Sept. 19, 2007
Measure 37 was unnecessary to begin with
   Impressed by the Graphic’s editorial, “At least consider Measure 49,” I encourage the same. Measure 49 is a no-nonsense fix of the mess of Measure 37.
   Having reviewed every approved Measure 37 claim in Yamhill County, the more I look the uglier it gets. So in no particular order, let me count the ways:
   — Measure 37 is never-ending. With no cap, current claims can and will be amended, while corporate claims will likely go on for decades.
   — Measure 37 boundlessly rewards some at the expense of the rest. Those claiming their rights were ignored are now ignoring the rights of their neighbors. Recent buyers paid a premium to longtime owners — in some cases, the same landowners now seeking compensation. I’ve yet to meet a longtime owner incapable of making a handsome profit by selling their intact property tomorrow.
   — Measure 37 claims lack common sense planning. Instead of an orderly division and reasoned expansion, Measure 37 locates the equivalent of small towns within our most protected and productive areas. And though few urban dwellers realize it, their property taxes will subsidize roads, fire protection and the additional deputies and schools necessary to serve these secluded subdivisions.
   — Measure 37 was unnecessary to begin with. Few longtime landowners were demanding compensation before the opportunity of Measure 37 appeared. For more than three decades every farm, ranch and timber owner in Oregon has enjoyed reduced property taxes, compensating them for their inability to subdivide.  And who’s paid those extra taxes? You have!
   — The biggest winners with Measure 37 are not even people — they’re corporations. Sold to us as a method of allowing an elderly owner to subdivide for a house or two, Measure 37 allows timber companies, orchard consortiums and commercial ranching operations the right to remove thousands of acres from production as they liquidate their assets. Toss in absentee landowners (many out of state) and corporate-like family trusts and you’ll find the most abusive demands of all.
   — Recklessly drafted by sprawl promoting attorneys, Measure 37’s unclear open-ended wording has spawned more than 400 court cases across the state. Written as a one-sided wish list for their client’s, this measure has done little to aid the ordinary citizen. Left alone it’s an attorney’s dream and an Oregon nightmare.
   Heard enough? Me too. So let’s consider the bipartisan fix of Measure 49. Appearing on your November ballot, Measure 49 will reign in the greed and clarify the law. It will instantly grant approved Measure 37 (human) applicants three homes and transferability, the guaranteed right to pass those homes on to family or buyers.
   Measure 49 takes into consideration common sense aspects such as the availability of water and the loss of agricultural productivity. Beyond that, owners may build up to 10 homes if they can document a true financial loss, curbing the outrageous Measure 37 monetary claims.
  Finally, Measure 49 will not allow massive subdivisions, strip malls, airports, condominiums, dumps, mines or assorted commercial schemes on irreplaceable farm and forest lands. In short, Measure 49 will give us what Measure 37 promised — without giving away the store.
  After considering M-49, I hope it earns a yes.
   Viron Fessler is a Gaston resident

Sept. 15, 2007
Let welfare recipients, not illegals, do the work
   For months now I have read several opinion letters regarding the allowance of illegal immigrants to work in the agricultural sector.
   I hear farmers complaining about having to potentially pay an increased wage to folks who aren’t willing or decent at the tasks required, and how it is unfair for them to get fined for hiring an illegal immigrant with a fake Social Security number. Then I hear folks talk about how much their produce will increase in price, so we should be more tolerable of illegal immigrants working in the United States. The list of reasons/excuses just continues as the days grow longer.
   My fellow Americans, please wake up! There is a simple, common sense solution to this whole problem: combine much-needed welfare reform to gain cheap farm labor.
  Based on simple supply and demand principles, people receiving welfare need a job to support their families and farmers need workers to complete farm work. I am sure there a ton of reasons people can think of to not support this, but I say figure it out and make it happen.
   First thing some people might say is, “Where am I supposed to take my children while I work on the farm?” or “How can I get to work?”
   Honestly, these are really excuses to get out of work, but fine, solve these problems. Place a pre-fabricated building on the job site, just like at a construction site, and bring the children to work. The welfare office can supply a teacher or two who can educate the children while their parents work. Transportation is easy. Take a bus, car pool or develop a program to overcome this pesky problem.
   So let’s break down the numbers. A welfare recipient gets paid minimum wage to complete agricultural tasks and gets off welfare. The farm owner gets the work done, pays a fair wage to a legal source of labor and sells product at a slightly higher price point.
   Best of all, if we can keep the government from lining their pockets, the remainder of the tax money from the welfare pool can be returned to the taxpayers or used for completion of positive change in the United States (support a school, educate a child, etc.)
   Bottom line is illegal is illegal. Anyone trying to do it the right way, legally, I have no quarrel with that. Welfare programs are in desperate need of an audit and need to be more stringent with their program recipients.
   I have no problems with a person or persons working two jobs to take care of his/her family, and receive food stamps. I have a real problem with someone receiving assistance because they are lazy or think they are owed something. There are a lot of hard working folks busting their butts in this country just to give their dollars away to someone who doesn’t want to work for their existence. Talk about unfair.
   Kevin Beattie is a Newberg resident

Sept. 8, 2007
What did the voters intend when passing Measure 37?
   I don’t like to be disagreed with. I don’t like disagreements period. I wish everyone could see things my way. But, alas, that’s not realistic when discussing such controversial issues as abortion, the death penalty, taxes and appropriations, religion, the wars we’re involved in around the world and a whole host of issues where more than one defensible position or interpretation can exist.
   Take the upcoming battle on Measure 49. We’re rehashing, essentially, the same debate we all had surrounding Measure 37. But, having lost once already on the merits, it appears some are preparing a hostile offensive where their assessment of a position boils down to claims of “hyperbole,” rather than openly discussing each side’s claims based on the merits and validity of the arguments themselves.
   Seems rather boorish behavior, a duck and divert tactic one losing a debate might attempt. I picture two fellows debating at opposing podiums, one fellow throwing out his best bullet points, while the other guy retorts with simple “Bull manure!” The audience clearly understands the two gentlemen are in conflict, but the one fellow retorting with simple “Bull manure” is doing no one any good in understanding the validity of either position.
   We know he seems to think Participant One is full of it, but we aren’t privy to the “why” of Participant Two’s skepticism.
   The latest debate, the revamping of M-37 via M-49 begins with one simple question: What did we intend as supporters of land use reform and property rights in Oregon? We each have to ask ourselves that simple question.
   If you supported M-37, was it simply to allow a property owner to build a house or two on his or her property? Or was it something more? Because if you only intended for a property owner to be able to build a house or two on the property he owns, and little more, then this revision (M-49) might truly be a law which represents your values much better than the original (M-37).
   But I never supported M-37 only to allow a guy to build a house or two. I supported M-37 because, fundamentally, I believe private property rights are a fundamental bedrock principle of capitalism and a free society.
   Some might like to build a house; some might like to build a neighborhood. I guess I see the whole debate as a reflection of a larger question: Where does the line lie between the rights of the individual and the welfare of the many? And, if we are asking that question, we must decide how broadly we are willing to define “welfare.” Because the wider we define the welfare of the many, the narrower becomes the rights of the individual. And there are broad implications in the definition we choose to the route our nation takes in the generations to come.
   Are we short on food and so must protect the farms to the benefit of the many, with the sacrifice of the individual? No. Are we short of beautiful vistas and recreational opportunities, even though we all jointly own 55 percent of Oregon’s lands already? No. Are arborvitaes so expensive that nurseries must be protected at the expense of the individual, so that we may continue to landscape our yards? No.
   Just which special interest group has sold you their hyperbole? I represent none, I represent the individual. Well, maybe I speak incidentally for the homebuyer, who might one day afford the resulting depreciation of a new home, were land values to decrease as availability of buildable lands increased. If interested in that lineage, look up Randy O’Toole.
   Brett Lieuallen is a former Dundee resident living in Tigard

Sept. 8, 2007
Diversity would be a good thing for our society

(Editor’s note: This letter is in reference to an Ayn Rand Institute column on multicultural education that appeared in the Aug. 25 edition of The Newberg Graphic).

   The Ayn Ryan Institute is not my favorite source of information and the junior fellow’s disgust with multicultural education was particularly misleading and offensive.
   Following the probable outcome of his rant suggests an educational system which would likely produce an adult who thinks himself superior to all others and one arrogant in his determination to impose his beliefs and thoughts upon others.
   Perhaps he is an example of what he preaches.
   Education itself is an evolving enlightenment; at first an opportunity to view the best of mankind’s efforts and to understand history as our opportunity to learn from the past instead of reliving past mistakes.
   Only after the basics is it time to teach critical thinking, and analysis, the time to become aware of and to consider the human cruelty, greed and hatred which exists in every culture. How children deal with the dark side of life is as much a parental responsibility as it is the school’s.
    The fellow’s proof of our country’s superiority was that it arose from the European Age of Enlightenment. What he forgot to mention was that the Enlightenment was preceded by the Dark Ages in Europe.
   After the collapse of the Roman Empire and the departure of their legions from the continent, the European world was cut off from the glory of books and the cross fertilization of ideas. Literacy was limited to the scribes of the church for about 600 years. I propose that it was this very insolation which contributed to the stagnation of creative thought and ideas during that time.
   The Enlightenment began with the Crusades and conflicts which brought Europeans in touch with other cultures: the mathematics and medical sciences of the Moors in Spain, the Arabic and Latin translations of the Greek philosophers, the legal system of Hammurabi, the navigational equipment of the Arabs, the creative arts of the ancient civilizations.
   It was diversity and exposure to different ways of doing things which stimulated the great minds of the enlightenment. Not to mention the magnificence of other languages and the literature within them (Spanish for example with Cervantes’s “Don Quixote” or the saga of “El Cid.”)
   If we do not open our children to diversity, we will be left behind. Our children will never ask the questions which lead to good judgement and reasoned choices. They will not realize the value of knowing that there are and have always been many different solutions to people problems, to societal problems, to political problems. We can do this without teaching the arrogance, superiority and “better than thou” attitudes which led us, perhaps, into the never ending war in the Middle East.
  If we are not open to diversity, past and present, we will be left in the dark ... for ages.
   Marni Haley is a Yamhill County resident living near Sherwood

Sept. 5, 2007
President must address veterans’ issues
   On Aug. 22, President Bush addressed the largest gathering of veterans in the country — the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Kansas City. Instead of taking that opportunity to offer leadership on the urgent issues facing veterans today, the president instead proffered a history lesson — he actually compared Iraq to Vietnam.
   Although this was an ideal opportunity for the president to show some real leadership on the crisis facing veterans’ healthcare, he failed to do so.
Plenty of people are making arguments about the historical accuracy of the president’s Iraq-Vietnam comparison. I am more angry by what Bush did not say.
   I have written here and spoken on TV before about the president not addressing veterans’ issues. His speech on the 22nd, however, represents a new low. After taking credit for increasing the veterans’ budget (even after seven years of underfunding the VA) the president was silent on the real issues facing our newest veterans, including naming a replacement for Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson who steps down in October, and implementing the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission to fix the nation’s military and veterans’ hospitals.
   What happened to all the outrage and promises after Walter Reed? The “Dole-Shalala” recommendations were not even mentioned in the president’s speech. The Dole-Shalala Commission’s Report sets out a clear, six-point action plan to be implemented (most by the president), but now that plan gathers dust on a shelf somewhere while the president and Congress are on vacation for the rest of the summer. In the meantime, veterans and their families suffer and wait.
   So, if we’re going to talk about the legacy of Vietnam, remember the (sadly) accurate scenes from the movie “Born on the Fourth of July,” the Ron Kovick story with Tom Cruise, showing in detail what neglect of the VA means to returning service personnel. We need to remember what happens when a nation fails to take care of its veterans as promised.
   We cannot abandon, again, another generation of vets to untreated mental health problems, substance abuse, unemployment, homelessness, broken families and suicide — all of which are at levels not seen since Vietnam, or worse. We/he should heed his very own words: President Bush said, “History reminds us that there are lessons applicable to our time. And we can learn something from history.”
   These are hollow words unless we learn that the men and women who have fought in Iraq, Afghanistan (and all wars) deserve to be provided for — they deserve what we promised in our contract with them for their brave service to the nation. Not just used as a backdrop for another political photo op.
   Bruce Freeman is a Newberg resident

Sept. 1, 2007
Single-payer healthcare will work for America
   Pondering better healthcare, I have come to the conclusion that a single-payer national healthcare plan such as Medicare will work for the greatest number of Americans.
   The market place competition has not worked and I do not see changes which would make it work. That was the goal of managed care and it failed miserably.  When I have a stroke, I do not want to rely on the cheapest healthcare which is likely to be what I can afford.
   What could make quality healthcare cheaper? That is a billion dollar question, to which there are other answers than those offered by the Cascade Policy Institute.
   A single-payer system will eliminate paper work and the cost of specialize billing professionalism which are required because of multiple insurance programs.
   With a single-payer we won’t fall into the trap of one thing being covered but not another, as has happened with the Medicare drug program.
   We will not have to pay for insurance advertising nor deal with the obfuscation of insurance double-talk and their unsolicited mailers.
  As in the Oregon Health Plan, rationing could bring down the cost. For example, basic healthcare and wellness care would be covered for all and what is not covered clearly stated in simplified language. Extraordinary care would then be covered by private insurance, i.e., transplants for those over 65.
   A governmental single-payer system could require that only one area hospital would provide specific extraordinary care and all emergency personnel would know in advance which hospitals are heart specialists and which are head trauma specialists. This cuts costs by cutting duplication of skills and equipment.
   This is the theory behind having only two trauma centers in Portland (OHSU and Emanuel). I would rather have a kidney transplant with a team that does 500 surgeries a year than five teams that do only 10.
   It is even possible that a life could have a fixed dollar value to cut down on lawsuits which drive up the cost of healthcare.
   With a single payer we will not be paying multiple, exorbitant executive salaries either for hospitals or insurance company executives.
   Finally, a governmental system could provide malpractice insurance, including coverage for pain, suffering, lifelong incapacitation and even punitive damages for all doctors regardless of their specialty, so that the few can continue to practice in high risk specialties, obstetrics for example. Of course, there would probably be a three strikes clause somewhere.
   A universal government health insurance system will share the risks across a larger group with more economical results than smaller insurance groups and at the same time eliminate the perceived problem of mandates.
   Yes, I know, the devil is in the details. I, for one in this debate, think public opinion of the voters will be heard more quickly by an elected representative than by an individual confronting a corporation
   Marni Haley is a Yamhill County resident living near Sherwood

