New Frames

Right Wingers just ruined their arguments

Because the right wing of the Republican party forced Harriet Miers to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court, they've just blown their talking points:  The president has the mandate to have his nominees approved and The president's nominees deserve an up or down vote.  Yeah, right, blah blah blah.

Let's call them on it when Bush nominates a right winger to the court and lets put up the same kind of fight they did... if not a bigger one.

Advancing the progressive agenda via ballot measures

Today I put up a post at Onward Oregon on the blog page about the importance of using ballot measures to advance the progressive agenda and to counter the flood of measures that have come from conservatives over the last 15 years:

Every two years in Oregon voters are faced with a number of ballot measures that are nine times out of ten sponsored by conservatives. Since the governorship has been held by Democrats for nearly two decades, conservatives have resorted to the initiative process to advance their agenda. This route serves a number of goals: It forces liberal and progressive groups in the state to spend money fighting the initiatives, it brings out the conservative base and it helps in framing the conservative message.

And that needs to change.

Measure 37: The political chess game for '06

As I wrote in a recent post, I'm now enjoying the privilege of blogging for Onward Oregon.  When I post entries over there I'll put up a short post here at New Frames to send you over there.

Yesterday I posted an entry on the political chess game that is being played over Measure 37 and how it may play out during the '06 election cycle:

[...] M37, with its simplistic misleading language, passed with 61% of the vote, but was recently ruled as unconstitutional by a Marion County judge. Although the ruling angered property rights activists, it offers a much needed opening for the people of this state to better understand what is at stake. It also gives political leaders in the state the opportunity to step up to the plate and make some courageous decisions about upholding the values of livability for future generations of Oregonians. The question is, will they? [...]

So take a ride over to the Onward Oregon blog and read all the goodies it has to offer.

The privatization of Mount St. Helens: A sign of things to come

The current US crony government and their cronies in the private sector want Americans to shop 'til we drop even while we're visiting our national parks and monuments.  As I've noted before on this blog, the cronies that be want to overhaul our national parks system through a kind privatization and commercialization that would drastically change the mission of our parks.

Today's O has a story about plans in the works to commercialize the Mount St. Helens National Monument in neighboring Washington state.  It sounds like the guinea pig of park privatization even though the monument is overseen by the Forest Service.  Plans include:  Helicopter rides, mobile food and gift (kitch) carts at all of the lookout areas, snowmobile rentals, guided hikes for a fee, transitioning more than half of the education center into commercial uses (read: a store that sells kitch) and a possible resort near Cougar Reservoir.

Your children will no longer enjoy free educational hikes with the rangers or learn about the volcano in the visitors center.  Instead they'll be screaming at you to buy them a plastic blow-up cougar in the gift shop.  When you take them outside to get away from the insanity of the gift shop and to enjoy the view of Mount St. Helens, they'll see the same plastic cougar at a mobile gift cart and they'll start screaming again.  But you won't hear them because helicopters are flying overhead.

For more information on the subject of our national parks, please visit the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees website.

Introducing Onward Oregon's blog

Onward Oregon, Oregon's premiere grass-roots organization for pragmatic movement progressives, has just launched a blog, which, hopefully, will provoke ideas for future initiatives and legislation, encourage discussion about the urban-rural divide in the state, act as a forum for resolving difficult issues plaguing the state, bring more attention to the organization's e-mail action campaigns and, lastly, help increase membership to the organization.

Currently there are three bloggers on the site, one of whom is yours truly.  The other two are Peter Bray and Kate Gawf.  Aside from blogging at Onward Oregon, Peter also runs his own blog, Land Use Watch, along with a satirical website about Measure 37.  Kate also has a blog, Ride My Handlebars, and has made a commitment to riding her bike as she waits for a clean car to hit the market.

A few more bloggers will be added soon so that Peter, Kate and I aren't carrying the entire load and to increase the diversity of ideas offered on the blog. 

So, stop by for a visit at the new blog at Onward Oregon and share your thoughts in the open comments section on each post.

Measure 37 overturned... for now

Big big news.  A Marion County judge has overturned Measure 37 ruling it unconstitutional.  The suit against M37 was brought by 1000 Friends of Oregon.  From OPB:

Marion County Judge Mary James heard oral arguments last month.  In her opinion, she agreed with three of the challengers' arguments - that the measure created an illegally privileged class of land owners, that it undercut the legislature's ability to enforce laws, and that it illegally gave some citizens a free pass from land use rules.

