Let the healing begin

On this historic day, we make the peaceful transition away from eight years of divisiveness, corruption, cynicism, obsession, secrecy, arrogance, cronyism, unconstitutionality, scandal and at times downright criminality.

As our wounded nation leaves another tainted administration behind, it is the Inaugural address 34 years ago of Gerald Ford that most powerfully echoes through history and resonates in the hope of today:

"My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over."

PUBLISHED: Electric vehicles much cleaner

Link to published letter

Erik Halstead's letter "Electric cars still have 'tailpipes'," published January 8, is so misleading I am astonished that the Tribune published it. In it he argues that electric vehicles simply push emissions somewhere else.

First of all, electric cars are inherently more efficient and use less energy than comparable fuel powered cars. Go to fueleconomy.gov and you will see that the 2002 RAV4 EV -- an electric SUV offered briefly in California -- was rated at the energy equivalent of 112 mpg, five times more efficient than its gasoline counterpart. That also means one-fifth of the carbon emissions.

Furthermore, due to the inherent limitations of battery technology, electric vehicles tend to be smaller than conventional cars, making them less consumptive and polluting on average. The scaled-down vehicles featured in the original December 11 Tribune story get the equivalent of more than 200 mpg, making them nearly 8 times more efficient than the average car.

Finally, in terms of local and regional pollution study after study has found that generating electricity at a single large source, even from fossil fuels, is far cleaner per unit of energy than burning it in thousands of small engines with individual emissions control systems.

And that's per unit of energy consumed: once you consider that electric cars use 5 to 8 times less energy than gasoline cars, you can see that the amount of pollution generated is many, many times less.

Of course, those in the energy, automotive and auto repair industries, who all stand to lose if we start driving electric vehicles, don't want us to realize this.

Senator Wyden: Please fix the Wilderness Bill!

Although I enthusiastically supported earlier versions of the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness bill that included National Recreation Area designation for popular mountain biking areas, I am dismayed at the current version of this legislation.

The compromise in earlier versions was historic, showing you as a leader in figuring out how to manage multiple conflicting interests while protecting land from development, and reflecting well on your legacy.  It is my view that much of the political support that coalesced behind the earlier versions was contingent upon this compromise.  I know mine was: I wrote a number of letters to the editor supporting your earlier proposals, urged many other cyclists to do the same, conducted numerous exploratory rides of the area and posted photos and information to the public.  Despite the fact that as a mountain biker I would lose access to some of the less well-known trails on the mountain, I supported this legislation because I felt protecting the land from development and destruction was even more important.

So to learn that the provision that ensured my earlier support had been removed -- and that the clean, quiet, environmentally friendly and perfectly compatible activity of riding a bicycle will be banned from 130 miles of trails -- feels like a hammer to the chest.  It is simply heartbreaking for me to learn that this brutal loss is the first direct consequence of our wonderful and historic victories in November.

I regret that I must vehemently oppose the Wilderness bill in its current form, and I urge you to do the same unless it is fixed.

Rep. Blumenauer: Please fix the Mt. Hood Wilderness Bill!

While I wish I could share your enthusiasm for the new Mt. Hood wilderness bill -- and I enthusiastically supported earlier versions of it -- I must vehemently oppose it in its current form because it bans bicycling on more than 130 miles of trails.

As you well know, bicycling is clean, quiet and environmentally friendly, and this is equally true on dirt trails as it is on pavement.  Previous versions of this Wilderness legislation set a landmark precedent for the future by calling for the creation of a National Recreation Area that preserved bike access to many of Mt. Hood's trails while still protecting them for development just as well as formal Wilderness status.  This historic compromise has been stripped from the current version.

The bipartisan support for earlier versions of this legislation was contingent upon this compromise, and I find it a heartbreaking betrayal that it is left out now.

As a fellow cyclist (I just finished my 12 mile ride home from Beaverton a few minutes ago to discover this awful news), I beg you to oppose this legislation until it can be fixed.  There is absolutely no legitimate reason to kick bikes off this many miles of trails, and I find the bill completely unacceptable in its current form. 

National Park Service: I support the proposed bicycling rule change

Thank you for accepting my comments concerning RIN 1024-AD72, the National Park Service rule change for bicycling.  I fully support the proposed rule [which would revoke the current blanket restriction of bicycles to paved roads in National Parks, and allow park managers to consider allowing bicycles on trails on a case by case basis].

Bicycling is a clean, environmentally friendly recreational activity.  It is similar to hiking in its overall impact, and is far lower than any motorized or pack animal use. I am firmly convinced that there are many trails in the national park system where bicycling would be compatible with the natural values and with other users.