Aug. 29, 2007
A few facts to illuminate the immigration debate
   I wish to respond to the immigration editorial published last week. Yes, Hispanics are here to stay, but doing nothing about a growing illegal problem is not the answer. To understand the problem more, one must obtain more education about the Hispanic population’s culture. Here are some facts:
   — There is rampant petty theft in Mexico as a general rule. Most families own a dog and keep it in their home to ward off strangers.
   — There is prejudice between the Indian nationals and the Spanish who conquered them, with a lot of distrust between each. There are more than 350 other languages spoken in Mexico and Spanish is a lot of folks’ second language. Some don’t speak it at all.
   — Their government is doing nothing in the way of helping them like Social Security or building roads. Most Hispanics dislike anything that has to do with their government. The government is not building water plants or helping the families own their own homes, etc. Yet they tax them and will take their land away from them if they want to without recompense.
   — Most Hispanic adults have only three to four years of formal schooling. Any more has to be paid for. The older children work in their homes watching out for their younger siblings while both parents work.
   — The average adult rises at 4:30 a.m. to get ready for work. They pack a small lunch with bottled water and walk to a bus stop to be picked up by a farmer for work. They work a 10- to 12-hour day in mostly hard labor jobs like picking berries. They return home at around 5:30 p.m. having earned only $7 to $10 for a day’s hard work. (This is a high average.)
   — Commodities in Mexico cost a lot more than they do here. Combine that with the decreased rate of pay and you have the average buying power of anything here times four. For instance: A gallon of milk here that costs approximately $2.50 would be the equivalent of $10 there. A new $10,000 dollar car would be $40,000 dollars. (It is unheard of to see anyone with a new car there!) And so forth.
   — People with disabilities or the elderly have to depend on their families or friends to care for them and house them. There is no government Medicare or health care plan.
   — Hispanics are a social people, not a task-oriented people like American’s are. They put a lot of emphasis on being friends and socializing. The elderly are honored and well thought of; they often run small stores or businesses.
   — Most Hispanics like living in their country and want their government to leave, or just leave them alone. They distrust anything government and with good reason; their government conquered them and is not working for them at all.
   Bearing these things in mind there is certainly a clashing of cultures going on in America over the Hispanic that are here. White Americans tend to look at these social, gentle people with a little bit of fear too just because of the differences. But because of their distrust of government it would be hard to get some of the illegal immigrants to understand that government rules and regulations are there to help them. It is my opinion that they will just immigrate illegally anyway.
   Also there are some really bad Hispanics out there getting themselves into trouble and they should be, I feel, policed out of America. They are giving a bad name to those Hispanics whose families have been here a long time and are really trying. Maybe the emphasis should be on getting the Hispanics who are getting into trouble with the law out of America instead.
   As far as working is concerned, though, we were the ones who let the laws be changed regarding child labor here on the West Coast. I am almost 50-years-old and I picked in the fields when I was 6-years-old up until my first “real” job when I was 15 washing dishes for a local restaurant. It didn’t hurt me to work three or four mornings a week until noon picking for a local farmer.
   Now a child has to be 13-years-old and have their parent out in the field actively picking too! (Who is going to leave their job just to do this with their teenager?) Younger children are not allowed to pick at all unless they are the farmer’s children. We are the ones who should change our laws.
   There were no Hispanics in the fields when I was a child. There was no large influx of Hispanic migrant workers here yet. I learned work ethics, built a savings, and was able to buy my first car with my earnings from berry picking. I was able to afford a few nice things that normal parents wouldn’t just go out and buy for a kid normally, also. And the work didn’t hurt me one bit.
   I think the issues here are a little deeper than just language barriers and illegal immigrants. I think we are seeking as a nation to deal with the cultural clash and impact of a group of people that are distrustful and almost wary of us. They have no wish to be Americans and are only here to work and send the money back home to benefit their families. They consider themselves Hispanics and will always be Hispanics. And there is no crime to that.
   In summary; my grandparents were immigrants. My father spoke two languages before he learned English as a first-grade student. I am not out to kick those who are here as immigrants in any way. We pushed to “Americanize” when we got here and we were legal immigrants. It is good to have the freedom we enjoy here. I have cousins in Europe who were behind the iron curtain that can attest to how good it was that we moved here when we did. We just have so much as Americans.
   I would invite any other culture to come here and “Americanize.” But there must be law and order. And there must be a willingness on the part of the immigrants to be a part of such a great nation as this one if they are going to be granted legal status. That is the heart of the matter as I see it.
   Anne Jones is a Newberg resident

Aug. 22, 2007
What the Oregon Legislature hath wrought
   “It really is the beginning of a progressive decade,” said House Speaker Jeff Merkley (D-Portland). “We’re just getting started.”
   When the Oregon Legislature adjourned in June the gavel fell on six months of total Democrat-control of Oregon state government, something Oregonians have not experienced for 16 years. The question for the electorate is whether they liked what they saw of their legislators and want more of the same. Only time will tell.
   In a matter of 172 days, state legislators advanced many policy proposals. What most of the legislation had in common was an overriding belief that more government intervention into our lives, our economy and our interactions with each other provides a net benefit in our overall quality of life. Besides increased agency budgets across the board, notable legal changes passed by the legislature included:
   — Mandatory child-seat laws expanded to require booster seats until children turn 8 or they are four feet nine inches tall.
   — Oregon universities and community colleges required to come up with plans to increase voter turnout among students.
   — All public schools required to install metal halide light bulbs that self-extinguish when broken.
   — Title and payday loans limited to interest rates of no more than 36 percent (consumer finance loans also face similar restrictions).
   — Schools must revamp their menus to align with nutritional guidelines.
   — “Domestic Partnership” status established for gay couples.
   — “Sexual orientation” added to the list of potential discrimination lawsuits.
   — Employer political speech restricted in communications with their employees.
   — The secret ballot eliminated in union elections.
   — The governor empowered to impose price controls during an emergency.
   — Estate taxes reduced for some farmers, fishermen and forest land owners.
   — Restrictions loosened on hunting cougars.
   — Tax credits given to biofuel farmers and producers.
   — PGE and Pacificorp customers mandated to get 25 percent of their power from “renewable” (mostly wind) sources by 2025.
   — Laws passed making it tougher to get an initiative on the ballot.
   — Oregon’s bottle bill expanded to require a deposit on water bottles.
   — A smoking ban phased in for all restaurants and bars.
   — Companies holding “going-out-of-business” sales must register with the state first.
   — Computer and television recycling made mandatory by 2010.
   — Part of the corporate tax rebate or “kicker” eliminated for the state’s largest companies.
   In addition, voters in the next few elections will be asked to: roll back property rights restored by Measure 37 in 2004; increase taxes on tobacco products and create a government-funded universal health care program for children in Oregon; and virtually eliminate the double-majority requirement for local/school tax measures.
   Although hundreds of tax and fee increases were proposed and quite a few received votes on the House and Senate floors, many were not able to overcome the three/fifths requirement for passage of tax increases. Fees and mandates, however, require only a simple majority to pass. About 70 fee increases passed this year and they, along with most of the mandates (renewable energy for instance), will result in price increases in one way or another.
   Remember that businesses do not pay taxes; they collect them from consumers by increasing their prices.
   With the exception of the cougar hunting bill and the estate tax reductions for some farmers, fisherman and forest land owners (which was a compromise to get the partial elimination of the corporate kicker), nothing the legislature did made Oregonians more free. In reality, we are a little less free every time our government meets.
   The water in our pot just got a few degrees warmer.
   Matt Wingard is director of the School Choice Project at Cascade Policy Institute

Aug. 18, 2007
Don’t be absurd; Fox News bereft of content, integrity
   A response is demanded to Renee Mehus’ rather rambling assertion in the Aug. 15 Newberg Graphic that “Fox News is the only reliable journalism around.” Not only is this statement an insult to journalism, but “Faux News” or “Fox Noise” or “Fake News,” among the many other descriptives (many unprintable) by which they have infamously become known, is a perfect example of how corporate takeovers of the Fourth Estate threaten, in a very real sense, our existence as the well-informed populace required by a free republic.
   With numbers slipping as the American public becomes increasingly aware that what Fox News says — versus what is truth and reality — is almost always at diametrically opposite poles. Since ratings rule, Fox News has become ever more desperate to bend and break journalistic rules of investigative research, unsentimental objectivity, verification and alternative/opposite perspectives with equal and credible time/space for each. Instead, they lean ever more toward the outlandish and ridiculous entertainment “values,” shunning those of journalism.
   Fox News is no more than the personal rightwing spin machine of Rupert Murdoch and, thus, a shill for Republicans and this administration. Not by any serious stretch of the imagination could the Fox outfit claim to be “journalists” — and it takes a vigorous imagination indeed to view O’Reilly and Hannity and Gibson and most of the others at Fox as being anything other than shills advancing the rightwing agenda.
   They make outrageous statements and air downright lies in order to infect the minds of Americans with the same grocery-market tabloid crap by which Murdoch’s other publications and media outlets are known. Expect to read or hear “O’Bama Conceived by Bigfoot and Alien Invaders!” Fox News “reporting” should be taken just as seriously.
   Even very right-of-center Joe Scarbourgh mocks the antics of Bill O’Reilly (you may also remember O’Reilly as the author of children’s books who recently settled a sexual harassment case out of court). Just today, MediaMatters stated Jon Stewart, of The Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” was perhaps the nation’s best journalist, even taking into consideration what Stewart does is satire — which, by definition, uses humor, irony and wit to both give voice to truth, while exposing people’s stupidity and vices.
   The same is true of “The Colbert Report” and Stephen Colbert whose show itself is a brilliant spoof of Bill O’Reilly and Fox News.
   Instead of viewing Fox as news, watch the latter two shows above or catch the few real broadcast journalists remaining, such as Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s “Countdown” or Bill Moyers’ weekly “Journal” on PBS. Here you will learn what “fair and balanced” really looks and sounds like when practiced with sincerity.
   Watch Fox News, if you must, but at your own peril, for Fox is dangerous “entertainment” (and I use the term loosely with apologies to all real entertainers) — but not by any twisting, turning, rubber-band machinations of mind and vocabulary could the deviousness of what happens on Fox be termed journalism.
   Bruce Freeman is a Newberg resident

Aug. 11, 2007
Voters were slipped a ‘Mickey Finn’ with M-37
   Fans of actor/comedian W.C. Fields will remember his movie, “The Bank Dick,” in which he played a bank guard given the job of chaperoning a government bank examiner who is auditing the bank’s records.
The bank’s condition is such that it is unlikely it will survive a careful examination.
   Fields takes the examiner to lunch at a local hangout, “The New/Old Lompoc House.” As he orders a drink at the bar, he slyly turns his head toward his guest and asks the bartender, “Has Mr. Michael Finn been in today?”
   This is code for the bartender to “slip a Mickey Finn” to the bank examiner. Named after a legendary Irish bartender who would administer knockout drops to disorderly customers, the Mickey Finn incapacitates the examiner for the rest of the day.
   The key to the successful administration of a Mickey Finn is, of course, that the victim is unaware and remains unaware of its application until it is too late. In “The Bank Dick” the Mickey Finn only had to last long enough to compromise the bank audit. The bank survives the audit and the movie ends on a happy note.
   In the case of the citizens of Oregon, we appear to be slowly emerging from the effects of a Mickey Finn, one which was not administered by a bartender, but by a most unlikely miscreant — a sweet little old widow who wanted to build a house on her property, or 10 houses or a 100-home development.
   What’s the difference? We were all asleep.
   The Mickey Finn worked. She got what she wanted and so did the people who promoted her as the “Poster Child for Oregon Land Reform.” But this one still has our heads spinning. It’s called Measure 37. Unlike that poor bank examiner, who shook off his “Mickey” with an afternoon nap, we’ve been carrying our hangover around for a couple of years.
  But we have an opportunity to end out own story on a happy note. Fortunately, there’s an antidote to our long hangover — one guaranteed to at least get our heads clear enough to be able to notice the next assault on our environment. That antidote is Measure 49.
   If you want to shake off that Mickey Finn, vote yes on Measure 49 this November.
   Hank Franzoni is a retired attorney and Dundee resident

Aug. 8, 2007
Why can’t illegal aliens play by the rules?
   My column is in response to the Graphic editorial of Aug. 1. It presented a positive spin on illegal aliens. This is my spin.
   Your editorial told us “some of those people use social services to get by, many do not.” Now, how would you know this to be true? How many have stolen identities and therefore fly happily under the radar. Del Monte, in Portland, had more than 73 percent of the aliens using fake identity when raided by ICE.
   “Some illegal immigrants run afoul of the law, many do not.” Presently, the estimate of illegal immigrants in our jails and prisons is near 30 percent. Considering how many illegals are living in the country, that’s a high number in proportion to the total.
  You then told us about jobs they do. Sure, they do lousy jobs for low pay (often under the table). Are you saying that is a good thing? Why not just advocate for the importation of slaves? How about the other jobs being filled by illegals? Those would include nearly all large building projects that you drive by. These are good jobs when paid properly. Many strong young U.S.citizens would love to have them. It’s not difficult to believe that some builders are using illegals because they pay them less.
   You explained to us that a fast track system must be put in place to grant illegal aliens citizenship. Huh? So we reward people for law breaking? A guest worker program: OK. Citizenship: absolutely not!
   Can we deport everybody? That has not been a practical solution since the first five million got through. A guest program would solve many problems. It would remove the under-the-table wages; it would reduce emergency room medical visits because the billing agents would have accurate addresses; they could come and go to their home country without having to sneak back in.
   This approach would stop the flow of people (including terrorists) across our borders because only “guest workers” would be able to work. The benefits are many to both citizens and those illegally here looking for work.
   Another benefit would be the reduction in overcrowding in our schools; families would stay home awaiting higher income realized because proper legal wages would be paid. Fewer social services would be required, so we all would save money.
   Finally, the editorial told us that illegal’s are only fulfilling a dream. By breaking our laws? Doing it the right way like so many have, including my Dad, is the way to fulfill your dream. My dream is to own a Ferrari, so if I steal one to “realize” my dream, is that OK?
   I will never understand why most immigrants must go through proper procedures to stay in America, but people sneaking across our borders are somehow exempt. What’s really going on here? It’s worth thinking about.
   Doborah Soderquist is a Newberg resident and former city council member

Aug. 4, 2007
Thatcher doing what constituents expect
   Kudos to state Rep. Kim Thatcher for towing the line, for doing exactly that which her Republican constituency would expect of her as a member of the minority party: Do everything legally possible to impede further spending in any shape or form.
   I’ll agree with The Newberg Graphic’s July 11 editorial this far: Republicans should indeed be willing to negotiate new taxes, but only when Democrats are willing to reduce taxes in other areas.
   I’m still wondering what the Democrats are planning to “give” on, after the half a billion dollar increase in teacher benefits this session. An increase, I might add, which didn’t buy a single book, or building, or reduce class sizes by even a single student. A half a billion dollars that didn’t even hire a single new teacher.
   A half a billion dollars that didn’t fill a single pot hole, or add a single new state police trooper. A half a billion dollars that didn’t bring one more needy Oregon child health care coverage, or provide a single new armor vest for Oregon soldiers in war zones in the Middle East.
   But then, I guess the Democrats did “give” after receiving. They “gave” back to the teachers unions, after “receiving” their election support.
   But, I digress. Actually, I meant to comment on one particular mention within the Graphic’s editorial, the cigarette tax increase. I don’t smoke, nor do 75 percent of Oregonians. But why in the world should we implement a specific tax on this minority population to pay for a benefit for everyone?
   That seems right and just to someone?
   Now, if within the cigarette tax increase we want to designate only smokers as beneficiaries of this tax, which only they pay to begin with, I’d reconsider the whole thing. Since smokers do indeed cost the heath care system more money over their lifetimes, it only seems fair they contribute an amount equal to those costs. But requiring smokers to pay for everyone’s s healthcare? How, in this world or the next, is that possibly fair and just?
   So, Mr. Graphic editorialist, we (myself and the Republicans I often align with) didn’t see this new tax increase on smokers as just another tax to be voted down at the expense of the poor children of Oregon. We saw that tax, as designed, as completely wrong on a moral level. It’s just not a fair or just tax at all.
   In short, we saw our impediments to that tax, as designed, as taking the moral high ground, actually protecting the minority from the viciousness of the majority, and not, as you and others would like to paint us, as one part reckless and one part selfish.
   Smokers should indeed pay for their additional healthcare costs. But they shouldn’t be asked to exclusively pay for yours (or your children’s).
   Hey Democrats? Don’t be such cowards, picking on that nearly powerless 25 percent minority. If children’s healthcare coverage matters to you (as it does to me) come up with a far tax that everyone pays, not smokers alone, to pay for a program that everyone will have equal access to. You’ll have my support.
   And Graphic editorialist? Shame on you for supporting, apparently, such unjust legislation. Even if the motives are pure, the end does not justify the means. Republicans are pompous? Kim Thatcher is pompous? Back at you.
   Bret Lieuallen is a Tigard resident who formerly resided in Dundee

