PUBLISHED: Dropping 'public option' exposes the scam

Link to published letter [8/21/09]

[actual published text in bold]

This liberal is glad President Barack Obama may drop the public option for health coverage "reform".

A public option would ultimately fail anyway, as it became a dumping ground for private insurers to ditch their higher-cost patients.

Obama's move exposes current attempts to provide universal coverage for the sham -- and scam -- that they are: a trillion dollar funnel of our tax dollars to expand the scope and profits of today's wasteful, inefficient, bureaucratic and capricious private insurers.

On health coverage, the federal government has a proven track record of being (literally) 10 times more efficient and easier for physicians to deal with than the private sector. Single payer is the only meaningful reform that won't bankrupt the country.

Health care "protests" appear coordinated

What is most curious to me about the latest turn in the health care debate is how town hall meetings seem to have been inundated by disruptive, unruly "protesters." Not just here and there, but all across this vast, diverse nation -- and almost simultaneously.

One might be led to think that someone with an interest in the outcome is coordinating all this.

230 mpg claim for GM Volt is not believable

GM's claim that their new Volt can get 230 mpg is incredible. By that, I mean not believable.

The EPA has always rated fuel economy for cars that plug into the grid based on the energy equivalent of the electricity they use. For example, the 2001 Toyota Toyota RAV4 EV was rated at 104 mpg.

GM says that in all-electric mode the Volt will go 100 miles on 25 kilowatt-hours. Under longstanding EPA rules, that amounts to only 140 mpg. And all-electric mode is the most efficient scenario possible for this car that can run on both grid power and gasoline. The only way GM could claim 230mpg is if they are only counting the gasoline used and not the electricity.

That makes the 230 mpg claim a lie, and GM should know better.

Ban all cellphones while driving, not just handhelds

Driving while phoning is dangerous, and a major reason why roadway death rates refuse to fall despite incredible advances in vehicle safety. But Oregon's new ban on the use of handheld cellphones while driving won't fix the problem.

It isn't the act of holding something in your hand that is dangerous; most people are perfectly capable of driving with one hand. It's the act of conversing with someone not present in the vehicle, and uninvolved with the surrounding conditions. Numerous studies have shown this, and even an idiot should be able able to deduce it.

What the legislature should do is ban all telephone use while driving, handheld and handsfree. Of course if they did that, the phone companies wouldn't rake in their expected millions as everyone needlessly upgrades to handsfree devices.

Immigration reform demands wage reform

Those who propose immigration reform tell us that Americans are "too lazy" to do menial work.  On the other end of the spectrum, those who would crack down and close the border claim illegal immigrants are stealing "their" jobs.

Both "sides" of this debate are wrong.

Illegal immigration first became a serious problem in the 1980s as the real minimum wage fell precipitously in the face of inflation.  It's not that Americans too lazy to do these jobs.  It's that we can't live on them anymore.

This is an economic problem, and wages are the cause.  If we raised the minimum wage back to historic levels, Americans would fill the entry-level jobs again, and the illegals would stop coming.

Make the Marion berry official

[A recent attempt to designate an official state berry has caused a political brouhaha.]

Oregon's blackcaps, straws, rasps and blues
are all delicious berries most fine,

And let us not forget the grapes
that make all that wonderful wine.

But remember, in choosing
our official fruit of the vine,

That it is the sweet Marion berry
to which we can truly say "you are mine."

PUBLISHED: "Not With Sam" hypocrisy

Link to published letter

I thought the "not with Sam" crowd wanted the mayor to resign so the city could get on with its business. So what do they think they are accomplishing by barging in and taking over meetings where the city is trying to conduct its business?

Oregonian stymied in its attempt to steal Portland's vote

The Oregonian's contemptuous dismissal of Sam Adams' supporters (in today's editorial) as being driven either by ulterior motives or desperation was patently offensive.

Further, just one day after printing a lurid account of a men's room kiss you state that not only is sex between consenting adults not a "fit topic for public discussion," but that Adams probably lied because that is "not a universal opinion."

That's a hair's breadth from acknowledging that what Adams did wrong was to mislead the bigots of the world about something that is clearly none of their business.  That is perhaps more commendable than condemnable.

But rather than admit this, the Oregonian just left this loose end of all its twisted logic dangling so as not to contradict its premature call for resignation last week.

