the enclosed Plan Change Reguest Form and return it by June 1, 2010.

Bingo!

The woman Laurel was talking to asked her to wait on the line while she consulted a supervisor. A few minutes later she told Laurel that Regence would stand behind what was said in the letter, even though it supposedly wasn't accurate.

So anyone who is being switched to the Evolve Core plan can choose the Evolve Plus plan instead. No complicated application required. All you need to do is check a few boxes and make sure you're requesting an Evolve Plus plan with the same or larger deductible as you have now.

The enforced switchover to the reduced benefit Evolve plans still sucks, for reasons I cited before. But the Evolve Plus plan sucks less than the Evolve Core plan, especially for people who have substantial prescription drug expenses.

I'm proud of my second childhood: 61 going on 12

"Second childhood" are words that haven't meant much to me until recently. I never thought of myself as old enough to warrant having them applied to me, especially since second childhood usually is a derogatory term.

Noun

1.

second childhood - mental infirmity as a consequence of old age; sometimes shown by foolish infatuations

Hey! Those are fighting words! I'm proud of my second childhood, especially my foolish infatuations.

I don't feel like I'm 61. For some reason, the past few years I've been feeling younger with every birthday. If this is a mental infirmity, bring it on. More, please.

A few hours ago I started to get the mower out, this being a warm, dry Oregon day -- a welcome respite from our long string of cold, wet early April weather. But then my eye fell on one of my beloved post-60 infatuations:

Burgie. My Suzuki Burgman 650 Executive scooter. Biggest scooter in the world. And in my utterly biased opinion, the most fun scooter.

Mowing the lawn could wait. I could see that Burgie needed some attention. The wind screen had some spots on it. Ditto the fenders. In fact, the closer I looked, the more I realized that Burgie hadn't had a good wipedown since last fall.

Getting a rag and some plastic cleaning solution, I was taken back to my childhood. Once again I was getting my ride back to a shiny status. Before, it was a red Raleigh three-speed bicycle; now, a white Suzuki automatic scooter.

Same difference. I made my way around the scooter, spraying and wiping. Scooters, like bicycles, are small. It just took me a few minutes to have Burgie back in shape.

I'm writing this at a Salem coffeehouse, having ridden into town on my Burgman with my laptop stored under the seat. Sipping a latte, I don't feel much different from when I was twelve, having pulled my bicycle into the Three Rivers (California) "Candy Store" for some rock string candy.

What is aging, anyway?

We often hear, "You're only as old as you feel." Absolutely. I can see some age spots on the back of my hands as I type these words. But I can't sense any signs of aging in my psyche.

Of course, eventually that could be a sign of senility: not knowing that I'm becoming mentally infirm. If so, that sounds like a good way to grow old -- being unaware that I am.

Last week, during my Tai Chi class I was seized with a thought. Man, I feel so good. I was older than almost all of my classmates. Yet I felt like I could move just as well, if not better, than I could a decade or two ago.

And mentally, I found myself uttering some stupid jokes that would have fitted right into the locker room humor of my high school days back in the 60's. Yeah, I'm into this second childhood thing.

Here's an observation on "dirty old men." As I get older, not surprisingly I've been reconsidering what this means. Often, it's simply a case of outer being at odds with inner.

A guy who looks old, and chronologically is old, may not feel his age. He could be eighty outside and eighteen inside. Since he is aware of himself from the inside, he might respond to a cute young thing as if he was a teenager, not a octogenarian. 

Women, give him some slack.

That "dirty old man" is into a second childhood. He feels like he's as young as you are. For a moment he's lost sight of the calendar years he's spent on Earth. If he seems to be acting inappropriately for his age, that's because he doesn't know how old he is.

Well, it's time to get back on my scooter. I'm glad that I don't have to pedal my way home, like I used to have to do. I'm also happy that riding around on two wheels is as enjoyable at 61 as it was at 12.

Regence of Oregon "Evolve" plans: bad news for members

Health insurance reform may be the law of the land, but health insurance companies like Regence of Oregon aren't done screwing over their members/policy-holders.

My wife and I have individual Regence plans. Mine is the Blue Selections Premier, which I succeeded in switching to last year after going through a horrendous battle with the Regence underwriting department over some minor health problems (a.k.a. "preexisting conditions").

Recently we both got a packet from Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon informing us that as of July 1 we'd need to switch to new plans, as our current plans will no longer be available.