Aug. 1, 2007
ODOT ignoring obvious route for the bypass
   The promise of a bypass for all our money spent. That was the statement.
   I have said it before and it bears repeating, the southern bypass route will never be built in my lifetime. Maybe that would be a good thing. Just think of all the homes that we would save and the people that would not be displaced. Most would never be able to buy a home again in Newberg with what they would be paid by the Oregon Department of Transportation.
   Remember, once you lay pavement it rarely comes back up. The bypass would take a very large portion of this community and create a solution for others more than it would benefit us. It was planned as one of the biggest egotistical items that the state could buy, maybe $600 million to go around Newberg and Dundee, and all it would do was move the traffic up the road so we could spend more to fix another spot.
   Why not look at this — as I have said all along and others have shared the same thoughts — from a regional standpoint. After all, the state has said all along that this highway is of statewide significance.
   Now, I know that Marion County and the farmers on the Marion County side would tar and feather me before they would allow such a thing over there (if you believe all the stories). But first off, who ran the computer model when the regional bypass was one of the options? Well, now it seems Marion County ran it for the state. And the first resolution by Marion County to stop the regional bypass from being built? Well that was by some former county commissioners when Newberg was in a legal battle over water rights and I believe there might have been some retaliation in another form.
   The one thing that no one has ever thought of doing, and I have said for years should be attempted, was try working with people. No one has really went over and said “Let’s do lunch” and talk to the affected land owners.
   We kind of know that some day they will build that road over there anyway. But we should “always” talk and say if its going to be there, what would you like? Give them guarantees of what would be done and that the land around would not turn into a shopping mall.
   They need to have governance over the land use and not us that surround it. And maybe we should elevate it like others have done to be able to farm it easier underneath. I know you would say “But the cost?” It would probably be way cheaper than the southern bypass route. I believe that this would allow us to pay for a purchase or long-term lease on a small parcel and also pay for the inconvenience of land disruption for construction.
   We could have made this work without shoving it down like a bad-tasting something. But we need to learn to work and talk it out and find out what it would take to make it right with all involved, and not make changes when we want after the fact.
   This could be a regional solution for all and if they want money for building a portion of it, simply make a toll bridge. This is not new technology and works a lot of places and is already regulated on how to do it.
   Think about it for a while: come out from Portland on I-205 and go down 12 miles and drive straight to the coast with maybe one stop. In a couple of years the farmers would not even notice it — similar to the St. Paul bridge extensions we now have.
   Roger Currier is a Newberg City Council member

July 28, 2007
Our system creates wishy-washy candidates
   One of the great myths of American politics is that voters like candidates who have the courage of their convictions. It is an incessant whine of the Man on the Street:
   “These guys, they don’t believe in anything,” he’ll say. “They gotta take a poll before they go to the bathroom. I wanna guy who has the guts to stand up for what he thinks is right.”
   Which sounds good, but it’s not what the American voter really wants. What he wants — what we all want — is a candidate who will stand up for what we believe.
   The only problem with that is that this is a big country and people believe a lot of different things, many of them contradictory. What’s a poor candidate to do?
   Well, he takes poll to find out what a majority wants, then tries to craft his message to satisfy those desires. That may not be the most noble approach in the world, but it’s the way you get elected. And if you’re not elected, what difference does it make what you believe in?
   I’m sure that Real Conservatives and Real Liberals are shocked — shocked — at this cynical attitude. Which is why so few Real Conservatives or Real Liberals are ever elected to anything.
   Push-me-pull-you political candidates are the inevitable result of our two-party system. When you only have two major political parties, each of them national in scope, both must appeal to a diverse, national constituency, which results in opposing candidates who cannot afford to be too far apart on the issues. (Indeed, one could argue that the Democrats lost power in the 1980s and 1990s because they came to focus on too narrow a segment of their political coalition. You could also make the case that Republicans are suffering the same fate right now).
   If voters really wanted a candidate who stood up for what he or she believed in, regardless of the popularity of the conviction, John McCain would be the runaway leader in the polls.
   As a presidential candidate, McCain is a virtual encyclopedia of unpopular issues. If it weren’t for his unpopular stances, he wouldn’t have any stance at all:
   — At a time when the war in Iraq is about as popular with voters as diphtheria, he is for staying the course.
   — He also favors a kinder, gentler immigration policy aimed at helping immigrants become U.S. citizens.  This at a time when a good share of the nation — and particularly his part of the nation — has expressed opposition to that approach bordering on the hysterical. It wants a punitive immigration policy; one festooned with fences and border guards and midnight roundups. (I have a theory about immigration: People who cut their own lawns are against letting more immigrants in. People who hire others to cut their lawns are in favor of looser immigration policies. I call it the Lawn Care Theory of Immigration).
   — He is perhaps the chief Washington advocate of campaign-finance reform, favoring restrictions on the ability of corporations and special interest groups to influence elections. Voters don’t care much about this one way or the other, but lobbyists, whose job it is to influence elections, hate it. Consequently, money for McCain’s campaign has pretty much dried up and his candidacy is about to disappear beneath the waves, leaving only an oil slick.
So much for the rewards of political courage in our electoral system.
   If you really want candidates with a clear, hard edge who believe as you do, you’d best seek out a multi-party, parliamentary system. Some countries have six or seven parties vying for attention all across the political spectrum. In a system like that, you should be able to find someone who speaks your language. In our system, probably not.
   In our system we get candidates with outward diversity — black, white, man, woman, Catholic, Protestant — but who underneath are pretty much the same person.
   So stop complaining about our wishy-washy candidates. They’re the kind we demand.
   Donald Kaul is a retired Washington, D.C., columnist for the Des Moines Register.

July 25, 2007
Minimum wage was higher when things were cheaper
   The federal minimum wage rose July 24 for the first time since 1997. This was the longest period between adjustments since the federal minimum wage was enacted in 1938.
   We’ll hear the usual outcry from hostile commentators. There will be warnings of impending economic disaster to the nation all because the minimum wage rose from $5.15 per hour to $5.85 this summer and to $7.25 in 2009.
   So how about a little context?
   In 1956, the flashy cartoon spokesman for the nation’s electricity generation industry, Reddy Kilowatt, reminded us regularly to consume more electricity because electricity is “penny cheap.”
   Gasoline sold for pennies per gallon too.
   And how much was the federal minimum wage in 1956? In today’s dollars, it would have amounted to a whopping $7.65 per hour.
   Of course energy costs have run amok since then. Reddy Kilowatt and his electricity consumption messages have gone the way of the dinosaur. Just four years ago, regular unleaded gasoline was selling for less than $2 per gallon. Today, it’s at $3 — more than a 50 percent increase in just four years.
   Meanwhile, the minimum wage stayed stuck in a time warp.
   Raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do and not just because it’s also the fair thing to do.
   Studies by the Fiscal Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research and education organization, show that in states that have a minimum wage that are higher than the federal minimum wage, the number of small businesses and the number of small business employees grew more and faster than other states.
   If higher minimum wages are good for small business, they’re good for America. Small business is the backbone of the American economy.
   Our 25 million small businesses make up 52 percent of the private sector work force. Small businesses create 75 percent of all new jobs and anchor our communities.
   Small business owners know firsthand that higher minimum wages mean more customer spending power. Higher minimum wages mean more productive workers and healthier local economies.
   So it’s no wonder that 62 percent of small business owners surveyed nationwide in 2006 by Small Business Majority supported an increase in the federal minimum wage.
   Small business owners from across the nation have signed a statement in support of higher minimum wages at www.businessforafairminimumwage.org. The statement says, “We cannot build a strong 21st century economy on a 1950s wage floor. We cannot build a strong 21st century economy when more and more hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet.”
   So who are you going to believe? Television and radio talking heads predicting doom and gloom because of a raise in the minimum wage, or those men and women from the small businesses responsible for most of the new jobs in this country? I’ll be going with my peers in the business world.
   Steve Fernlund is founder and president of Generation Three Logistics, a transportation logistics firm in Las Vegas

July 21, 2007
Maybe it’s time for a woman to be president
   Dave, trust me, you and I do not agree. (Dave Scott letter July 18). Cheney should be impeached (same goes for his hand-puppet, ‘Dubya’) on numerous counts.
  And what is it with you Republicans and the Clintons? Our house is burning down and all the Republicans can do is scream and point in the other direction: “Look! Bill Clinton just littered! After him!”
   My only guess is that Republicans cannot stand competency or real compassion — not feigned. Of all the treasonous, dishonest, greedy, immoral things the Cheney/Bush cabal has wrought upon our nation for seven agonizingly long years, the best the Republicans can ever do is continue to castigate Bill Clinton? And this despite Republican policies which have cost real lives, real treasure and sucked real hope from the middle class? We have a lapel button that reads: “Blame the Clintons/It’s Easier than Thinking.” How apt.
   Personally, I not only think the nation is ready (as the pundits put it) for a female chief executive, I am of the opinion we need a female chief executive. Unlike many rightwingers — especially the so-called religious right that espouses the Old Testament incantation that women should largely remain silent and walk two paces behind their man, deferring to his every whim — I submit that it may just be that the female of the species is the superior gender.
   Compared to Cheney/Bush, give me the wisdom and compassion of a Hillary Clinton any day who attempted to bring real health care reform to America in 1994 but was flung aside by Republicans. Or of a Golda Meir, who said, “A leader who does not hesitate before he sends his nation into battle is not fit to be a leader.”
   Pathologically patriarchal rightwing Republicans can only continue to chant their macho slogans meant to slap down superior ideas and ideals (witness not allowing a majority vote on an Iraq withdrawal time frame Wednesday), subduing better alternatives in favor of retaining and expanding power for the male-dominated establishment elite.
   Yet, these so-called macho rightwingers in Congress have not served in the military in even half the numbers of their Democratic counterparts.   Republicans, it seems, do not generally stick their necks out; they seem to prefer someone else do that in their stead (or someone else’s children).
   Then there is the gun thing. By and large, guns, for the rightwing, weirdly go beyond any affinity for the Second Amendment, approaching the symptoms of some real, deep-seated mania more in need of a shrink and a couch than a day of target practice at the shooting range.
   No Dave, we do not agree. If anything, the country needs a “woman’s touch”: humble, fair, yet firm and friendly — as opposed to rightwing humorless hubris and mean, maniacal machismo. At least this is what my wife tells me. Oh, and Dave, I agree with her.
   Bruce Freeman is a Newberg resident

July 18, 2007
Justice denied: The new Supreme Court
   This year’s Supreme Court session has only just ended, but the court’s sharp turn to the right is already having devastating consequences. President George W. Bush’s two nominees to the bench – John Roberts and Samuel Alito – are voting to overturn, undermine or eliminate hard-won rights and protections that millions of Americans rely on for justice.
   Just ask Lilly Ledbetter. A supervisor at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber plant in Gadsden, Ala., Ledbetter received an anonymous tip late in her 19-year career that, for years, she had been paid significantly less than her male coworkers. She sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects workers against discrimination on the basis of sex. Ledbetter proved her case. A federal jury awarded her back pay and punitive damages. The company appealed and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. On May 29, in a 5-4 ruling authored by Justice Alito, she lost. The court did not dispute the discrimination, but ruled that she should have filed her discrimination claim within 180 days of the time her supervisors first set her pay on a discriminatory basis.
   It’s a jaw-dropping injustice for Ledbetter, but it has far-reaching consequences for all of us.
   Before this case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – the federal agency charged with enforcing Title VII – said that a worker had 180 days to file a complaint after receiving any paycheck that was lower due to discrimination, regardless of when the discriminatory pay decision was made. But under the Court’s new restrictive ruling, a worker would have to file a complaint within 180 days of that discriminatory decision.
   That’s ludicrous. Employees are not mind readers, and corporations do not make a habit of disclosing the salaries they pay. Workers usually do not know how much their peers are paid, and discrimination may only become apparent over time. It often takes time even to suspect such a problem, and more time to find actual evidence. Meanwhile, few people can afford to put their jobs in jeopardy by making waves.
   Now, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling, workers like Lilly Ledbetter who find out “too late” that they have been discriminated against for years will have no legal recourse. And employers will reap the financial benefits of their illegal conduct.
   That’s not justice. And it’s clearly not what Congress intended when it passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Besides prohibiting sex discrimination in employment, Title VII also protects all Americans from workplace discrimination and harassment based on religion, race, color or national origin. The Supreme Court’s decision to interpret narrowly the 180-day deadline in the Ledbetter case will undermine these other essential protections as well.
   This case is just the latest evidence of the court’s dramatic rightward shift. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito have joined with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to create a four-vote, ultraconservative bloc. Justice Anthony Kennedy now often serves as the court’s tie-breaker – a role once played by the more moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. More often than not, in critical divided rulings, Kennedy joins with the right-wing justices.
   There’s more to come. As court watchers and civil rights advocates predicted when Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were confirmed, the new Supreme Court has shown itself willing to favor powerful government and business interests over the rights of individual Americans. Look for this disturbing trend to continue as the court addresses voting rights, workplace and product safety, privacy rights, environmental protection, and so on.
   Legislation has already been introduced in Congress that would correct the unjust ruling in Lilly Ledbetter’s case. Congress must act to pass this legislation immediately so that no one else who faces pay discrimination at work will be shortchanged.
   We cannot stand by as the court destroys vital protections and undermines our cherished rights and liberties. We must remain vigilant and push for judges throughout our legal system who value equality and fairness. We must fight for new legislation that stands up for individual Americans against powerful interests. The gains we have made as a nation over the past 70 years are at stake.
   Judith Schaeffer is the legal director for People for the American Way

July 14, 2007
For the first time in a long time the legislature accomplished its goals in a professional manner
   Contrary to President Bush’s stubbornly held ideological view, climate change is indeed underway. Witness, for example, the fresh breezes in recent weeks sweeping across our Oregon, emanating not from our coast but from Salem, and specifically from our capital. These winds bring purpose, accomplishment and hope for a better Oregon. In the past the faint whiffs were stagnate, charged with indecision, hopelessness, lacking in direction and putrefied with corruption.
   In stark contrast, the past legislative session was marked by a sense of orderliness, responsibility and true concern for all Oregonians. Can you imagine, citizens were welcomed to participate and even listen? Legislative public meetings were held when scheduled, and conducted cordially. Testifying citizens were not grilled and cross-examined.
   All of this was much unlike the days of Republican control when citizens often seemed tolerated at best, while lobbyists’ and ideological views prevailed.
   The recently terminated session saw long-overdue action on many key issues such as education, health care, consumer protection, labor, public safety, citizen rights, the creation of a rainy day fund, restructuring of corporate taxes, environment and land use, expansion of the Bottle Bill, and ethics of public officials. All this was achieved a day earlier than planned. In the past two or three legislative sessions, far less was accomplished in far greater time.
   But there is more to be done. Specifically, in the November general election we must vote solidly for Measure 49 and fix the unforeseen, disastrous ills of Measure 37, so deceptively marketed and fraudulently sold to voters.
   Let’s return fairness to all landowners and citizens while protecting our limited agricultural and forest resources.
   Henry Reeves is a Amity resident