The decision will likely end up Oregon's Supreme Court, so this won't be the last word.  1000 Friends has more.

Oregon state Senator Ted Ferrioli is deluded

In today's letter section of the O, Oregon Senate Republican leader, Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day) wrote a letter (scroll down to Left uses personal attacks) where he slings mud at the supposed "mud slingers" who are working on a campaign to defeat Oregon House Speaker Karen Minnis (R-Wood Village) in the 2006 mid-term elections.  If you haven't noticed yet, Oregon's conservatives are trying to make it seem as if "extremists" on the left are victimizing poor Karen.  Sigh...

Ferrioli postulates that Oregonians are becoming more conservative and that the "get Karen Minnis" people are simply resorting to "personal attacks" on Minnis out of desperation.  He tries to convince readers that because Oregonians voted to ban gay marriage and overturn Oregon's land use system in the '04 elections that Oregon is leaning to the right.  Is it really, Ted?

Let's talk about the gay marriage issue.  What if such a measure had been on the Oregon ballot twenty years ago?  Would have more Oregonians supported gay marriage at that time?  Probably not.  In fact, it's likely that even a higher percentage of people in the state would have opposed gay marriage then than they do now.  And when it comes to civil unions more Oregonians are in support of them than they are opposed.  Had such a poll been taken twenty years ago, you can bet your life on it that the numbers would be reversed.  So, Ted, that's one for those of us who believe in equality and fairness for all and zero for you and your buddy Karen Minnis who don't.

Let's talk about land use conservation.  True, Oregonians did vote "yes" on your property rights initiative (Measure 37) last November, but it's becoming clear that many voters didn't understand the implications of what they were voting for.  A recent analysis by the bipartisan Oregon Business Association demonstrates that Oregonians are opposed to the kind of uncontrolled development and urban sprawl that M37 allows.  Furthermore, a recent online poll by the Portland Business Journal showed that respondents would overwhelmingly vote to rescind M37 by a 64% majority.  Based on the OBA analysis, Oregonians want a balance between property rights and land conservation, not M37.  I would assume that is what Oregonians have always wanted, even thirty years ago when Oregon's first land use laws were enacted as an experiment.  So again, Ted, that's two for progressives and zero for you and Minnis.

Let's talk about the Oregon Senate.  Oregonians, as a result of the '04 election, are represented by more Democrats in the state senate.  That's three for us and still zero for you and Minnis.

Let's talk about the Oregon House.  Although Republicans still held a majority of the seats in the state house, Democrats gained two seats in the '04 election.  That's four for us and zero for you and Minnis.

We could keep playing this game and I'm not sure if you and Karen Minnis would score any points because when it comes to things that matter like equality, health care, education, conservation, renewable energy, air and water quality, choice, end of life issues, minimum wage, etc. Oregonians are without a doubt more progressive.

Now let's be honest, Ted.  Is Oregon really becoming more conservative as you claim in your letter today?

Take the Measure 37 poll

The Portland Business Journal is conducting an online poll about Measure 37, the measure that has overturned Oregon's 30 year land use conservation laws.  I've written a lot (here, here, here, here, here, here, here) about M37 on this blog and its potential to do major damage to Oregon's natural resources, farmlands, scenic beauty and the state's tax payers.

The question the Journal poses is whether or not M37 should be overturned.  It's important to keep in mind that overturning it wouldn't mean that the debate over land use would end, or should end, because clearly Oregonians need to have a serious discussion about the future of this state and what we want it to look like and be for our children and grandchildren.

Currently Oregonians seem to be conflicted about private property rights and uncontrolled development.  They support private property rights, but at the same time they don't want sprawl.  The question for conservationists is how do we appeal to the latter sentiment in future campaigns because most people vote based on their emotional feelings on such matters.  That's where the "NO on 37" camp failed in November of '04, despite having more funds than the pro-sprawlers who sponsored the measure.  They didn't have a "Mrs. Dorothy English" poster child equivalent. 

I don't think that should be a problem now.  There are plenty of farmers out there who's businesses will be severely affected if their neighbors' M37 claims go through.  In fact, many of those farmers will be put out of business, and what's more emotional than a hard working farmer being pushed out of business by a neighbor who wants to build a 57 million dollar 842 lot subdivision.  Or neighbors who might be stuck living next to a gravel mine, a theme park, or whatever kind of madness land owners want to develop? 