As I'm sure you are aware, the vast majority of national park visitors never enjoy the parks away from their vehicles.  Allowing safe bicycling would broaden the parks' recreational offerings to both children and adults, and encourage many more to explore the parks away from their cars.

I visit national parks frequently.  In recent years I have hiked in Badlands, Olympic, North Cascades, Joshua Tree and Yosemite, as well as many lower profile areas such as Mojave National Preserve, Newberry and Ebey's Landing.  I have mountain biked at Mount Saint Helens National Monument, and consider it a prime example of what should be possible in national parks.

I have bicycled around Crater Lake a number of times, but limit myself to once per year (and only on a weekday) because the road is so dangerous.  It has always seemed odd to me that in most national parks bicycles are permitted only on narrow, crowded roads shared with inattentive motorists and hulking RVs.

Earlier this year I visited Death Valley, exploring spectacular Echo Canyon and Chloride City by bike, even spending a night "bikepacking" on dirt roads away from the car.  Surely allowing quiet, clean bicycles on some of the old roads, ways and trails closed to motor vehicles could be compatible with the values of this magnificent and rugged park.

Mountain biking will help bring additional tourist dollars to communities near parks at a time when public lands visitation is declining.  Mountain bikers also volunteer prolifically, and can be counted on to show up to help build environmentally sound, sustainable trails.

Thank you for considering my comment.  Bicycling is a wonderful way to explore our national parks and I hope the proposed rule change will be implemented.

PUBLISHED: Send in the plows

Isn't it slick?

Don't you love ruts?

Bouncing near airborne on ice chunks, getting stuck in mid-lane.

Send in the plows.

But where are the plows?

There ought to be plows.

Well, maybe ... next year.

Bailout filibuster was class warfare

I am no big fan of the Detroit automakers.  I initially opposed their bailout, and only grudgingly supported it when it was scaled back and got some teeth put into it.

But then Republican Senators from states with foreign auto plants killed it.

Suddenly I realized that this was another skirmish in the Republicans' continuing war on working people.  And, suddenly, I became ready to march in the streets in favor of the bailout.

It's over!

I can think of no more succinct way to summarize the Republicans' electoral defeat than to quote the late Gerald Ford: Our long national nightmare is over.

The real McCain speaks up

Just 15 minutes after the polls closed here on the west coast, John McCain gave the most gracious and eloquent concession speech I have ever heard in my life.

It was the real John McCain who gave that speech.  I like that guy.  I've missed him.  I still might not have voted for him, but the McCain who spoke tonight would have made a much better president than the McCain who's been campaigning all year.

Economist made the right choice

Sir -

I have been hoping that the Economist would not endorse John McCain. Self-admittedly ignorant of economics, he would slash federal spending when consumer spending has already collapsed. He would also retain George Bush's lopsided tax cuts, robbing us of the fiscal breathing room needed to maintain stimulus now and to lay the foundation for a stronger economy after the recovery. If, as many fear, we are falling into an abyss with respect to liquidity and demand, these plans would be disastrous.

Barack Obama has proposed more sensible policies than Mr. McCain on economics and across the board. I am delighted that you have endorsed Mr. Obama, and that you have done so "wholeheartedly."

McCain would bring economic doom

Manufacturing activity collapsed last month. Interest rates fell almost to zero. Deflation started to set in. These are signs of an impending depression, where monetary policy fails and spending is the only tool left in the toolbox.

John McCain's plan? Slash government spending when it's the only thing still propping up the economy. Keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, perpetually robbing us of the fiscal balance needed to enable rebuilding.

Barack Obama's smart plans would limit the damage, while McCain and his ignorant Hoover-Bush policies would bring economic doom. Never have we had a clearer choice in front of us.

Why I voted for Obama over McCain

You know, I used to like John McCain. When he was a maverick.

Recently he has abandoned principled positions on two of the greatest issues facing our nation. He now wants to keep the Bush tax cuts that spread wealth upward and plunged us into deep deficits. He also courts the religious right leaders he once properly called "agents of intolerance."

While McCain has demonstrated frequently erratic and undignified behavior, Barack Obama has remained steadfastly calm and Presidential through brutal attacks and serious national crises. Every time I look into the biggest "character" charges against him, what appear from a distance as mountains turn out to be molehills and mirages.

Obama has taken more sensible positions than McCain, understands the economy better, and appears to have the temperament and intelligence needed to lead us through the troubled waters ahead. That is exactly what I am looking for in a President.

Economist sharing mismatched names with Republicans?

Sir -

Last weekend, I found two copies of the Economist in my mailbox: one addressed to me, and one to a "Dan Wrislit." Around the same time I also received a fundraising letter from John McCain intended for the fictitious "Dan Wrislit."