July 11, 2007
Democrats failed to deliver in this legislature
   On June 28, the 74th legislative session adjourned, the first session in recent years that Democrats had control of all three branches of Oregon’s government.    This gave them a terrific opportunity to quickly implement the values of Oregonians across our state.
   Looking back at what they did with this chance to change Oregon for the better, I am disappointed and concerned for the direction this state is moving. There were missed opportunities for the legislature to work together in addressing important issues for the citizens of our state.
   State Sen. Larry George and I sponsored legislation to provide funds to move the bypass project forward, along with other significant transportation projects like the Highway 99W interchange near Sherwood.
State Rep. Linda Flores and I worked on a package of sensible immigration reform bills to address the problems of illegal immigration here in Oregon.
   Since public safety is the No. 1 responsibility of a government, I worked with state Rep. Berger and two House Democrats to sponsor bills that would have provided around-the-clock state police coverage without raising a nickel in new taxes or cutting existing programs. At the request of a constituent, Beth Jackson, we introduced a bill that would punish drug dealers for homicide when their “product” kills one of their “customers.”
   Many of us worked on consensus legislation to address the needs of low income mobile home park residents in need of help when the sale of their parks force them out of their homes. Constituents also demanded increased transparency of public proceedings at all levels of government. Manpower shortages for nurses, state police and certain teachers prompted my attempts to ease the effects of these shortages.
   I also drafted bills to make it easier to rehabilitate former meth houses as well as bills to ensure that money from the state of Oregon was no longer invested in the terrorist regime of Iran.
   As your state representative, I was the chief sponsor of legislation that would have affected every one of the above mentioned problems. Unfortunately, with Portland liberals in the driver’s seat, not one of these proposals was allowed to become law.
   It was an ambitious agenda, but I take my role as your state representative very seriously. Right now, America and Oregon are facing the most challenging times in history. To meet these challenges we will need to work together to solve problems.
   Looking back at the leadership provided during this legislative session, it seems the liberal majority was not serious about a bipartisan approach, but instead was focused primarily on their own narrow special interests.
   Their socialist-inspired agenda implements greater state control over more aspects of our individual freedoms than ever before, while adding a larger burden onto the backs of every taxpayer.
   Even with state government coffers at a record high, aggressive attempts were made to raise every tax and fee that could be raised; including a new payroll tax on your paycheck, fees to register your car, taxes on your car’s insurance, taxes on beer, taxes on gasoline, higher property taxes, taxes on smokers, and the list goes on and on. They even tried to say that if you didn’t use your gift card within their approved time limit, the money should be turned over to the state.
   Disappointingly, this session seemed more about paying back the special interest groups that got the power brokers into office than about the citizens who elected them to do the right thing. Their agenda gave public employee union activists unprecedented control over the reins of government, while trampling on the Oregon constitution and voter-approved initiatives to meet their criteria.
   Nevertheless, I am confident that I voted the values I was elected to represent. Many of you trusted me with this role, and I appreciate that trust. I will continue to try to earn your vote and not take it for granted. Together, we can continue the fight for what our community really cares about and make Oregon an even greater place to live and work.
   State Rep. Kim Thatcher represents District 25

July 7, 2007
‘Sicko’ the best science fiction film of the summer
   The wait is over. Michael Moore’s “Sicko” has hit the theaters. For 123 minutes, the film kowtows to the socialist healthcare of Europe, Cuba and Canada, while demonizing the American system.
   Moore calls it a documentary, but it’s so far removed from reality it really ought to be categorized as science fiction.
   For example, the film repeatedly attacks America’s “for-profit” health care, yet ignores the fact that 85 percent of United States hospitals are nonprofit and almost half of privately insured Americans have polices from nonprofit health insurers.
   At a recent press conference, Moore railed against the Martin Luther King Jr. Harbor Hospital in Los Angeles, where a patient died of a perforated bowel after lying on the emergency room floor for 45 minutes.
   Since 2004, the hospital has received more than a dozen state and federal safety citations. Hospital errors included leaving sick patients unattended, which resulted in death for three of them, giving patients the wrong medications, and using Taser stun guns to restrain psychiatric patients.
   This hospital is not private, however. It is owned by the county of Los Angeles. So much for reliable government care. Even the private insurers Moore criticizes are not free of government interference that raises the cost of their health policies. Most states force insurers to sell health policies laden with mandates that many individuals would not voluntarily purchase.
   In some states, mandated benefits have raised the cost of individual health insurance by 45 percent. In New Jersey, for example, it’s actually cheaper for a family of four to lease a Ferrari than buy health coverage. At $6,048 per year, the average individual healthcare premium is the highest in the country.
   Government solutions that create more government amount to nothing but expensive salt in the wound.  We should encourage insurers and all players in American health to be more competitive, not scrap them for big-government bureaucracy. Mr. Moore’s foolish preference for abolishing private insurance in favor of government-run, single-payer health care will not create universal care, only a government monopoly.
   “Sicko” also ignores the Canadian Supreme Court’s 2005 decision that government monopoly health care violates basic human rights. Mr. Zeliotis, the winning plaintiff in this case, needed hip surgery. When he tried to pay privately for his operation rather than wait in the government queue (which takes two to four years) the government stopped him. The denial of such a choice prolonged his pain and threatened his safety.
   Mr. Moore likes the single-payer system in Cuba, a one-party Communist dictatorship. Some 11 million Cubans attend run-down facilities, receive dated prescription drugs and are even required to bring their own sheets, food and soap to the hospital. Communist party bosses get better treatment, but when it came time for the great dictator Fidel Castro to go under the knife, he flew in a specialist from Spain.
   Government-run health care already presents problems right here at home. Medicaid was instituted in the 1960s for the poor, but it has grown far beyond its capacity, putting taxpayers under great strain. In order to keep costs down, Medicaid underpays physicians, who have increasingly stopped accepting Medicaid beneficiaries as a result. Government restrictions also make it challenging to get prescription drugs for Medicaid patients.
   Mr. Moore’s remedies fail as heath-care reform and don’t even amount to effective propaganda. His film should have featured a Canadian on a waiting list for treatment. He should have gone undercover to experience the real system that serves most Cubans. He should have followed a Medicaid patient’s struggle to get health care from the U.S. government.
   But that would have entailed filming an actual documentary, as opposed to a fluffy work of fiction.
   Diana Ernst is a public policy fellow in health care studies at the Pacific Research Institute

July 4, 2007
What should be the process when an annexation fails?
   Why did a clear majority of the voters vote down both northside annexations in the last election? On June 27 the Newberg City Council held a public work session to begin to answer not only that question, but the question of what the procedure should be when an annexation fails.
   I wholeheartedly agree.
   The first step in acquiring knowledge is looking at things the way they really are as opposed to simply what makes you feel good.
   Naturally there’s been the inevitable cry of voter ignorance. It frequently happens when you don’t get your own way in an election. Stating that the voters need to be properly educated about the issue closes the door on the chance that there’s such things as a truly opposite opinion or a difference in perspective. It’s the truth we’re looking for, right?
   Do we voters always vote with intelligence or make the right decisions? Of course not — neither does the council, the planning commission or the city staff. So now that we agree we’re all human, where do we go from here?
   In this particular election, the suggestion has also been made that the applicants were blind sighted by complacency in that every previous annexation vote we’ve had has passed. This could be unquestionably true — to some extent. But in this case, it’s just another form of justification. The applicants had to know that there was a serious campaign of opposition in action long before the ballots went out. If they had chosen not to recognize and respond to that, well, that’s their fault. But even that isn’t what happened.  In fact, almost the opposite.
   Two different slick (and expensive) mass mailings went out. The first became controversial because it was mailed from out of town and had no identification as to the responsible parties. That’s a common, and unfortunately legal election tactic in Oregon, but not a good idea with the citizens of Newberg. Two expensive mass mailings hardly support a charge of no action on the part of the proponents.
   Several individuals have mentioned that they didn’t see the harm in bringing an identical proposal back for a re-vote. There’s a lot of harm, actually. All political actions use up energy and political capital. From the applicant’s and the city’s perspective it should be noted that such an action would be viewed by the opponents as arrogance, and probably would bring even more opponents out of the woodwork just on general principles.
   Our neighbor McMinnville gives us a poster child for this kind of arrogance — it’ called Shadden Claims. I strongly suggest that both the city and the applicants study the history of that debacle. The city of Newberg cannot afford these kinds of ill feelings between itself and it’s citizens.
   And, just for fun, I’ll throw out that if the city deemed it wise to just simply put an unchanged proposal back out for another vote, I’ll tell them that I have no objection so long as the citizens can have a “do-over” every time they let an annexation pass. I didn’t think so.
   Eleven years ago Jim Morrison, the late Nadine Windsor and myself collected signatures and got the right to vote on annexations on the ballot. Despite a lot of money spent by outside development interests, you voted to guarantee that right. The law has worked just the way it should work. Maybe sometime in the future I can talk about why I think these particular annexations failed.
   Lon Wall is a Newberg resident and McMinnville business owner

June 30, 2007
Why is the city so bent on development?
   The mayor included a letter in our highly inflated (but that’s another story) water bills this month. The last 25 percent of the letter basically negated the vote of the residents of Newberg on the annexation measures.
   In reply, here are some of my own musings: Yes, Mr. Mayor, the issue of annexation is a referendum on growth. What else? I’ve done the math. When Jeff and I moved to Newberg 23 years ago, the population (I believe) was around 11,000.
   So, it has taken significantly longer that 20 years for the population of this city to double to its present number.
   I would speculate that the growth curve has been exponential rather than linear. At the mayor’s suggested rate of 3.5 percent, which is conservative at best considering the development plans already on the books, Newberg’s population will double to 40,000 in 20 years.
   The development proposed by Austin Industries alone will add hundreds of housing units over the next decade. Extrapolate that out another 20 years and we are at 80,000.
   Now, I may or may not be riding my trusty bike around town at the grand age of 91, but it makes me sad to think that this is what is in store for the Newberg that I know and love.
   I have some questions for the mayor and the city council: What makes you think the citizens of Newberg made a mistake in the last election? Why do you suppose that annexations are required to pass a vote by city residents? Why, specifically, does the city of Newberg need more commercial buildings?
   And lastly, in the interest of ethical fairness, do the opponents of the annexation measures get to have equal space in next month’s water bill?
   Susan Osborne is a Newberg resident

June 27, 2007
One vote short on needed education reform
   On May 11 supporters of House Bill 3010 succeeded in getting the House Education Committee to vote on the issue of giving low-income minority parents a choice in their children’s education. Using a procedural motion, we attempted to amend HB 3010 into a Senate bill being considered by the committee.
   HB 3010 would have given dissatisfied parents in certain parts of Portland the option of receiving grants to transfer their children out of low-performing schools and enroll them elsewhere, including private schools. It was co-sponsored by 27 legislators at the request of the School Choice Working Group of which our organization is a member.
   Both School Choice Working Group board member Esther Hinson and I testified on the amendment. We reminded committee members that dropout and reading failure rates continue at alarming levels within the poorest neighborhoods in north and northeast Portland. We gave each committee member a copy of our report on the Jefferson Cluster, “Leaving Most Children Behind: Thirty Years of Education Reform at Jefferson.” We also reminded them that the high school’s most recent principal did not last a full year and the district superintendent has decided to move on after less than three years. Both events were predicted by our report, released a year ago in April 2006.
   Esther Hinson is a former Portland Public School (PPS) teacher and currently helps students study for their GED at a local workforce center. She told the committee about the students she teaches who dropped out of their local public school and the need for them to have more choices.
   Esther also told the legislators how her divorce some years back had forced her to remove her daughter from a private school that was working for her child. Esther made it clear that finances alone forced her child to attend a school that was not a good fit. She pleaded with the committee members to support the modest pilot program created by the Freedom to Choose My School Grant program.
   Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland) talked about how hard his son-in-law and daughter have worked as teachers in the Portland Public School system. He never once addressed Esther’s concerns. He told us he considered HB 3010 an attack on PPS and when we offered to work with him on the bill, he replied: “I’d prefer you bury it.”
   Our amendment failed by a vote of 5-4. Reps. Jerry Krummel (R-Wilsonville), John Dallum (R-The Dalles), Gene Whisnant (R-Sunriver) and John Lim (R-Gresham) voted to support the pilot project. Rep. Dallum, a former public school district superintendent, supported our proposal saying: “After 30 years we could try almost anything and do better.”
   You can listen to the testimony and the reaction from Committee members here: /www.leg.state.or.us/listn/archive/archive.2007s/HED-200705111344.ram (at 00:41:31).
   While we fell one vote short of the necessary support to advance the Freedom to Choose My School Grant program, we have much to be proud of and to build on for the next legislative session.
   One-third of the legislature supported our bill in the first year that we attempted to lobby at the state capitol. A number of others expressed off-the-record interest in our attempts to bring more choices to low-income and minority parents in Portland. Few bills get this kind of support during their first legislative session.
   We had an extremely successful and emotional hearing on our bill on April 5. Committee members were clearly impressed with the testimony and the sincerity of our delegation. We have Rep. Betty Komp (D-Woodburn) to thank for scheduling that hearing in front of her committee.
   Personally, I was impressed by the level of support we got during our first attempt to pass HB 3010. We’ll be back.
   Matt Wingard is director of the School Choice Project at Cascade Policy Institute

June 23, 2007
Immigration reform simple: Enforce existing laws
   The United States Senate spoke loud and clear for the American people — this issue is too important to create new laws while ignoring existing laws.
   The American Legion, most Americans and the majority of legal immigrants oppose any measures that sanction or condone coming to this country in any manner other than as stipulated by existing law, whether disguised as “undocumented workers” or “guest-worker programs” or any other wordsmithing that is synonymous with amnesty.
   Americans understand the meaning of “immigration,” but the adjectives “legal” and “illegal” seem to be deliberately ignored by some.
   The American Legion’s official position is simple: enforcement, enforcement and enforcement.
   Assimilation into American society by legal immigrants is important to the nation’s welfare; however, the failure to properly enforce existing immigration laws divides the nation and manifests serious racial and cultural turmoil.
   The message to Capitol Hill is clear:
   — Oppose any great influx of legal immigrants and support immigration quotas set on a moderate and regulated scale in numbers that enable the immigrants to be readily absorbed into the culture and life stream of the United States.
   — Call for a strong and ceremonially rich citizenship naturalization process.
   — Remain steadfast in the belief that all legal immigrants seeking citizenship should possess a level of proficiency with the English language and an understanding of American history and government.
   — Advocate that a naturalization ceremony should be mandatory and conducted in the English language and in a U.S. District Court.
   — Support legislation that allows legal immigrants who are U.S. military veterans, with less than three years of active-duty service, to seek naturalization if they are injured or their injuries were aggravated while on active-duty with the U.S. armed forces, resulting in a discharge under honorable conditions.
   Before enacting new laws that legalize illegal conduct, try enforcing existing laws.
   Paul Morin is national commander
of the American Legion