Conservationists now have a whole sh*t load of their own Dorothy Englishes and we need to put their faces all over the television, radio, bill boards, mailers, etc. in the next election cycle to get our message across to the majority of Oregonians who don't want out of control development in this beautiful state.

So take the online poll and make your voice heard!

Death With Dignity and the new Chief Justice

Is the new Chief Justice Roberts a big gov-ment conservative?   It sure looks like it.  At least it does when examining his response to the arguments presented to the High Court today in Gonzales (Ashcroft) vs. Oregon, the case that puts Oregon's Death With Dignity law in the balance:

If one state can say it's legal for doctors to prescribe morphine to make people feel better, or to prescribe steroids for bodybuilding, doesn't that undermine the uniformity of the federal law and make enforcement impossible?
(Chief Justice Roberts)

Justice Scalia, a supposed states' rights advocate, who has proved himself to be otherwise, also seemed to be supporting the federal position over Oregon's.  Roberts and Scalia, though, are just two of the justices on the court, so the outcome of this case is totally up in the air.   Moreover, O'Conner's open seat along with the "no-experience-other-than-cronyism" Harriet Miers' nomination leaves this case lost in the desert without much water for now.

Funny, though, how people like Scalia claim to be "small government conservatives" and supporters of states' rights, but when push comes to shove they support bigness and federal power just as much as Lyndon B. Johnson ever did, if not in an even bigger and scarier way.  Isn't that what they call hypocrisy?

Interestingly, in a SCOTUS case eight years ago that addressed physician-assisted suicide (Washington vs. Glucksberg) justices ruled that physicians did not have a constitutional right to practice assisted suicide, but left open the option for states to innovate and develop their own policies.  Today Justice Ginsberg asked the federal solicitor general how the government could reconcile that decision with the Justice Department's suit against Oregon.  The solicitor general gave a non-answer by claiming the feds stood by the Glucksberg decision.  What?

The other interesting aspect of this case is that while former US Attorney General John Ashcroft (who brought the case against Oregon) was a senator from Missouri he sponsored a bill in the Senate after Oregon voters had approved the law that would have banned physician-assisted suicide and thus overturned Oregon's new law.  The bill failed to pass.  Because Ashcroft couldn't overturn Oregon's law through the legislative process, he resorted to what he hopes will be "judicial activism" from the bench.

What Oregonians did when we voted for Death With Dignity was to expand the freedoms and rights of the people of this state and to offer other states considering such a law a vision of our experiement.  The framers of DWD saw in the Washington vs. Glucksberg decision a nod from the court for careful experimentation at the state level.  That's why the DWD law was so conscientiously and mindfully written.  It probably could be considered one of Oregon's best written and "all bases covered" ballot measures ever.  It's just a cryin' shame that right wing ideologues have been so determined to throw out our little petri dish.

Still on hiatus?

Ack!  I know, I know it's been over a week since I've posted an entry.  Lot's going on and for those of you who've stopped by at the farmers market or given me a call wondering "Why haven't you posted anything lately?" you know why.

Hopefully, I can get these extra ducks in a row and keep this blog going, along with another soon to be announced group blog that is currently under construction.

So for today, I'll leave you with this great peice from New York Times columnist Frank Rich:

(snip)

Mr. DeLay's latest plight is only a tiny detail within this vast Boschian canvas   of depravity... So forget about all those details down in Texas that make your teeth hurt; don't bother to learn the difference between Trmpac and Armpac. Fasten your seat belt instead for the roller coaster of other revelations and possible indictments that's about to roar through the Beltway.

(snip)

Like the continuing revelations of detainee abuse emerging from Afghanistan, Iraq and Guant·namo, this is a crisis in the governing culture, not the tale of a few bad apples. Every time you turn over a rock, you find more vermin.

(snip)

This is the culture that has given us the government we have. It's a government that has spent more of the taxpayers' money than any since L.B.J.'s (as calculated by the Cato Institute, a libertarian research institution), even as it rewards its benefactors with tax breaks and corporate pork. It's a government so used to lying that Mr. DeLay could say with a straight face that the cost of Katrina relief could not be offset by budget cuts because there was no governmental fat left to cut. It's the government that fostered the wholesale loss of American lives in both Iraq and on the Gulf Coast by putting cronyism above patriotism.
(emphasis mine)

Sigh.