-
Remember Sara Palin's prediction in 2010 that a Tea Party "revolution" would sweep America? Now we are observing their overreach in Iowa. Republican candidates for President have to be ultra conservative to win the nomination but when the general election rolls around these candidates will be seen as too polarizing for Independents and many establishment Republicans. Isn't it obvious to Republican candidates who bear hug the Tea Party too tightly in order to win the primary that it will cause those candidates serious issues in the general election.
A couple of small favorite moments for me were watching Brian Schwetzer, the Democratic Governor of Montana on Fox News (yes I watch Fox from time to time even though it is personally painful) declaring that some of his Republican lawmakers proposed legislation to create an armed paramilitary force and a birther bill. Both measures failed. Schwetzer said he was tired of nutjob bills coming from the Tea Party elected legislators in his state. And watching a local example in the Southern Oregon region was the recall of Josephine County Commissioner Sandi Cassanelli. She and her Tea Party and Agenda 21 followers managed to get her elected. On December 6th Cassanelli was recalled by a 71-29 percent margin. The LTE's in The Daily Courier demonstrated that the Tea Party believers had clearly overreached - even in deeply red Josephine County. Thirty-nine citizens have lined up to be considered to finish Cassanelli's term. The remaining commissioners have learned through the recall that most citizens don't want to be associated with extreme positions on the Left or the Right.
As we enter another new year the Tea Party image is declining most sharply in GOP controlled districts than across the country at large. In November the Pew Research Center conducted a poll which demonstrates that the Tea Party is losing support nationwide.
Now if you think Democrats can just go on cruise control in the 2012 elections we should remember Senator Ron Wyden's words. He said nobody likes a president 100% of the time. If we like Obama 80% or 70% or whatever your personal percentage may be, then work to keep Obama in office for four more years.
It is fair to say the Tea Party impact on the Republican Party is waning. We cannot sit on our hands in 2012. We have a great deal of damage to undo! We Democrats and Independents can do it! Happy New Year!
-
My passion for land use policy is born from a social justice perspective. This area of policy often pits those who have money and access to power against those who don't.
But besides the issues of social justice, good land use policy is also, in many cases, just good common sense. You don't build a nuclear power plant next to a school. You don't build a prison next to a playground. And hopefully, you don't pave over high value farmland to build strip malls and destination resorts.
That last one is surprisingly contentious. In reality, it shouldn't be.
Eric Mortensen, The Oregonian:
Farming's direct economic impact in Oregon adds up to 10 percent of the state's sales, 12 percent of jobs and 7 percent of its value-added activity, according to a new report by the state Department of Agriculture.
Add the sales, services and professions that sprout from farming -- everything from fertilizer purchases and tractor repair to land-use lawyers -- and the impact is even greater. But dollar signs don't tell the full value of the 16 million acres devoted to farming and ranching in Oregon, according to department economist and policy analyst Brent Searle.
He maintains farmland provides ecological and even social benefits as well.
In addition to growing food and fiber and supporting livestock, farmland filters water, shelters wildlife, stores carbon dioxide, gives tourists something to look at and provides residents a sense of open space, Searle says in the report.
In addition, the state's farmland is adaptive, renewable, sustainable, efficient and primarily family-owned and operated. For those reasons, Searle concludes, it's crucial to avoid converting farmland to housing, industry, shopping or other business use.
It's unrealistic to try and preserve every scrap of land in Oregon for farming. But this report demonstrates that it's vital that we preserve as much as we possibly can. It's cheaper for taxpayers, it allows us to grow our food and other crops locally and it provides a stable, long term economic engine for the state.
And the gravy? We keep this beautiful, scenic, liveable place.
-
It genuinely pains me to see local antiwar and peace activists responding to the war's end mostly with silence, contempt, disgust and indifference.
By Lawrence J. Maushard of Portland, Oregon. Lawrence is a journalist and author. Previously, he contributed "OHSU leads with treatment of torture victims; so why are they honoring Condi Rice, who authorized waterboarding?"
President Barack Hussein Obama has made good on the promise and commitment that got him elected: ending the war in Iraq. In a place like Portland, Oregon, that should mean something.
For years, there was an opportunity almost every weekend in the Rose City to participate in a public antiwar demonstration, often numbering in the 10s of thousands hosted by dozens of antiwar and social justice groups and churches.
And you could always count on the peace rally still held every Friday, rain or shine, at 5pm in Pioneer Courthouse Square hosted by the Portland Peaceful Response Coalition, often accompanied by the wistfully uptempo No War Drum Corps.
Actually, Portland was antiwar long before the invasion of Iraq began. On August 22, 2002, for example, months before the American attack the following spring, thousands of men, women, students, seniors and children peacefully and boisterously turned out in a Little Beirut-style welcome for then-President George W. Bush at a downtown Hilton fundraiser for former GOP Senator Gordon Smith.
For our troubles, Portland's finest shot us with “non-lethal” ammo and flash-bang rounds, poured out relentless geysers of pepper spray in full-face assaults, applied headlocks to women, landed batons on defenseless protesters, and drove a patrol car into the retreating crowd trapped like rats on Taylor Street at Fifth Avenue. I was there, got hit and blasted, and saw it all.
Scenes from that chaotic police riot made every network morning news show the next day, and the American corporate media giant The New York Times accurately reported we were “one of the largest groups of demonstrators Mr. Bush has encountered since September 11.” Talk about being ahead of the war crimes' protest curve. Hooray for our side, for sure, but the fight-club cops injured many people, nine of which filed suit and won substantial monetary awards.