June 20, 2007
Making work places drug free benefits everyone
   It sounded like labor chaos at the Willamette Valley-based Lumber Company.
   Employees were terminated after using company equipment for drug deals. Company property was being stolen and machinery as well as lumber products suffered damage. Vehicles and equipment went unchecked and the local newspaper even named a company employee as a drug dealer.
   And worker’s compensation costs nearly tripled.
   But after Forest Grove Lumber Company in McMinnville adopted and enforced a drug-free workplace policy, the company reduced costs for medical claims, workers compensation and emergency room visits. Since 2002, the company expanded from 85 employees to 140.
   This is an example of a growing Oregon trend of drug-free work sites, supported by an Oregon Department of Human Services initiative to dramatically increase the number by the end of 2008.
   So far, participating business organizations in 10 counties are helping employers protect their enterprises, employees and customers from workplace hazards resulting from alcohol abuse and illegal drug use. The employers are in Clackamas, Clatsop, Crook, Deschutes, Douglas, Jackson, Linn, Marion, Multnomah and Yamhill counties.
   The data tells a story: Although only 13 percent of Oregon businesses had comprehensive drug-free policies in 2006, the policies covered 31 percent of Oregon workers. This tells us larger companies are investing in drug-free work sites while most smaller companies are not.
   The DHS initiative, managed by Tualatin-based contractor Workdrugfree, helps small businesses overcome barriers such as perceived high cost with technical assistance including a model policy, training sessions, names of local resources and employer success stories.
   Largely unknown to the general public, many companies report having great difficulty in finding enough potential employees who can pass a pre-employment drug test. Drug use is such a big issue that some Oregon employers refuse to test their employees for fear of losing up to half their workforce.
   But the savings produced by a drug-free workforce are so great one workers compensation insurer, Liberty Northwest, now offers a 5 percent premium discount to employers enforcing drug-free work sites with a written policy, drug testing, education of employees, training of supervisors and a disciplinary process for those who test positive.
   In Crook and Marion counties, employers with drug-free policies work with firms that don’t. In every participating county, frequent workshops are held for employers. Several Portland lawyers assist employers without charge.
   The operator of an Eastern Oregon restaurant that went drug-free reported he recouped drug-testing costs in the first six months through increased productivity, higher-quality job applicants and an end to thefts from cars in his parking lot. After instituting a drug-free policy, a Southern Oregon company reported significantly fewer applicants failed drug tests.
   Across the state, more than 30 companies also have signed up to offer speakers to classes of high school juniors and seniors about how drug use limits job and career options.
   The initiative continues to sign up new business groups. Employer organizations interested in becoming pilot sites and high school teachers wanting to invite employers to speak to classes may call Workdrugfree’s Mimi Bushman at 503-293-0011, ext. 336. Workdrugfree is a program of Oregon Nurses Foundation.
   An officer of the McMinnville company is blunt in summing up the argument for drug-free work sites: “If you don’t have a sufficient deterrent,” he says, “drug users will own your company. Our drug-free policy enhanced our workplace productivity, which made a positive impact on our year-end profitability.”
    Bob Nikkel and Sid Smith: Nikkel is Oregon Department of Human Services assistant director of addictions and mental health; Smith is president of Forest Grove Lumber Co. in McMinnville

June 16, 2007
Isn't it about time we gave dads a chance?
   In the 19th century, before Father’s Day was celebrated or even thought about, men literally held ownership of wives and children. Women had to get their husband’s permission for a divorce and were not entitled to custody of children. In short, kids were the property of fathers.
   Few of us would want to go back to that model. But as the 20th century produced a more balanced legal equation, it also brought a cultural pendulum swing that went too far in the other direction, producing an equally harmful societal norm — mother ownership of children. In divorce, it often plays out when judges mindlessly award custody to the mother, even in cases where the father is more nurturing and engaged with his children.
For married parents, you can see it most clearly in the American workplace.
   Our workplaces are still structured around the idea that family responsibilities will be taken care of by someone other than the employee — he or she is expected to have unlimited hours to devote to the job. And unfortunately for fathers, it’s he that most often fulfills that expectation.
   There are a number of reasons why, but corporate culture has to be near the top of the list. Even in companies that have so-called “family friendly” policies like leave for teacher meetings, men aren’t expected to take advantage of them. And heaven help any man who takes the full 12 weeks unpaid leave allotted by law for the birth of a newborn, or wants to job-share or go part-time for a couple of years. What is he, some kind of wimp?
   Despite all the big talk that big corporations do about valuing families, the truth is that the family they value most is the 1950s “organization man” model. Men are expected to be on duty regardless of family circumstance — what Wellesley College professor Rosanna Hertz calls the “test of manhood” at work.
   The test disadvantages fathers, who fear being seen as a less serious employee for choosing to spend time with their kids over extra hours on the job. And the fears are well grounded. Women have been making that choice for years, and although it’s not seen as abnormal as it is for men, the consequences are well-documented.
For women who drop out of the work force even for a year, the penalty is a whopping 32 percent of total earnings for the next 15 years. It’s no wonder in an economy that demands every penny for families to survive, fathers aren’t anxious to jump on the Daddy track.
   Balancing work and family has traditionally been seen as a personal problem, one that does not concern the employer. But if corporate America wants to remain competitive, it needs to rethink what employees value, and stop giving lip service to families while giving rewards to those that pretend family doesn’t exist.
   More than two-thirds of fathers work more than 40 hours per week, a fourth work more than 50 hours — most because of expectations or requirements, not personal preference. If more men were allowed to take paternity leave (a mere 7 percent of workplaces offer it), or encouraged to use family leave (rarely taken by men, even though they’re entitled), it would start to become “normal,” meaning more acceptable.
   Fathers would not automatically be viewed as less dedicated or less promotable (as mothers are now) if everyone, including the boss, set the standard. This would not only give men some much-needed relief, it would level the playing field for women who now pay what some have dubbed the motherhood tax in the form of lower pay and fewer promotions at work.
   It’s been tried in a very few companies, with excellent results. Ernst & Young, the global consulting firm with 23,000 U.S. employees in 95 locations, added two weeks’ parental leave at full pay in 2002. In the first year, 46 percent of those taking the benefit were male.
How did they do it? “We advertised it, encouraged it and reminded men — from administrators to partners,” said a spokeswoman. In other words, the company validated its acceptability for fathers, and sent a message that careers and fatherhood are not mutually exclusive.
   Valuing fatherhood in the workplace would not only help families and make companies more competitive, it would help society. More time with parents equates to less time on the streets and fewer nights with only the TV as a dinner companion for kids. When that happens, Father’s Day will mean something other than a single day of recognition once a year.
 Margaret Burk is director of the Corporate Accounting Project for the National Council of Women's Organizations

Ruling allows foul language to continue on TV
   Are you ever amazed at what is broadcast on TV? Do you ever find yourself asking, “Did I really just hear what I thought I heard?” Apparently, for some New York judges, the answer would be no on both counts. They just ruled that profanity on TV is OK at any time. Their decision will ensure many more “Can they do that on TV?” moments in your living room.
   Imagine it’s a Sunday night at 7 o’clock. You sit down with your two children, hoping to have a nice, relaxing time together. As you scan the television channels looking for an entertaining program suitable for everyone, your 6-year-old daughter catches a glimpse of her favorite pop-princess star, Britney Spears, and begs you to return to the program, which happens to be a music awards show. You’re skeptical at first, but then think to yourself, “What harm could an awards show really do?”
   Just as you are pondering this and decide to allow your daughter to sing along with her idol, you distinctly hear one of the awards announcers utter a word that you would expect to hear on an episode of “The Sopranos.” It’s the four-letter “f-word” and it’s on Fox. Not HBO.    Not Showtime. But on a broadcast network, airing early in the evening.
   You quickly change the channel as your children stare at you, waiting for an explanation of why words inappropriate for them to use are fine for famous people to shout into your living room. You stare in disbelief at the TV screen, realizing that you can no longer trust the public airwaves to provide worthwhile, family-friendly viewing without obscenities and inappropriateness.
   Is this how it should be? Are we all expected to accept the constant exposure to unfiltered content on television without warning? That’s the implication of what the federal court in New York recently did, ruling that broadcasters can’t be penalized for expletives that are considered “impromptu.”
This decision came after much buzz surrounding the multiple occurrences of curse words spoken by celebrities that reached millions of viewers during the 2002, and then again on the 2003 Billboard Music Awards shows. Celebrities Cher and Nicole Richie took it upon themselves to insert certain expletives into their speeches, including the “f-word” and the “s-word.” These were easily preventable affronts to families everywhere.
   We thought that in March 2006 justice was served. The FCC ruled that so-called “fleeting” uses of expletives are indecent. Fox sued, along with NBC and CBS, for the right to curse on TV. That brings us to June 2007, when New York Circuit Court judges overturned the FCC’s decision.
The judges claimed that the FCC’s efforts on broadcast indecency were “arbitrary and capricious.” Arbitrary and capricious?  This sounds more like a description of the network broadcasters who, after the 2004 Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident, apologized left and right for the “accidental” nudity, then sued saying it wasn’t indecent. That case is still pending.
   So now, at any given time of the evening, and even throughout the day, the public must have ear plugs close by for the kids and their finger hovering over the ‘mute’ button. Meanwhile, society cedes yet more territory to the classless, who, if the networks are to be believed, can’t possibly be expected to come up with decent and respectful language when left without a script.
   We must stand up now and demand better from Hollywood.
   Stephanie Snow is the Portland chapter director for the Parents Television Council.

June 9, 2007
We are the collateral damage from the Iraq war
   War is so tragic that even its terms are tragic. “Friendly fire” and “collateral damage” are examples. We grieve the death of any one of our troops, but especially so when the person is killed mistakenly by our own forces.
   For example, we grieve the friendly-fire death of Pat Tillman, former National Football League star, in Afghanistan. We also grieve collateral damage when innocent men, women and children are killed as a secondary consequence of our attack on military targets. Nothing so illustrates the obscenity of war as does collateral damage.
   What if collateral damage included all secondary consequences of military action — not just the death of innocents? Could it inform us as our nation continues to debate the wisdom of the war, the effectiveness of our efforts, and our reasonable alternatives?
   Pat Tillman’s death was tragic enough, but honesty suffered collateral damage when the military sought to hide (kill) the truth that he was killed by friendly fire?
   It’s collateral damage when we see the demise of honor and civility in some of our fighting forces. Such qualities die when our soldiers admit that war’s hell has prompted them to rape and murder innocent citizens and/or refuse to condemn colleagues who do.
   Families are destroyed by war’s collateral damage. Soldiers’ pressures of repeated and extended deployment create separation and hardship from which some couples (and their children) never recover.
   In the wake of the tornado’s destruction of Greensburg, Kan., the governor lamented that state efforts to help that community were seriously hampered because so much of its National Guard (and equipment) was deployed in Iraq. The people of Greensburg are victims of Iraqi war collateral damage as well.
   With the war’s cost surpassing $500 billion, imagine what those dollars could have done to ease suffering and anxiety in our nation, like providing health care for all, or shoring up Social Security and Medicare. Imagine what could have been if our personal and dollar investment in Iraq had gone to change lives and alleviate suffering in developing nations.
Collateral damage again.
   Across the globe, our nation’s reputation as moral leader has been destroyed by our inept and arrogant handling of the Iraq war. Such collateral damage will have serious negative consequences for our children and grandchildren.
   No wonder a growing number of even Republican politicians and pundits are raising serious questions about the consequences of the Iraq war. Perhaps they’re telling us that this collateral damage is really the result of “friendly fire,” something our own leaders have inflicted on us.
   The Rev. William McCartney is a retired pastor and professor emeritus at the Methodist Theology School

June 6, 2007
NHS teams need youth sports to be successful
   For the past couple of years I have found myself wondering why it is I seem to see so many losses in the records of many of the Newberg High School sports teams.
   Yet, there are two programs that year after year are successful. Youth coaches need to see what is done by Jim McMaster and Tony Russo with the water polo and wrestling programs, respectively, and take notes.
   These coaches have their kids competing at a high level from the very beginning. This is the only way to have a competitive program at the high school level. High school coaches are there to refine and teach advance skills, not teach the basics. These skills need to be taught at a younger level.
   If athletes expect to compete with the Tualatins, Tigards and Southridges of the state, they need to start competing against them at an early age.
   Whatever sport you play, try to play at the highest level you can, which in most cases means playing travel ball.
   This is a choice, however, and you must be willing to deal with the consequences of not doing this prior to high school. These include not winning many games, not being recruited by college coaches, and having a lot of frustration throughout your four years at NHS.
   This frustration can also be felt by parents, who think that their child should be playing more or that the coach is not competent enough, which I can assure you all is definitely not the case at NHS.
   There are sacrifices that need to be made by parents, as well as the student athletes, to help put the athlete in the best place to have success. Whether this is putting family vacations on hold during the athletic season or driving their young athlete out of town for practices/games, these sacrifices are essential to the success at the higher, more elite level.
   I am aware that many parents simply do not have the time or resources to do this. There is also the case that parents just don’t want to. If you fall into either of these categories, you better not be the ones who whine, moan and complain when teams cannot compete with the typical powers of the Pacific Conference.
   To become competitive once again as we Tigers have been in past years, we must make the most of every resource we have at our disposal. Sign up for as many sports as you can while growing up. Go to a George Fox University sports camp. Go to GFU athletic events; support what these athletes do. Learn from what they have done to get to where they are.
   And please, please do not sit on your behind all summer while complaining about the past season. Go out there and do what you can to make next season the best you have ever had.
   Marissa Richards is a Newberg resident and 2005 NHS graduate

June 2, 2007
There’s no easy answers to planning for growth in east Newberg
City’s proposed agreement with McClures comes at a time when residents are awakening to increased developing in and adjacent to town

   The fact is that our property at the bottom of Rex Hill is bound to be developed. This is so even without Measure 37. One way or another it is just a matter of time.
   We are now surrounded by small tracts with homes, the largest producing winery in the state and Highway 99W. The city has been moving in our direction for years and is now on our doorstep. The property across the highway is proposed for inclusion in the urban growth boundary (UGB), which will extend beyond us to Corral Creek Road. With this in mind it is our plan to build the best and most beautiful neighborhood we can.
   The agreement for our property now before the Newberg City Council is straightforward: If the city gives us water now we will agree to annex into the city whenever the people of the city want us. This gives the city two things it does not now have: Some measure of control over the property now and the right to bring our property into the city when it wants. This will be entirely up to the voters.
   Our neighbors are going to benefit. We are going to build the highest quality neighborhood of 36 homes on one-acre parcels that we can. This community has been designed by one of Oregon’s most respected landscape architects, Walker Macy. Their plan for the property includes 13 acres of native landscaping protecting the wildlife corridors. It also includes pathways and bike trails throughout connecting the neighborhood, as well as a path along the border of Benjamin Road.
   The street design meets county standards and is similar to the design of those in other high quality, low density developments. It has curbs and sidewalks on one side and meets the standards for the fire department.
   It is our intention to build a sewer network that can be connected when sewer service becomes available, if it is feasible. With city water we will not be drilling wells in the neighborhood.
   Our plan is to build a public neighborhood. This is not a gated community and other than the 36 homes and the small winery on the property, we have no further plans for development. Any future development will take place only when the property is annexed and and under control of the city.
   Our vision for the future small retirement area of nine acres is for a cottage community, architecturally in keeping with the historic portion of our property. The 10 acres on the National Register of Historic Places will remain there, with no further development.
   As a matter of historic interest, this property has been served by city water for at least 50 years because the original water supply for Newberg, Otis Springs, was deeded from the southeast corner.
   We appreciate the measured discussion of this matter by the city council at its last meeting. We also appreciate the support of many of our neighbors who testified at that meeting. As a further indication of support it should be pointed out that there was not one objection to our subdivision plat filed with the county.
   We think that it is in the interest of all that the development of our property go forward with city water.
   Charles and Ellen McClure  are owners of Springbrook Hazelnut Farm bed and breakfast

(Editor’s note: This letter was addressed to Newberg’s mayor and city council).
   This letter is to express my opinion on the proposed development owned by the McClures. You are considering providing city water to a potential development that is presently not within our urban growth boundary.
   I strongly oppose the city selling our water to people outside the city. I do not expect you, as the guardians of our precious resources, to reward urban sprawl. I would not support your sacrificing the capacities of our sewer and water plants in this manner. In the not-so-distant future, both plants will need to be upgraded. How will you explain this need when you must also explain why you gave these resources away? The subject would be discussed in the community, I am sure.
   These developers, not controlled by city codes, will build their community “on the cheap”: narrow roads, no curbs, septic systems and most likely inadequate water pipes by city standards. This would give them maximum profits with minimum cost.
   Why would the city wish to make it easy for them to develop? How would this benefit the citizens of Newberg? Will you be obligated to do the same when the next developer comes along? Just how far out of the city limits must a property be before you will not grant them our resources?
   These people will not pay city taxes, which all Newberg property owners must pay. Please do not give away the water that I and all taxpayers (within the city) pay for. We pay for the construction and maintenance of our infrastructure; I do not want them frittered away.
   The mood regarding development seems to be changing. I suggest that this opposition will become stronger as the months go by. I fully expect the annexation measures voted down recently will again be voted down. I hope you will consider this when making your decision, because I believe the average citizen objects to selling the city of Newberg’s water outside the city limits.
   Now, I’m guessing someone will say, “but they might need our water some day. Why not provide it now?” To those I would say, “so what?” They can annex and bring their properties up to city standards then, at their expense. There is no reason for us to reward their blunder for doing it on the cheap. The citizens of Newberg paid, and continue to pay, for high quality infrastructure. Future developers should do nothing less.
   Deborah Soderquist is a former member of the Newberg City Council