You do not get to decide who is mayor of Portland, and neither do your statewide and suburban readers.  We, the voters of the city, will decide.  You thought that by shaming Adams, you could get him to resign and take away our franchise.  Sam stood up and proved you wrong, and at least for that I can be proud of him.

There's at least one thing about this scandal that is more self-serving than Sam Adams' past behavior, and that is the Oregonian's current behavior.

Mayor Adams: Don't back down!

Mayor Adams, we think the media have gone too far in calling for your resignation, and we're absolutely disgusted at the thinly (if at all) veiled hatred that has passed for "public opinion" on the Internet this week.  We were thrilled to attend tonight's rally in your support.

You know whether you had sex with a minor or traded favors with Amy J. Ruiz, and we don't.  Despite what has happened, we trust you to look within yourself and do the right thing.  If the allegations are true, you cannot win and you simply must resign.

But if the allegations are false, you are just as strongly compelled to stand tall and strike a blow against the hatred that festers within our community!  We believe that many of the attacks against you come from outside, and that you still have strong support from real Portland citizens.

The beast that has backed you into this corner may be intimidating, but ultimately it is weak and cowardly.  If you aren't guilty of any crime and you stand up to this monster, you WILL defeat it!  You will also expose this small-minded hate for what it is, our community will be better off as a result, and we will teach the rest of the world a powerful lesson about right and wrong.  You're the most capable and energetic mayor we've had in a long time, we've got serious challenges in front of us and we need you back at work.  Don't let the bastards win!

City Councillors: Support Sam Adams!

THANK YOU for standing behind Sam Adams!  We attended this evening's rally to support him.  We would not want him to resign unless it is revealed that he had sex with a minor or traded favors with Amy J. Ruiz, which so far we do NOT know to be the case.  Sam is the most capable and energetic mayor we've had in a long time, and we need him back on the job!

We suspect that most of the alleged public "outraged" being expressed online is coming from those who live outside the city, and from a handful of loudmouthed bigots who should be ignored anyway.  We believe that Sam has the support of the majority of real Portland voters, and that if he faces down the hatred he will prevail.  Thanks for your support!

Standing by my Sam

I'm all for investigation of whether Mayor Adams had sex with someone under 18, and whether there was a quid pro quo in hiring Amy J. Ruiz.  I suppose Willamette Week is to be commended for its investigation.  But unless and until either charge turns out to be true, there is no reason for him to resign.  Sam is highly capable, qualified and (until this week) motivated, and we've got extremely important work for him to do.

The "public" reaction -- especially what's been posted to online comment sites traditionally dominated by conservative loudmouths -- is a chilling and disturbing reminder of the bigotry that still thrives in our community.  Much of the hate I've read so far is sufficiently laced with anti-gay rhetoric to reveal it for what it is.

And much of this so-called "outrage" against Adams comes from suburbanites whose opinion is irrelevant to whether Adams stays in office.  I'm convinced that when the smoke clears, we'll find he still has strong support from actual Portland voters. 

Stand by your Sam

So far we know Sam Adams had sex with another consenting adult.  And he lied about it to the media. Neither act is a crime.

If it turns out Adams' partner was under 18 when they first had sex, or that there was a quid pro quo in Adams' hiring of Amy Ruiz, I will be the first to call for his resignation -- and for criminal charges against him.

But so far we do not know those things to be true.  Meanwhile, we've got an ambitious, capable, and (until this week) highly motivated mayor in office.  The events of this week are a ridiculous distraction from the city's important work, and a disturbing reminder of the bigotry that still thrives in our community.  At least for now, this Portland citizen stands by his Sam.

Mayor Sam Adams: Hang in there!

We know there's been a lot of hate directed your way this week, but we just wanted you to know you have a lot of support out there in the community.

A lot of the virulent hate has come from non-Portlanders, and it's sufficiently laced with anti-gay rhetoric to reveal the bigotry that it represents.

We plan to attend tomorrow's rally in your support.  Please DO NOT RESIGN!  We hired you to do an extremely important job, we think you're the right guy to do it, and we still need you to do it!  Don't let the haters get you down.  We're convinced that when the smoke clears, you'll find you still have strong support from the actual voters of Portland.

Attached is the sign I have posted in my car's rear window.

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.