What disturbs me most about this is not that your respectable paper might be sharing its subscriber lists with the Republicans, but that you might be doing so through one of the Republican-friendly database companies who have improperly purged voter registrations in several states by mismatching voters' names.

Willamette Week shows integrity, Alley doesn't

I was just about to vote for Allen Alley as [Oregon state] Treasurer when his on-air lie about supporting John McCain called his character into question. This prompted me to do further research and to conclude that Ben Westlund was better qualified for the job. Thank you, Willamette Week, for showing the integrity to report Alley's breach even while it undermined your own endorsement.

Palin shows typical Republican hypocrisy

While Sarah Palin enthusiastically bashes Barack Obama for wanting to "spread the wealth around", it is now revealed that just this summer Palin herself said, "collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

Well, under Palin's definition I guess that means she and Obama are both "socialists". Which makes her something else that Obama is not: a hypocrite.

Keep gas prices down by conserving

The Tribune reports that gas prices are headed below $3 per gallon. This is great, but let's not get complacent. In the short term, OPEC is already talking about cutting production to drive prices back up. In the long term, we'll be out of this new recession in a couple of years and global demand will put price pressure on energy again.

We can't drill our way out of this mess. Conservation is the only real answer, and we can all help. Drive less. Slow down and don't race up to red lights. Try taking transit once a week, and catch up on your reading while you're at it. Ride a bike once in a while. Get a home energy audit, and use a programmable thermostat.

It's not oil companies that set the price of gas. It's the demands of consumers.

Wealth is already being redistributed - to the wealthy

John McCain and Sarah Palin are still at it, harping on Barack Obama for wanting to "spread the wealth around."

The fact is that money earned from actual work is taxed at far higher rates than money made from interest, capital gains, inheritances or corporate dividends. The higher tax rates paid by people who make their living by working are the main reason why the rich keep getting richer, while the rest of us struggle to keep up.

Our current tax structure is sickeningly unfair. Rolling back Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy will help level the playing field, and will return the deficit to where it was before he took office.

ACORN flap distracts from real election shenanigans

As near as I can tell, only a small percentage of the voter registrations turned in by ACORN were fraudulent. Most of those were already flagged as suspect by ACORN, which is required by law to turn in all signatures collected, so I hardly see how this is a great burden upon elections officials or a threat to "the fabric of democracy" as Republicans like to put it.

No, what really scares the Republicans is that ACORN has signed up millions of legitimate new voters who are unlikely to vote for them. Given that ACORN disproportionately represents poor black people, this seems like a last-ditch appeal to latent racism.Worse still, these attacks are a distraction from Republicans' own attempts to suppress the vote. Indiscriminate purging of voter rolls and a systematic failure to properly staff and equip Democratic-leaning polling places have stolen the vote from millions in the last two elections, and the damage done by overtly partisan voting machine vendors simply cannot be measured.

These problems will be even worse this year, and the Republicans are simply trying to make enough noise to drown out this important news.

What's wrong with spreading the wealth?

Class warfare is nothing new. The rich have been winning for a few years now, as our tax system increasingly rewards investment over work. To quote a popular phrase from Wednesday's debate, what's wrong with "spreading the wealth around" a little?

Thanks to economic changes I make less money than I used to. When I made more back in the Clinton era I paid higher taxes, and that's exactly as it should be. Historically, progressive taxation corresponds with greater economic growth and lower taxes. Those who benefit the most from our capitalistic system, and are struggling less to feed and house their families, should pay more to help run it. It's fair, and it works.

John McCain originally opposed George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and now he supports keeping them in place. This flip-flop is one of the biggest reasons I cannot support him for President.

Don't be fooled! [Initial] Bailout plan is a scam

It was investors who speculatively drove up housing prices for years, forcing millions of homeowners to pay inflated prices simply to shelter their families. It was investors who later bailed, trapping millions in upside-down mortgages. It was bankers who failed to screen mortgage applicants properly, misled them about the terms in countless instances, and built a financial house of cards on top of them.

Now the American taxpayers are supposed to spend Trillions - with a T - to bail out the bankers and investors who got us into this mess, without even gaining us an equity stake in return? And while failing to protect the homeowners whose bad mortgages are at the core of the problem?

This bill, if passed, will be by far the biggest scam ever perpetrated upon the American people. It will leave the middle class enslaved to debt for decades, furthering the Republican's grand scheme to divert more and more tax dollars into their buddies' pockets and away from programs that actually help improve ordinary Americans' quality of life.

Bush is right that "the world is watching." They're watching to see just how gullible we are.