May 30, 2007
Train would be too costly to implement
   To ride a train or not is really not the issue as Mr. Simek has eluded to in his May 23 guest editorial in The Newberg Graphic. It comes down to the economics, as he started to talk about. Whether it is cost effective is completely different than if I would like to read on my way to work in a comfy train.
   He stated that it would “soon” be $5 per gallon for fuel. And that it was a 60-mile round trip to Portland. But then he went on to say that it would “soon” exceed $50 to make that trip. Let’s try a simple bit of math here and see how this works out: a total of $50 divided by the $5 amount that he gave means that I would use 10 gallons of gas. Then we have the 60 miles round trip divided by the 10 gallons and that seems to come up to getting 6 mpg. Even my old pickup will do a bit better than this, I think, unless I have my foot in the four-barrel carburetor all the way. I trust that anyone that may be commuting will be getting better mileage than that now or they will trade to something that will.
   Then there is the apples to apples issue after we have worked that math problem out in the open. This part is the issue that about eight years ago, when I sat down with some other folks on the heavy rail idea (which is kind of what this is only with different cars), we looked at how much it would cost to transport a person to Portland.
   The idea was to find out what we would have to charge you the taxpayer for every ride whether you ride or not. This is because we would be getting them off your roads so you can drive. The price at that time was $20 one way. That price was not what you the rider would pay, but what the general public would pay to subsidize that ride.
   All this is only for riding the train after it comes. It has nothing to do with the costs of fixing tracks, leasing rail time or buying cars. That is the next amount that will be announced.
   Trains are great and can move a lot of people and items all while you rest or whatever. Sometimes you can do that while they are blocking the traffic. And yes there may be a time when the train is going to be helpful and cost effective, but what we need now is for the Oregon Department of Transportation to get rid of that light in Dundee and make an overpass while they have the room at that intersection. They could have built two or three for all the study money they have thrown away.
   Having said that is only an effort to maintain that you the public have all the information and someone to help with the math when things are tossed out there. And, of course, my opinion in the matter, which some will debate as being useful or not, but I still like to keep a dialogue going with the public so that we all can better debate the issues.
   Roger Currier is a Newberg City Council member

May 23, 2007
Annexation vote was a statement, not an anomaly
   To the citizens of Newberg and Yamhill county in regard to the outcome of the recent annexation votes:
   I would like to respond to the comments made by the developers whose attempts at annexation were voted down in the recent election. First of all, the voter turnout for this election was not “extremely low.” It was, in fact, typical of a midterm election involving Newberg city issues. The total vote count was greater than the May 2006 election when similar issues were on the ballot, so any attempt to downplay the value of this vote based on voter turnout is unfounded.
   The citizens who voted against these annexations are not anti-growth “naysayers.” They are concerned and thoughtful people who would like to see the city of Newberg plan for growth in a manner that will create a thriving but livable community. There are large tracts of land slated for eventual annexation into the city on the east and southeast side. The subdivisions planned will have to access Highway 99W at Springbrook Road or at the intersection of the new hospital.
Let’s look carefully at the facts in evaluating the overall cost-to-benefit ratio to the overall community of the planned property developments that were voted down. There was a required traffic impact study completed for these properties and filed with the developer’s UGB amendment request last year. This traffic study projected that the site would generate “8,306 trips on a typical weekday upon full development of the site.” The study stated that the addition of lanes to widen Highway 99W or Springbrook Road would be required for intersections to operate within Oregon Department of Transportation standards.
   The greatest red flag was this: the traffic impact study generated traffic flow projections with the assumption of the completed Newberg-Dundee bypass and subsequent substantial decreases in flow of traffic on Highway 99W through Newberg.
   We all know that the bypass is far from a certainty at this point with no clear funding options in the near future. Despite this, a large part of the city’s plans for future growth on the east side of town are contingent upon the bypass. A March 28 letter from ODOT Region 2 Planning Manager Erik Havig to Newberg City Planning and Building Director, Barton Brierley, states the following:
   “ODOT has concerns about the implications of expanding the Newberg (urban reserve areas), and eventually the (urban growth boundary), as recommended in the Urban Reserve Area Justification report and the Newberg Southeast Land Use and Transportation Plan. While we are committed to continue to work with you as you plan for the city’s future, the transportation system impacts associated with the growth implied by these proposed land use changes is dependent upon construction of the Newberg Dundee bypass to avoid significant impacts to the state highway system. At this time, we are not able to identify the Newberg Dundee bypass as a planned facility that is reasonably likely to be funded and constructed within a 20-year planning horizon.”
   These are the facts upon which many of us based our opposition to the recent annexations. If the developers think they will simply “bring this back in November,” they are grossly underestimating the determination of those who value our community and feel called to protect it.
   Furthermore, the outcome of the recent election places a clear responsibility upon our city leaders and planners to look more carefully at the potential development of the properties in question. As a priority, this should include a revised traffic study that does not assume the construction of a bypass that will eventually alleviate traffic congestion.
   I realize a tremendous effort went into the planning for the properties and adjoining road systems. A revised traffic study may determine that it is reasonable to develop those properties along with the needed Crestview extension. However, the recent election results mandate some compromise on the part of the developers. It may be that a purely residential community with a buffer zone along Highway 99 would still be quite profitable for the developers and pose no significant net increase to Highway 99W traffic.
   The city should look for additional ways for the community to benefit from these developments. Perhaps the developers would be willing to donate a parcel to Habitat For Humanity to support affordable housing for low-income families. Would that not be more in keeping with the values of our community?
   It is fortunate that people of Newberg have given city planners more time to consider the impact of the proposed developments and how we can make the area an overall positive addition to our community.
   John Lowery is a Newberg resident

May 23, 2007
Beware of scammers when selling your house
   There is a predator in Newberg. This community is too small to permit this type of predator to operate and it is my obligation to share my experience with the good people of this town to prevent further scams of this type. Newberg has a financial predator.
   Of course, I cannot name names or any identifiers because it would put me, the good guy, at risk for libel. But I can tell you all about the manner in which this person operates and what to watch out for.
  I listed my house for sale last month. It was on the market a mere eight days when my agent said she had an offer to present to me. Imagine my astonishment when the offer was nearly $20,000 below list price. I expected I might have to come down a bit, but not that much. Just for numbers for this column, let’s say I was offered $250,000 when the list price was $272,000. I declined and counteroffered at a price in keeping with my financial goals. The potential ‘buyer’ declined and I assumed that would be the end of that.
   The next day, my agent called to say the buyer had reconsidered and was willing to pay $268,000 and would I be interested in that price? I said yes, and she wrote up the sales agreement. Here, it is important to note the buyer sought out the listing agent rather than obtain his own buyer’s agent — this is part of the scam.
   We signed a sales agreement nearly a month ago, with a close date of May 30. At two weeks before the date of closing, the buyer called my agent — also his agent — to say he was unable to roll over some rental properties and use the equity to buy my house, but he would be willing to give me $250,000 cash if I would close the sale today (remember, this is the first figure he offered me — this is also important to the scam.) His current offer of $250,000 was made verbally and I declined, reminding him — via my agent — we had a signed agreement of sale and we’d passed the price negotiation phase.
   The next day — which was about two weeks prior to the sale closure date — the buyer contacted me again via my agent. Again, a verbal offer was made, and I was told the buyer’s final offer was $264,000, but only if we closed two days hence.
   I declined. While it may seem that I blew a deal for a mere $4,000, my gut instincts told me this guy was not on the up and up. I had my agent — remember, also his agent — present an addendum to the buyer stating the sale price would be the agreed upon price of $268,000, as per the signed agreement we’d made in April, close of sale to be no later than May 30, buyer to obtain financing of any legitimate means, and earnest money to be released immediately to me as a show of good faith the buyer would proceed with his agreement to purchase.
   This time the buyer declined.
  Apparently, the buyer hoped to get his money’s worth out of his $199 weekend seminar on how to buy real estate at tens of thousands below market value. He must have thought, wrongly, that as a single woman I had gotten myself into one of those inflated mortgage products and would accept a lowball offer. He must have thought, wrongly, that I did not possess the financial means to reject his offers.
   After speaking with respectable people in this community who have been in the real estate business for a long while, I learned how the scam works: When the buyer presents an initial lowball offer, it sounds ridiculous to the seller. However, it is the price the buyer really intends to pay, even though he negotiates upward and makes a sales agreement. The next indicator is the buyer approaches the listing agent directly, which puts the agent in the situation of not having to split a commission with another agent and, hopefully, garners some loyalty to the buyer.
  The buyer gives some kind of sad story to the agent, knowing it will get told to the seller; maybe the buyer is buying the house to put his elderly parents in, or help out his daughter the single mother. Next, the buyer sits and waits a couple weeks, tying up the sale and preventing other buyers from looking or making offers. He hopes during that time, the seller has made an offer on another house that will be dependent on closure of the first house.
   A couple weeks before the sale is set to close, the buyer calls the agent to say he can’t get financing and offers again the same lowball offer he’d offered in the very beginning. In my case, $250,000. But I said no. The buyer, if he can’t get the seller to agree to his lowball price, offers a price a bit lower than the agreed upon price — again verbally to test the water. In my case it was $264,000.
   Here is where I became suspicious and stopped the deal, but had I continued the scam would have played out like this: About three days before the close of the sale, the buyer would have contacted me to say his financing went down the tubes, but he can come up with $250,000. He would be hoping I would take it, because I might have another purchase riding on the sale of my house and better I add $20,000 to my new mortgage rather than the buyer get financing.
   After a sucker takes the $250,000, thinking the buyer is going to put his elderly parents in the home, the seller is surprised to see the buyer has listed the home ‘for sale by owner’ at $272,000.
   None of these shenanigans are illegal. They are immoral, unethical and slimy, but, unfortunately, legal. I was in the very fortunate position of having the financial wherewithal to not rely on a sale to the buyer and got out in time.
   The only reason I got into the deal in the first place was because I didn’t believe Newberg had financial predators. Not every citizen in Newberg has the financial situation to survive a scam of this nature, so it is very important our community be informed of this kind of scam. We are heading into the home sale season and a predator of this type will be on the prowl.
    Jackie Fowler is a Newberg resident and freelance columnist

May 19, 2007
Let’s just make everything unsafe illegal
   The Newberg Graphic’s editorial Wednesday was written in support of new restrictions on teen use of cell phones while driving, and encouraging even further restrictions on cell phone usage for all the rest of us. The Graphic would like Oregon to join four other states in banning cell phone usage period for all drivers. I assume, with the exception of emergencies?
   While the Graphic is at it, they ought to add eating while driving, drinking coffee or other liquids while driving, and listening to talk radio stations while driving. All are distracting. We can’t seriously ban driving west while the sun is setting or east while it’s rising, so we’ll have to let those go for now.
   We might be able to ban conversations between drivers and passengers, however. Those can be very distracting. And if the Graphic can make any recommendations for getting my kids to shut the heck up while I’m driving, I’d be in support of that too. They aren’t particularly law abiding now; in fact they’re rather blithefully indifferent, so making their distractions illegal might not accomplish much.
   Bike riders can be very distracting, as can children playing. Both should be illegal within 20 feet of roads. Heck, walkers along roads are just more obstacles to avoid. Let’s make walking illegal near roads.
   In fact, what I’ve always thought the government should do is simply send out a blanket statement annually that goes something like this: “Warning! Leaving your home, except in cases of emergency, places you at unnecessary risk of injury, or even death. Please stay home, inside, whenever possible”.
   Or, we can get back to reality and accept that life involves a certain level of risk of either injury or death every day. And padding the coffee table corners is taking our mitigation actions a bit too far for most of us, just as banning the singular distraction of cell phone usage is.
   I am, however, all for a generic ticket for “careless driving,” where any such distraction above, and many others, which results in a traffic accident (or even if they don’t) can be the grounds for citation. It would save everyone a lot of work passing all these nitty-gritty, single issue laws.
   Oh wait. As luck would have it, just such a law already exists. Here it is:

811.135 Careless driving; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of careless driving if the person drives any vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a manner that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or property.

   Well, never mind then. Looks like we’re covered. If a policeman thinks a cell phone user is endangering someone, he can pull them over and cite them for any of the reasons above and more. Would someone please let The Graphic and our legislators know?
   Bret Lieuallen is a former Dundee resident who now resides in Tigard

May 16, 2007
King’s words prove prophetic 40 years later on America’s war in Iraq
   Forty years ago last month, on April 4, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. rose to the pulpit of New York’s Riverside Church to deliver his first public antiwar speech regarding Vietnam.
   As anticipated, critics railed against him roundly at the time, not only those from the mainstream media, but also from allies such as the NAACP. Now, however, history has vindicated the truths that Dr. King so bravely spoke that day, and his testimony is widely seen as a prophetic masterpiece.
   While still mesmerizing, the address can also be disconcerting. By simply swapping the word “Iraq” for “Vietnam,” and “terrorism” for “Communism,” Dr. King’s speech literally could be given today. Before describing how the United States betrayed the Vietnamese, first by supporting “the French in their abortive effort to re-colonize Vietnam,” then by propping up the “vicious” dictator Diem, and finally by nearly wiping the country off the map through its extensive bombing and use of napalm, Dr. King said: “They must see Americans as strange liberators.”
   In Iraq, parallels abound. The United States supported Saddam Hussein as he massacred his own people during the 1980s, obliterated the country during the first Gulf War, imposed deadly sanctions for nearly 13 years, and finally invaded and occupied it in 2003.
   In place of napalm, the U.S. military now uses a more effective chemical to burn Iraqis — white phosphorous. And in our noble effort to bring democracy, we’ve also littered the country with cluster bombs and thousands of tons of poisonous depleted uranium.
   Strange liberators, indeed.
   Speaking of the soldiers, Dr. King said: “We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.”
   One can only imagine the cognitive dissonance of our soldiers today, knowing that every reason that they originally were given to kill and be killed has been thoroughly debunked. Moreover, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority’s effort to privatize nearly everything in Iraq, and our current advocacy for Iraq’s new oil law — which if passed by the Iraqi Parliament will be highly advantageous to American oil companies — can leave little doubt whose side we’re currently on.
   Speaking on the bogeyman of his time, Dr. King declared: “War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons.” The greatest defense against Communism, he argued, “is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of Communism grows and develops.”
   The same undoubtedly can be said for terrorism, which cannot be defeated by violence. Even the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that our wars have only worsened the threat of another attack and fanned the flames of extremism.
   Dr. King is perhaps most relevant today, however, when he takes that extra step in his analysis to address the roots of the conflict. “The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit,” he noted, brought on by “the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism.”
   Calling the U.S. government “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” Dr. King issued a piercing warning that reaches us across the decades loud and clear: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
   As the bloated Pentagon budget swells further — this year to more than $600 billion — America becomes more of a one-trick pony, known the world over not for its kindness and generosity, but rather its brutality and quick trigger.
   While that spiritual death seems closer now than ever, I believe Dr. King would still hold out the hope that we could live up to ourselves. To do so, we must snap out of our culturally induced coma and lead that “revolution of values” of which we are so desperately in need.
   Eric Stoner is a freelance writer on peace and international affairs

May 12, 2007
Democrats’ bill will gut Measure 37
   Recently, Democrats rammed through bills effectively destroying Oregon’s landmark property rights protections granted through Measure 37.
   Historically, Oregonians have voted to honor private property rights. They passed Measure 7 in 2000 by a wide margin; they reinforced that vote with 61 percent approval of Measure 37 in 2004. In fact, last year voters further strengthened property rights by passing Measure 39 by 67 percent.
   The latest maneuver by Democrats may sound good, but it severely hampers the intent of Measure 37. The bill limits the number of homes someone can build on their own land to three, including an existing home — no matter how many acres. Property owners will have to hire an appraiser and jump through many other hoops making it harder to prove they’ve been harmed by government regulations.
   Despite what supporters say, litigation will increase dramatically against Oregonians filing Measure 37 claims. There are many more nuances to the bill that I can’t go into here, but the devil is truly in the details.
   In recent weeks the vast majority of citizens from my legislative district who contacted my office wanted the spirit of Measure 37 left intact. I believe a few reasonable refinements are warranted, so I supported a Republican plan which would’ve added some common sense provisions like allowing families to transfer property rights, allowing fast-track approval for smaller parcels, and extending time for local governments to deal with the initial workload from Measure 37.
   Democrats rejected that plan without much debate.
   Without giving you a headache about political games, here’s a peek at what happened. Various proposals started in the so-called Joint Land Use Fairness Committee. However, in just four days, Democratic lawmakers broke off negotiations with Republicans and pushed through their own bills with very little public feedback.
   Democrats say their new proposal is going to a special election, but so far no legislation has moved to the House floor specifying when this election, estimated to cost nearly $2 million, will be held.
   In addition to the referral which will gut Measure 37 and discourage anyone from fighting for their property rights in the future, Democrats also allowed state and county governments another year to process claims. Sadly, some of the people who’ve filed claims are quite elderly and may not be around long enough to secure justice and peace of mind for their families.
   The will of Oregon voters is sacred to me. I may not always agree with the outcome of an election, but I have always respected the rights of voters to make decisions for our state. I believe as a state representative that I serve the people who elected me. In my legislative district, 64 percent said they wanted their property rights protected from government intrusion.
   Although reasonable changes could be made to Measure 37, the Democrats’ strategy to circumvent Oregonians’ wishes should be rejected. I hope you’ll join me in defeating this plan at the ballot box.
   Kim Thatcher is District 25 state representative.