Naturally our first thought was, "We're going to get screwed. The new policies are going to cost more and cover less."

Right on. Regence provided a comparison of my old plan and the new "Evolve Plus" plan that comes closest to what I have now.
Download Regence of Oregon new plan comparison

I'm going to pay $512 a month for the Evolve Plus, a bit more than the premium for my current $485 Premier plan. But the Evolve benefits have devolved downward, considerably. Here's an example:

Now there's a $500 deductible on brand name prescriptions, compared to no deductible before. Also, there is a $4,500 a year maximum prescription drug benefit, compared to no limit before. If someone is on expensive drugs for a serious condition, $4,500 will be used up quickly.

The basic Evolve plan, which my wife is to be switched to, is even worse: it has only a $1,000 maximum for all drugs. That's ridiculous.

It's impossible to compare the cost of the new and old plans, because the benefits have changed so much. This likely is one reason Regence is switching its individual policy holders over to the Evolve plans: instead of announcing another double-digit rate increase, Regence is keeping rates about the same and decreasing the value of benefits by double-digits.

Over on Blue Oregon I commented on a post about a proposal for an Oregon health insurance exchange. 

This sounds like a good idea. My wife and I have individual plans from Regence Blue Cross of Oregon. Recently we, like many others, received a packet notifying us that our plans will be terminated July 1 and we'll have to choose from the new Regence offerings they suggested.

Which offer considerably reduced benefits, albeit at roughly the same cost as our premium now. This, of course, means that Regence has raised its premium price, but not in an open and transparent manner. It's impossible to figure out how much more it will cost us out of pocket because Regence has reduced its benefit package.

Being in our early 60s with pre-existing conditions (who has been perfectly healthy all of his/her life?) we can't change to another health insurance company. I believe the health care reform provision prohibiting discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions doesn't kick in until 2014 or thereabouts. So Regence has us and tens of thousands of other individual policy-holders over a "take it or leave it" barrel.

No competition. No free market. The proposal laid out in this post would be a heck of a lot better, especially if the marketplace included a true "public option" run by the state of Oregon.

Last gripe about Regence: their informational materials about the new plans say there is a $2 million lifetime cap on benefits. But this is one of the provisions of the health care reform bill that kicks up immediately -- no more lifetime caps. I've emailed Regence and asked why they aren't complying with the law of the land. Seems crazy that new health insurance policies issued after passage of the bill don't reflect its provisions.

Today I called Regence and asked about the $2 million lifetime cap. I was told that Regence is complying with the health insurance reform bill and will implement its provisions as required.

OK. I didn't really expect that Regence would ignore the law. But it seems to be doing its best to get around it.

There no longer can be a lifetime cap on health insurance policies written after September 23, 2010. Existing policies with caps will change to the new "no cap" rule at renewal time.

So if we'd been able to stay on our current Regence plans, the $2 million lifetime cap limitation seemingly would have been removed on July 1, 2010 -- our renewal date. But Regence has chosen to force all of its individual policy holders to change to a new plan on July 1. Which obviously is before September 23.

How convenient. For Regence of Oregon.

Because now it looks like the lifetime cap will remain in place until July 1, 2011, which gives Regence a whole year during which it can tell members who have an expensive serious illness, "Tough. You've used up your $2 million. Better get going on your garage sale -- or bankruptcy plan."

Health insurance companies have a horrible P.R. problem. I don't know anyone, not a single person, who has good things to say about the health insurance industry. Like I said, when we got the mailing from Regence our first (and also last) reaction was:

This has got to be bad news. We're getting screwed. Regence never does anything that benefits its members or health care providers; it only cares about its own profit margin.

There's only one real solution to the problems health insurance companies cause: get rid of them. Or at least heavily regulate them. The reform legislation that's been passed does neither, unfortunately.

That's why I'm on the opposite side of the Republican mantra, "Repeal and replace."

No, we've got to keep what we have and make it much stronger. If insurance companies like Regence persist in playing their selfish corporate games at the expense of their policy holders, pressure will build for that to happen.

Oregon business taxes are lowest in nation

If facts matter at all to Lars Larson and Oregon's other right-wing talk show hosts, hopefully they'll stop with the Oregon has a horrible business climate B.S. now that a corporate lobbying group has come to an opposite conclusion.

Actually, Oregon has the lowest state and local business taxes in the country.