A number of antiwar rallies followed, probably the next important gathering on March 19-20, 2003 when W – our American Tojo – finally pulled the trigger on his shock and awe blitzkrieg. Thousands poured into the downtown streets, while a number of demonstrators shockingly ran onto the I-5 freeway and staged spontaneous sit-downs in the middle of the busy night-time traffic lanes. An amazingly bold damn-the-consequences occupation if there ever was one.
A group of black bloc marchers famously knocked down a policeman who tried to prevent their march onto a highway on-ramp, and a McDonald's window or two ended up sacrificial martyrs in a brief attack on American consumer capitalism.
Most demonstrators eventually settled into the SW Second Avenue approach at the Burnside Bridge. Thousands of unpermitted peaceful demonstrators successfully claimed that prime piece of downtown real estate and easily baited the riot clad police into shutting down the city's main arterial waterspan during a long standoff. It ended only when the militarized gendarmes used flash bang grenades to stun and scatter the assembled masses into the predawn night.
As the war dragged on for years, much of the demonstrations failed to evoke the drama of those early confrontations, though occasionally a new radical twist would emerge. During a March 2007 protest, demonstrators infamously burned a life-size effigy of an American GI in the South Park Blocks. The YouTube video went viral to the apoplectic disgust of conservative pundits nationwide. Death threats were scattered throughout the video's commentary section.
Irregardless of the specific incidents and events, countless numbers in the local peace community devoted their lives in so many different ways to ending the increasingly despised and detested US occupation of Iraq.
Looking, however, to our enduring deployments in S. Korea, Germany, Japan and many other nations, most antiwar activists and the nation in general genuinely, dejectedly assumed deep inside that we would never leave the storied, ancient lands surrounding the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
So it genuinely pains me to see local antiwar and peace activists responding to the war's end mostly with silence, contempt, disgust and indifference.
-
My posts from this week citing concerns about the Beaverton Planning Commission's new zoning and land use policy included information about issues with staff in Washington County. Specifically, information stating that staff who raised red flags about Beaverton's decisions were feeling their jobs threatened--and that those sorts of threats would flow from the Chair, Andy Duyck.
Duyck called me this morning to object, saying that he didn't know anything about these issues (meaning the Beaverton zoning changes) until he spoke with Commissioners Schouten and Malinowski about it in the last few days. He said that staff for the County were not allowed to do personal advocacy on county time. Duyck says he considers the sorts of objections raised by his professional land use staff and any other staff to be personal advocacy.
When I mentioned that I was aware of staff who were concerned that working on this on their own time would threaten their job, to the point that they wouldn't even share their name, he said that those staff members have "nothing to fear". "Employees of Washington County can express their opinion on private time. They have the same rights that I have," Duyck said. "I will defend them."
Duyck also said that anyone who came to me as a source to the contrary were "partisan" and that I was making this a "partisan issue". Duyck wanted to know who I'd been speaking with. I refused to say. He complained that I was making him "guilty until proven innocent", and that multiple sources who say things contrary to what he's saying should not be given more weight. That I would give multiple sources more weight over his alone shows a "lack of integrity" on my part.
I have little to add at this point. I think Duyck's quotes speak for themself.
Update: 3:15PM: I was just going through my notes again from this morning's conversation with Duyck. I neglected to mention that he told me that Washington County staff works at the direction of the Commission. So part of the problem with staff using county resources is if they were doing so without explicit direction from the Commission (say by seeing something that seems problematic and looking in to it autonomously), they'd be doing so outside what they were supposed to be doing. I think that's an important point. This means that Duyck would not want staff to be bringing things to his attention that were potentially problematic. It would need to be the other way around. This seems especially odd to me, because the expertise of staff would essentially be going unused to ward off potential problems.
-
This is a brief update to yesterday's story on the City of Beaverton's potential effort to steamroll zoning and land use policy on a bunch of newly annexed land instead of following a long established agreement. Washington County Commission Chair Andy Duyck is reportedly pushing to allow this to go forward as well.
As I understand it, an appeal is being filed with the city today. It's possible that citizens who wish to speak up and have not already filed an objection will have an opportunity to do so at the hearing.
In the meantime, Beaverton City Councilors and Washington County Commissioners need to know that people are watching. How will they know this? You'll need to email or call them to tell them this.
Beaverton City Council
All email to the Beaverton City Council goes to the same email address. Send with attention to the councilor to which you wish to correspond. If you have time to do only one, send to the President.
Cathy Stanton, President: (503) 526–2343
Catherine Arnold, (503) 526–2508
Betty Bode, (503) 526–2347
Ian King, (503) 526–2345
Marc San Soucie, (503) 526–2370
Washington County Commission
All emails to the Washington County Commission are sent using a tool, found here. Use the drop down menu at the bottom to send to one or all of the commissioners. If you wish to send to only one, I suggest sending to the Chair, Andy Duyck.
With the exception of the Chair, all of the commissioners are part time. If you would like to contact them by phone, you will likely have to leave a message. Request that they call you back. All calls are routed through the same phone number: Phone: (503) 846-8681. Washington County residents are encouraged to speak to their own commissioner. If you're not sure who it is, you can look up that information here.
Update: 1:30PM, Comments below by Virginia Bruce indicate that a meeting with Beaverton city planners on this matter will take place on January 3 at St. Vincent's Med. office bldg (fountain court).
Update: 3:30PM: In an email, Washington County Chair Andy Duyck is denying being involved in this issue, saying he has "no role whatsoever". No explanation was given by Duyck however as to why his staff are so concerned for their jobs. Will continue to update as more comes in.
Most Discussed Posts