May 9, 2007
The V-Chip fails to keep children safe from inappropriate programming
   What do you do when the overwhelming majority of all television programming today contains an overabundance of sex and violence? Well, if you are Congress, instead of enforcing more stringent laws upon the makers of this filth, you place your faith in technology and mandate that all televisions have devices to read program content descriptors — “the V-Chip” installed by the year 2000. The devices read information encoded within the rated program, allowing users to block programs based upon the range of ratings selected by the parent. It has been a decade since the technological solution to all of our problems arrived, but the only problem is — it doesn’t work.
   A March 2007 Zogby poll found that 88 percent of adults did not possess the parental-control technology or had not used it within the previous week, a measure that was largely unchanged from the previous year. At the same time, 79 percent told Zogby that there was too much sex, violence and coarse language on television.
   Let’s get this straight: Everyone thinks this is a problem, yet no one is using the cure-all solution? Even in Hollywood this wouldn’t fly as a believable plot line.
   Faced with the failure of their solution, Hollywood leapt into action. No responsible action — in the form of decreasing portrayals of sex and violence — was taken. Instead, parents were promised a multimedia educational campaign about the V-Chip and TV ratings in order to put the “parent in control.”
   The entertainment industry-supported ad campaign depicts cute episodes of parents talking back to raunchy television characters, telling them that they would have to be blocked for the sake of the children and then directing viewers to an educational Web site about the V-Chip. More than $550 million was spent on ads to help people understand and use something that doesn’t work? This makes no sense.
   Things start to come together, however, when you look at a new Parents Television Council analysis of the ratings accuracy the V-chip relies on. The content descriptors which would allow a parent to block objectionable content aren’t even remotely reliable. Two-thirds of network programming that contains potentially offensive content lacks one or more of the appropriate content descriptors. Sixty-three percent of shows containing sexual content lack the “S” descriptor, 42 percent of shows containing violence lack the “V” descriptor and 44 percent of shows containing foul language lack the “L” descriptor.
   The results are not entirely surprising, considering the ratings are applied by the same people who produce and distribute programming, and have to sell it to sponsors. That’s right — like children grading their own homework, the networks rate their own programs! A too-accurate rating of a program loaded with sex and violence will have the effect of chasing away sponsors, which is what the networks fear most.
   The descriptors don’t work and — yet another surprise — the overall rating is not based in reality, either. Amazingly enough, the networks think that there is not one program on broadcast TV that would be considered inappropriate viewing for a child of any age since not one program received a TV-MA rating. Does CBS have a straight face when they tell us that it is OK for a 10-year-old to watch an episode of CSI Miami in which a woman died of asphyxiation during an oral rape?
   “Be the boss of what your kids watch” is hardly a realistic message. Parents can be the bosses of their homes, but they are definitely not the bosses of television. The reality is, the television industry doesn’t care if parents use the V-Chip or not, they are simply providing the illusion of action in the hope that these empty gestures will keep Washington politicians, concerned viewers and parents at bay.
   The industry says it spent more than half a billion dollars in two years to “educate parents” while it has produced nothing but failure. Parents don’t need any more lectures or empty promises from the industry.
   Instead of hiding behind a faulty ratings system and ineffective technology, it’s time for the industry to take responsibility for the filth it produces and decrease the amount of sex and violence in programming before 10 p.m., so families can view television as a form of entertainment not a source of headaches.
   Stephanie Snow is Portland chapter director of the Parents Television Council

May 5, 2007
We’re not to blame for society’s ills
   This letter is in response to a letter written in your April 25 edition titled, “Everyone allowed shooting to happen one step at a time.”
   I love it when someone stands for something. I think it’s awful when people sit idly by and close their mouths along with their curtains. But this person absolutely got it wrong! How dare they suggest that I, or any of my neighbors and friends, are to blame for such a brutal atrocity as the slaying of children at Virginia Tech.
   I admit that there is a slow leak of frightening ideas (perpetuated mostly from media) poisoning a lot of our rational values, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the root of it.
   Yes, we live in a society where foul language is no longer omitted or bleeped over the airways. Yes, violent video games are viewed and played by millions of children. And, yes, media shows such as crime violence or reality shows are more popular than ever before. But just as we have a choice to participate in these freedoms, we also have a choice to not.
   I am tired of people blaming themselves, Christians and all of society when something horrific happens. Do we really hate our fellow Americans so much that we are willing to blame them for one mad man going insane?
   Perhaps if more experts delved into non-self-deprecating methods of therapy, we would not have people blaming everyone for one man’s actions. The horrible person that committed those slayings did not do it because Tommy played video games last night, or Billy listened to Howard Stern demean women last week. No, he did it because he was a lunatic. He had a mental disorder that his family did not catch or pay attention to.
   Why does one tragic event always have to reflect the makeup of all society? Our big problem here is not the killers, but that members of our society are being self-loathers. We might just spot these potential killers if our society forgets about the blame and starts focusing on benevolence. Blame breeds separatism and hopelessness and never allows progress.
   How will we ever rid our world of racialism, radicalism or hatred if people keep complicating the real issue, which is personal responsibility. It is a lot harder these days to stand by your conviction of good morality, but it seems even harder to smile at a total stranger. We are programmed to hate each other and ourselves; no wonder the writer of that article was not surprised to hear of such a horrendous tragedy.
    Lacie Nash is a Newberg resident

May 2, 2007
Annexations will make way for the bypass
   In May Newberg citizens will vote on two annexations (Measures 36-112 and 36-113) to bring approximately 40 acres of property into the Newberg city limits just north of Highway 99W on the east side of town.
   We have become concerned because we have seen signs that suggest that this annexation will add to Newberg’s transportation problems. This is just the opposite of what this annexation will accomplish.
   When this property is brought into the city of Newberg and developed, the developers will build a northern road that will provide a vital link from east Newberg to north Newberg without forcing drivers to use Highway 99W. This route, once known as the Northern Arterial and now known as the Northern Collector, has been planned for many years.
   In the early 1990s, the city and county set aside this property for future city growth. It was identified as commercial property because of its location along Highway 99W, but it was also planned to have residences to buffer the surrounding owners.
   The city has planned at least two of its Transportation System Plans (TSP) around the idea of providing a road at this location to connect north Newberg. Once built, numerous drivers who currently use Springbrook Road, Villa Road, College Street or Main Street to access north Newberg will no longer clog Highway 99W.
   The new road will provide a free right-turn movement much like at Springbrook Road, which will remove a lot of traffic from Highway 99W, allowing traffic to take a fairly direct course to the north part of Newberg.
   If you are tired of traffic in this area, then a vote for the annexation will help decrease this traffic from Brutscher Street all the way down to Main Street on Highway 99W.
   This commercial/residential plan was re-confirmed through many recent public meetings. The city’s Ad Hoc Committee, in 2005, again recommended that this property be included in the city limits to provide much needed commercial opportunities. More recently, the city and county have each, jointly and separately, agreed to approve these applications that support needed commercial development and transportation infrastructure for the east Newberg area.
   The annexations will help provide needed commercial property. Many of life’s necessities, like shoes, clothing and apparel accessories, can only be found in one store in Newberg (Fred Meyer). Additional commercial space will cut down on trips out of Newberg for such items and will encourage competition.
   The Newberg-Dundee bypass is an important road for Newberg’s future. The work necessary to get that road built should not mean that Newberg or Dundee puts all their other transportation planning and construction on hold. In fact, there are many pieces to the transportation puzzle that need to be built in and around Newberg and Dundee as our community works towards making the Newberg-Dundee bypass a reality.
   Please join us in supporting Measures 36-112 and 36-113 to provide a vital improvement to traffic flow on Highway 99W and north Newberg, and to provide greatly needed commercial land.
   Bob Andrews is Newberg mayor; Leslie Lewis is a Yamhill County commissioner.

April 28, 2007
Many involved in planning for annexations
   I am responding to recent articles and letters to the editor opposing annexation. I reside within the site of the NewB Properties annexation proposal and have for 30 years; my mother inherited the property in 1964.
   I realize that neighbors new to the area may not be familiar with what so many of us long term residents in the area know. That is that in the early 1990s, the city of Newberg began an exhaustive study to manageably expand the city. After extensive citizen involvement and numerous public hearings, in 1997 this property east to Benjamin Road was added into the urban reserve area for the express purpose of one day being brought into the city.
   Over the past three years many public hearings and scoping sessions have been held by the city to gain input from citizens into managing the growth of our town. The Ad Hoc Committee on Newberg’s Future used this information to recommend growth patterns for development.
   There has been ample opportunity to participate in this process and I have attended more than one meeting where the dots placed by citizens on this property voted for local commercial and residential development on this section of the urban reserve area. That is also the recommended use of this land from the ad hoc committee.
   Since then recommendations for the annexation of this property were made from the Newberg Planning Commission, city council, planning department, Yamhill County Board of Commissioners and Newberg Urban Area Management Commission.
   In all of my years as a resident of this area, I have rarely seen such overwhelming support from such a wide array of private and public interests. The developer, NewB Properties, has met with neighbors, the city, the county and other landowners in the area to assure that this development is compatible with other uses and the neighbors’ preferences, including the people living in Oxberg Lake Estates adjacent to this property who had previously opposed annexation of this area.
   Agreements between all parties have been made, which led to approval of the urban growth boundary change by both the city council and the Yamhill County Planning Commission. It has been passed on to a vote of the people in May.
   Planning for the use of this property has been thorough and with a wealth of citizen input to the process. The result of this work has led to a plan for development that meets the community’s needs today and for the future.
   Kimberly Dunn is a Newberg resident

April 25, 2007
FFA proves a valuable experience for the future
   First day of agriculture class and my teacher comes in dressed like a farmer. He wore denim overalls with tacky, faded blue straps. The overalls were covered by a tattered flannel shirt and boots crusted in a fibrous mixture of manure and muck.
   A straw hat atop his head was the signature mark of a classic story-tale pig farmer. No big deal for me, because my grandparents are farmers. For others, it was kind of weird.
   Anxiety built, because as an elective I had expectations of an agriculture class. The first thing my teacher asks is “What do you think about agriculture?” Well, being either anxious or just a teacher’s pet, I came up with the most specific answer I could think of. Irrigation pipes.
   Not that impressive is it? My teacher didn’t think so either. Ended up my answer was all wet. In fact, no one impressed him with a suggestion! Why? Because every single thing our class said was related to farming. Wow, were we wrong. Without even knowing it, we had just committed the biggest misconception.
   FFA, you know what I’m talking about. When you walk down the halls and a student says “Gonna’ be a farmer?” in a not-so-nice way, it’s not a good feeling you get.
   A couple days ago our FFA chapter was at a conference for incoming freshmen and their parents, to see what our high school is all about. Two parents and their daughter walked by our FFA booth and the parents asked her, “Ooo, what about FFA?” The daughter answered, “No, I’m not going to be a farmer.”
   It hits hard trying to reach the public with the new acronym for FFA. We like to call it Foundation For Achievement. That’s the problem, everyone else knows it as Future Farmers of America.
   But agriculture is so much more than farming. People just don’t realize it. Almost everything is related to agriculture in some way or another, except maybe lawyers and astronauts, and even then they have to eat, right?
   Agriculture is so much a part of our lives; it is in every I-pod or cell phone, as consumers can spend more money elsewhere instead of on expensive food. It is in our gas tanks, a part of our clothing, in our medicine, what we eat and so much more.
   But yet, agriculture still has the identity of farming.
   One out of 50 workers in the United States are farmers; one in five are agriculturists. What is learned in the FFA is equally proportionate. It is so much more than just farming. FFA takes what is learned in the classroom and expands your knowledge through career developing events, community service and leadership training. Basic skills like science, math and English are incorporated through our study.
   Programs like FFA try to get the word out best they can, and agriculture teachers realize their responsibility. But there is still a large number of people that don’t understand. Knowledge is power and without it we are still misunderstood. What American agriculture needs most is respect from the community, support from society and people like those in the FFA. Without us, agriculture will stay the misconception in America.
   Garrett Duyck is a NHS student and a member of the school’s chapter of FFA