A newly released study by a corporate lobby group found that Oregon tied for the lowest state and local business taxes in the country in fiscal year 2009. It also said that Oregon tied for first place in terms of providing “value” to businesses from the taxes they pay.

The study (PDF) said that in 2009 Oregon, along with Delaware and North Carolina, had the lowest combined state and local business taxes as a share of the economy among all the states.

The Council On State Taxation (COST), an association of multistate and multinational corporations that lobbies on state tax policy, bankrolled the study conducted by the accounting firm Ernst & Young. COST represents about 600 corporations, including major Oregon employers (PDF) such as Nike, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, US Bank and Xerox.

Ah, it feels good to have my previous blog posts validated. Like I said, Oregon is not a high tax state, and raising Oregon taxes will be good for our state. 

Along the same line, yesterday FiveThirtyEight showed that the United States isn't a high tax country. Americans have one of the lowest tax burdens (federal, state, local) as a share of GDP among industrialized nations.

And income taxes have held steady as a percentage of GDP for the past sixty-five years. So Oregon has the lowest business taxes in a nation that has one of the lowest overall levels of taxation.

No wonder that Genentech has decided to substantially expand its Oregon operations.

"We were very attracted by the business environment, the technical support we felt we could get in the area, and the encouragement we got from the local community and local and state government," said CEO Ian Clark at a ribbon-cutting ceremony yesterday in Hillsboro attended by top executives, elected officials and hundreds of Oregon-based Genentech employees.

Forgive me Apple, for I am forsaking the iPad

Jeez. As non-religious as I am, I feel sort of funny reliving my long-lapsed Catholicism and confessing on a Sunday. But I feel that I have to, because I have been unfaithful... to Apple.

I wasn't attracted to the iPad on the day it was announced. And yesterday, when the iPad was put in the hands of some 650,000 happy purchasers, I remained uncommitted to the newest persona of my Apple lover.

I have an iPod Touch. And an iPhone. And a MacBook Pro laptop.

When the rumors that Apple would produce a tablet started to fly, I was virtually certain that I'd want one -- because I adore all things Apple'ish. So now I feel like I've let Apple down by failing to leap aboard the iPad bandwagon.

In a TIME magazine piece, Stephen Fry ably points to why users of Apple products have such an intimate relationship with them. After all, I've never felt the need to apologize to Maytag for not buying their newest washing machine, or to Toyota for declining to purchase an updated Prius.

The iPad does perform tasks — it runs apps and has the calendar, e-mail, Web browsing, office productivity, audio, video and gaming capabilities you would expect of any such device — yet when I eventually got my hands on one, I discovered that one doesn't relate to it as a "tool"; the experience is closer to one's relationship with a person or an animal.

I know how weird that sounds. But consider for a moment. We are human beings; our first responses to anything are dominated not by calculations but by feelings. What Ive and his team understand is that if you have an object in your pocket or hand for hours every day, then your relationship with it is profound, human and emotional. Apple's success has been founded on consumer products that address this side of us: their products make users smile as they reach forward to manipulate, touch, fondle, slide, tweak, pinch, prod and stroke.

Yes.

The MacBook laptop that I'm typing on has a Multi-Touch Trackpad rather than a mouse or some other less touchie-feelie control device. I'm frequently caressing its sleek aluminum surface with my fingertips to make my computer respond to my desires.

There's a decided sensuality to this. The Trackpad is much more pleasing to use than a mouse with buttons, and I'm sure the iPad takes the user's relationship with the device up several more levels of intimacy, since the whole screen is touchable.

Yet for now I have to remain on the iPad purchasing sidelines. I'm in like rather than lust with it, which is different from how I initially felt about my iPhone and MacBook Pro.

With them, my psyche screamed "I want! I want!" once I knew enough about their sexy attributes. With the iPad, it's more like "Hey, I'd invite it in for a roll in cyberspace if one appeared (free) at my door, but I don't feel like paying to play around with it."

I'm still questioning whether the iPad is going to be a viable ebook reader. I want to be able to highlight and annotate with my fingers, just as I do with the many nonfiction books I read now. And I'm bothered by the lack of Flash support, the absence of a camera, and how reviewers complain about typing on the virtual keyboard.

A general conclusion about the iPad is that it is a media consumption device, not a media creation device. As a regular blogger, this means that the iPad can't replace my laptop, because I do a lot of typing and need a device that is attuned to wordsmithing.

Sitting at a coffeehouse table right now, comfortably looking at a quasi-vertical 13 inch screen while comfortably typing on a horizontal lighted keyboard with nice tactile and audible feedback, I can't see myself enjoying writing a blog post while hunched over an iPad lying flat on the table.

It's a good bet that version 2.0 of the iPad will be much improved, and version 3.0 even more so. So there's a chance that an iPad is in my future. I just need a "Must have!" reason to get one.

Alternatively, I suspect Amazon is busily working on the rollout of a Kindle ebook reader that will compete with the iPad. If a new Kindle has color and a touchscreen, I could be happy with it.

Anyway, I still love you, Apple. Let me know when the next generation of the MacBook Pro is on the market. Then I'll probably be in an Apple Store, drooling.

Wall Street Journal quotes me on Oregon land use

Yesterday a guy phoned me who said he was a Wall Street Journal reporter. We talked about Oregon's land use policies for a while. Then he called again and read me a quote that he wanted to use in his story.

It must not have been an April Fool's joke, because today I searched Google News for "Brian Hines" and found this on the Wall Street Journal web site: Oregon Pear Growers Sour on Land Law.
Download Wall Street Journal story

The reporter, Joel Millman, didn't say what his story was about. He told me that he'd come across my testimony on HB 2229, which ended up passing (with bipartisan support in the House) after being amended in the 2009 Oregon legislative session.
Download HB 2229 testimony PDF

I didn't like how the original version of the bill would have allowed counties to rezone farm and forest land with minimal public hearings and involvement.

It struck me as a backdoor way to get around Measure 49, which in 2007 restored valuable provisions of Oregon land use law that had been weakened by Measure 37 in 2004. Since 62% of Oregon voters favored protecting farm and forest land via Measure 49, HB 2229 appeared to be an insult to the public will.

When I first read the Wall Street Journal story, naturally I focused on the part that contained my quote:

Growers like Mr. Lowry joined with Medford's delegation to the state legislature this year in an unsuccessful effort to lobby to change the land-use law.

Environmentalists and local activists argue that loosening the restrictions on agricultural land sales would give developers an inside track over ordinary homeowners.

"Citizens in general, and local residents in particular, would be almost entirely shut out of the rezoning process," says Brian Hines, a representative of a neighborhood group called Keep Our Water Safe Committee.

Then I read the story more carefully. I learned that pear growers in southern Oregon are upset because they can't sell their farmland for development into subdivisions and such.

I couldn't muster up much sympathy for them. The growers knew how the land was zoned when they acquired it. And one large company is in financial trouble because of a leveraged buyout of Harry & David.

My attitude: tough luck. You take your risks, and you take your rewards/lumps.

Meanwhile, the community is divided over land-use rules, especially in light of a looming crisis involving Harry & David. Wall Street private-equity king Bruce Wasserstein purchased Harry & David in 2004 for $252.9 million, anticipating its future sale through an initial public offering. But when a poor 2006 Christmas season put those plans on hold, the Wasserstein group instead floated $245 million in debt.

Allowing the company to sell land and raise cash might stabilize Medford's biggest employer, and protect more than a thousand Oregon jobs. But critics say any dispensation would jettison environmental protections while offering a bailout to owners who engaged in a reckless leveraged buyout.

The story talked about how some pear growers supposedly want to sell for development farmland that is close to an urban growth boundary and relocate to cheaper land farther away in the countryside.

Doesn't it take quite a few years to plant pear trees and have them start producing fruit?

I'm kind of skeptical that a farmer would go to all that trouble after making a bunch of money selling developable land at $100,000 an acre (rather than the $10,000 the story says orchard land is worth). Taking the money and running, rather than farming, seems more likely.

Times are tough for farmers, along with lots of other people. But the solution isn't for Oregon to relax land use laws to deal with temporary financial problems facing certain agricultural sectors. 

People and businesses are attracted to Oregon because it isn't like other states. It's better in many ways, including our commitment to preserving environmental treasures such as irreplaceable farm and forest land.

A hundred years from now, I hope pears are still grown in the Rogue River Valley. And Harry & David gift baskets still appear under Christmas trees across the country. If we keep Oregon's land use laws strong, my hopes will be reality.

(Naturally I had to fork over $2 to buy a paper copy of today's Wall Street Journal, even though I don't like adding to Rupert Murdoch's profit margin. The Oregon pear growers story was pretty prominently featured on page 3. If you squint really hard, maybe you can see my name in column five. Heck, I'll help you out...)