April 21, 2007
Caring for others proves an enriching experience
   We are all so blessed; most of us are blessed far beyond our capacity to truly appreciate what it is we have. It isn’t until we face some near death experience or are faced with illness of a friend or family member. It is then that we take a good look around at just what we have. I have recently had such an experience.
   My dear friend Laura has lived in the same house where she grew up, she never married and when her mother passed away 12 years ago Laura, who is mildly disabled was left to fend for herself. Her younger siblings have had very little contact with her over the years, with completely no contact for the past three years.
   As with many of the children of the Depression they are savers, as so many baby boomers are learning as they take care of their aging parents. That saving got the best of Laura. With the lack of involvement of her siblings, and little resources, her house swallowed her up.
   In the wee hours of the morning, tangled in her bed sheets, Laura fell in her bedroom. The books she had stacked waist high shifted, as did her mattress, and she was stuck swimming in a sea of books. Having forgotten to put her life line necklace on, it took Laura four days to crawl to the phone.
   I felt terrible I hadn’t checked on her. She would walk from her home on Sierra Vista to Naps to get her walker loaded with groceries, walk to my business and I would give her a ride home. When the weather was really bad I would not see her for a week or more.
   When I received the phone call from her that she was in the ICU I could not get to the hospital fast enough. Lucky for us Laura did not break any bones; she was very dehydrated causing her blood pressure and blood sugar to be at dangerous levels. These had to be brought under control.
   When the medics came and picked Laura up they were extremely concerned with the condition of her home, so much so that they took pictures, which were given to the hospital. Social services and the doctor told us that Laura would not be able to go home. I was so afraid it would be the end of her, not being able to have her collection of books, her independence, her beloved cat. I decided to prove them wrong. Laura was only 68 and living in a nursing home or even assisted living was not what was best for her at this time.
   The task ahead of us was daunting; it was completely overwhelming. It was so obvious to me how Laura had lived this way for so long. Where to begin; it was tough for us to get started cleaning out the house. (Laura had been told by her sister that she was not to get rid of any of their parents belongings. When Laura was given a new refrigerator her sister was livid that the old one was gone, Laura was afraid of being disowned).
   I recruited a small army to help me with this project. Growing up my parents were always giving of themselves, helping out this neighbor and that; my father was in the fire service. So, who better to be in my army but my family. What a crew. The youngest my daughter age 8 to my dear grandmother who is 88 years old; she sat at the washer and dryer for hours. My dear friends Laura Okorn and Lacey Carroll helped as well.
   I posted Laura’s story on craigslist hoping for some help. The morning my entire family was coming to help (my parents live in Dallas, a two-hour roundtrip drive), I sat thinking: What I have gotten us into? She’s not family, we don’t go to the same church, we have only known each other for two years.
   I just did not want to move, then I checked my e-mail and found this very nice couple wants to donate Pergo flooring for Laura’s kitchen/dining room, and another woman who worked at paint store said we could have the mistints to paint the rooms. Newberg firefighter/paramedic Clint Hardeman had a bookcase he was willing to donate for her books.
   I also had great letters of encouragement. I got my answer from those e-mails. “Why me?” Because I could, because I have more blessing than I know what to do with, and I wanted to set a good example for my children just as my parents had for me.
   So after working every weekend, and several weekdays for a month, pulling up carpet, refinishing countertops, putting together four new bookcases, sweeping, dusting, vacuuming, scrubbing, painting, rearranging, recycling and reorganizing, we had the physical and occupational therapists, as per Laura’s doctor’s order, come in her home to do a safety check. Everything was great; her home passed with flying colors.
   Laura came home 30 days after her fall. We still have work to do. Each week I am over at her house going through the boxes and boxes of books; we are converting her parent’s bedroom into a library for her. Next week we are going through the kitchen; the things that belong to her parents we are boxing up and putting in the garage for her sister. We hope to get a ramp built this summer and her gutters are few and far between and need to be replaced (donations accepted).
   But she is home and in good health. Each time I am over at her house she is so proud of what has been done for her. Laura is now family. My children call her auntie and my mother says Laura is her sister from another mother.
   She calls me her angel, but it is the other way around.
   Kimberly Zoutendijk is a Newberg resident

April 18, 2007
Truth is the troops grow weary of the war
   Mr. Erickson is correct in his April 11 column that the troops on the ground have insight into the situation in Iraq. However, he may be misinformed as to their opinion.
   This week, the Pentagon announced to the Army troops they were extending their tours 15 months, the same troops they told only two months ago they might shorten the deployment to six to nine months. A firm grasp on planning. Like more “Emergency funding” requests than all previous wars in history combined.
   War keeps catching Bush by surprise each budget. Add in a sixfold increase in bonus payments in the past three years for re-enlistment for combat areas to $1 billion a year to try to retain troops and you really know how the troops feel.
   When people cite “facts” they should list their sources rather that just say “recent polls,” etc. Often radio hosts on both sides of the issues will freely quote figures which bear no resemblance to reality and sometimes define the issue in different ways to change the answer.
   However, in this case the “Stars and Stripes,” which is the publication of the United States Armed Forces, in a recent survey asked how the enlisted personnel felt about the war in Iraq. The majority response was negative. Bear in mind, these people did not have their commanders or peers looking over their shoulders when they answered.
   Also, as to how the new surge is working, this month is on pace to have killed the most U.S. troops since the surge started.
   For a person to acquire further information and change their mind and retreat doesn’t mean they are a coward, it means they are a sentient being capable of considering the lives and welfare of the people under their command. A person who blindly chooses a path and never wavers isn’t a hero or courageous leader.
   Anyone can “stay the path.” It takes no intellect to be stubborn. I’m sure Mr. Erickson would have found Col. Custer admirable. And how could he not have admired the German army as they advanced ceaselessly eastward into Russia, eventually losing more than 90 percent of their forces. And when Russia spent themselves into bankruptcy trying to maintain a military force in Afghanistan for endless years, what an example of “staying the course.”
   Considering that their are more Islamic adherents in the world than U.S. citizens, how does he propose to control all the countries in the world they reside in and have an active presence in? Does he think that as we wage war against them in Iraq that they will become less aggressive here?
   I agree that we need to make our country secure, but I think we need to do so within our borders. I don’t believe we any longer have the capability to dominate every square foot of the earth. I want to secure our borders and secure our freedoms from outside influence and inside danger.
   Even though I have always been a fanatic supporter of freedoms, I can see where we might have to sacrifice some of them to maintain surveillance and security within our country in this modern age. If it takes me longer to board a flight to be safe, or longer to re-enter the country, I will make that adjustment.
   I will never buy the argument, “If you don’t stop them there, you’ll have to fight them here.” At 62-years-old, I heard that about Vietnam and I haven’t found the need to learn to speak any Asian languages yet.
   I don’t want to continue to bankrupt our country to try to stop something that I think we will have to face here anyway, just as England and other countries are now. When I see a president who tries to hide the cost by passing more “emergency” funding bills for the war in Iraq than all previous emergency war funding bills in all history, it worries me some.
   And then has the nerve to say, “The Democrats are withholding funds for our soldiers.” He had the option every year for the past four years to put funding in the regular budget for the war. As recently as four months ago. I guess it caught him by surprise again.
   Don Wright is a Newberg resident and former member of the Newberg City Council

April 14, 2007
City’s general fund is chronically broke
   As the annual budget season bears down on us, I have to remember the old axiom of being careful what you wish for. If you’re a Newberg citizen who believes that taxes and fees are too high and that public services are too short, I won’t tell you that you’re wrong. If anything is “wrong” it’s our general understanding of why.
   I’ve been fortunate to be a member of the Newberg budget committee for several years now. The education has been priceless and I’m going to let you in on some of things I’ve learned. Those of you who are “tax protesters” should take special note because many times I get the idea that you don’t understand what the real issues are.
   Does government take too much money from you. Yes it does. Is there adequate money for police, fire schools (and in Newberg’s case) the library? Nope. How is this possible? Well, for years it just gets written off as inefficient government, but the truth is it’s much more problematic than that. The key is that there are two types of funds in city government: the general fund and dedicated funds (I like to call the latter “Untouchables”).
   The general fund is chronically broke. In Newberg we are annually short on police officers, firemen and the library has difficulty keeping open 40 hours a week. Schools are a similar issue, but are out of the control of city government.
   The Untouchable funds however are just chocked full of money. I don’t know how many times I’ve been asked how the city can do (Insert your favorite project here), but we don’t have enough police. It’s because Untouchable funds are just that — untouchable. Look at it as being able to paint your house and put in a new Jacuzzi when the roof is leaking and the foundation is crumbling.
   SDCs (system development charges) are a very mixed blessing. There is no question that new development should pay for itself. But under SDCs it only sort of does. SDCs allow local city staffers to proclaim that the city is flush with cash because of all the new development (It’s repeated every year in our budget committee package), but that is only a misleading half-truth.
   As we’ve discussed before, residential development is a losing proposition for the city. The more we have the further the general fund falls behind. That’s because the method of funding for police and fire is general fund money and general fund money comes from a taxing method limited by tax limitation measures. SDCs cannot be used for general fund items.
   Now that’s just a weakness of SDCs, but there’s a much more insidious little gremlin in the works. SDCs, while only partially paying for new growth, encourages city government to promote even more unprofitable growth. How? One of the things SDCs are used for is paying for planning and support staff involved in doing the city’s part to facilitate development. That is fair and it only makes sense, but it has a built in problem.
   One of the trickiest parts of being on the budget committee is the issue of hiring new staff. When any new city employee comes on board it is expected that the individual will be there for the long haul.  No one wants to hire good people only to have to let them go in short order because the work’s all done. SDCs build the city development bureaucracy but do nothing to provide a reasonable escape plan should the city decide to slow growth down.
    Suppose that we had a huge spike of 10 percent residential growth this year? SDCs allow us to add on a needed employee or two because the untouchable money is there.
   But what if next year growth might only be back to a normal 3 percent? Answer: the city had better make sure that the rate stays at 10 percent or greater. That way no one gets laid off and the hiring can continue.
   The bigger the department the bigger the salary expected, the greater the equipment etc. And on it goes. The fact that the general fund becomes even more anemic is pretty much glossed over as “well that’s just how it is.”
   If you think any of this is meant to disparage anyone working at city hall, that is not the case. We have excellent employees and department heads. But they all have to follow the same laws of humanity as the rest of us. You and I — all of us — would like to be paid more because our departments are bigger; it’s only fair.
   But the difference between government and private business is that, if there is a downturn in business you lay people off. In government it’s like the end of the world. (If you doubt that then you should have been at our budget committee hearings three years ago).
   In closing, I don’t have a lot of good news for you. The city of Newberg is already trying to push past the growth recommendations set by the Ad Hoc Committee (suggesting a moderate growth plan over the next 20 years). Well, we warned you.
   The way state and federal legislators have written the Untouchables funds rules makes it very difficult for us to change the system. About all we have left is knowledge. As long as we are aware that SDCs only achieve part of what needs to be done and that they also carry a potentially lethal virus, we might be prevented from making mistakes where we still have some control.
   It would also help if some would quit implying that residential growth is a net gain financially for the city. I’d like to talk about something else for a change.
   Lon Wall is a Newberg resident and McMinnville business owner

April 11, 2007
Urge legislators to keep public TV, radio on the air everywhere in Oregon
   Imagine tuning into Oregon Public Broadcasting one day and finding nothing but dead air. No Preschool with Miss Lori. No news from Jim Lehrer. No views of our wondrous state from Oregon Field Guide.
   It seems incredible, but if you live outside one of Oregon’s major urban areas in, say, Pendleton or The Dalles, or any number of smaller towns, the day when you lose access to one of the finest public television services in the country may be less than two years away.
   What’s more, everyone in Oregon could lose out on a new life-saving, security enhancing service that may prove even more vital to our state than quality television.
   Here’s how: The federal government has ordered that on Feb. 17, 2009, all analog television transmitters (the kind that have been used since the dawn of television in the 1950s) must be shut down. It’s a federal mandate designed to bring the nation’s broadcasters into a powerful new digital world.
   Thanks to some forward-looking Oregon legislators and a special $7 million capital appropriation from the state in 2001, OPB’s main transmitters in Portland, Bend, Corvallis, Eugene and La Grande are already capable of meeting the new digital standard. No problem.
   But outside those five cities, viewers are served by a vast network of smaller relay stations or translators. They feed OPB’s signal over the mountains and into the valleys of rural Oregon. The federal mandate now says these translators must be converted to digital signals too.
   That puts most of eastern and central Oregon and almost the entire Oregon coast in the dark two years from now unless the translators are upgraded to digital.
OPB estimates the cost of the upgrade to be $5.5 million, with the federal government picking up half the tab.  Gov. Kulongski has included $2.75 million in one-time capital funding and a $1 million operating appropriation for OPB in his CHAMP (culture, history, arts, movies, and preservation) budget initiative that is now before the legislature. State Sen. Betsy Johnson and other lawmakers are providing leadership in this effort to restore funding for Oregon’s cultural landscape, which was hard hit when state revenues took a nosedive five years ago.
   The CHAMP initiative will preserve historic treasures at the Oregon Historical Society, stabilize the funding of arts organizations through Oregon Arts Commission, boost efforts to attract moviemakers to our scenic landscapes, and preserve the unique culture of small town main streets. It will also ensure OPB’s continued service to rural Oregon, and so much more.
   And here’s why: digital translators could be the backbone of a tsunami warning system delivering messages and evacuation instructions directly to televisions, radios, computers, cell phones and handhelds along the coast. The upgraded relays could flash realtime images to firefighters in the Blues or the Wallows. Medical data could be beamed to rural health care professionals. With the new digital technology, the sky is quite literally the limit.
  It’s called “datacasting.” It’s the ability to split a digital signal to perform more than one job at a time. So one translator could simultaneously beam both Barney to television sets and an AMBER Alert to police and motorists along I-5.
   It’s already being done elsewhere in America. New Jersey public broadcasters offer the service to emergency managers at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in that state. In Kentucky, public broadcasters send emergency storm alerts, criminal profiles, and other time sensitive data to officials around the state.
   Unlike the translators now in service, the digital network could offer wireless communications at lightning speed and with great reliability from Durkee to Depoe Bay.
   But the high cost of operating in areas of low population density makes it impossible for OPB to complete the upgrade without state support. Fortunately, Gov. Kulongski, Sen. Johnson and others in the legislature recognize the big benefits of this relatively small investment in the new technology can deliver. The legislature will be considering the CHAMP package in the weeks ahead. It offers incredible value for money.
   I hope Oregonians will join me in respectfully imploring our legislators in Salem to not let public broadcasting go dark anywhere in Oregon come February 2009. Help OPB keep Oregon connected.
   Doug Tunnell is chairman of the board of directors at OPB and a Yamhill County resident

April 7, 2007
There’s just something about a book
   Regardless of advances in technology — whether it’s listening to a book on your iPod, reading online texts or the latest gizmo that allows you to download books onto a tablet-like gadget with a digital screen that reads like the page of a book — there is no match to a good old-fashioned book.
   There is something about buying a new book — cracking open the spine, feeling the crisp pages between your fingers as you flip — that is especially unique. You can read a book almost anywhere: on a plane, in your favorite chair, on a boat or in a coffee shop. Reading a book doesn’t require anything more than your eyes and the ability to read.
   Your parents read them to you when you were just a child, and sometimes you’d ask them to read the same book over and over again like I did. You used a countless number of books through elementary, junior high, high school and college classes.
   They are very familiar and relatively unchanging. The size may differ as will the color and design of the cover, and of course the content, but books are still books.
   There is something especially appealing to human nature about familiarity. We recognize and often appreciate change, but there is reassurance about something that has been around as long as you can remember.
   Books are especially influential because they require some sort of interaction. When you watch television you are usually just sitting there, thinking about something else, or not thinking about anything at all, and the information is just fed to you. When you read a book you are doing just that, you are reading.
   I doubt that the book can be enjoyed as much if you simply sit there with a copy of “The Great Gatsby” balanced on your forehead.
   New technologies will come and go, but that binding, paper, and ink aren’t going anywhere.
   Molly Bieg is a George Fox University
student, Newberg resident and former
intern for The Newberg Graphic

April 4, 2007
Love INCs should be started in every town
   Many of you remember recently we asked Love INC to become a hotline for the families of active duty service personnel in Yamhill County. They did and several weeks ago Polly Siler at Love INC turned the hotline phone on and every family of active duty service personnel has to make only one phone call and immediately reach Love INC volunteers who then do the things needed to keep their lives on an even keel.
   The 24-hour, seven-day-a-week hotline phone number is 1-503-476-4656. Any family member, whether it is an adult, a teenager or a child can phone that number day or night, seven days a week and get immediate help. Sometimes, the child or the teenager needs to talk to someone about their concerns around having a parent in active duty. Their call is as important to Love INC as any other person.
   A few days ago Mountainside Auto told me they had already taken care of the needs of one family who has a servicemen in Iraq. The manager of Mountainside told me they would always be there for families of active duty service personnel.
   But, there is one thing I want to tell you: Love INC in Newberg serves only a few families, those who live in Yamhill County. There are nearly 1,000 Oregon families who have active duty service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. We want to serve them, also.
   I have gone to the Military Department of Oregon and to our representatives and senators with a request for funding the development of Love INC throughout the state of Oregon. To do this we will have to physically go to each community, meet with community leaders, talk to the pastors of the churches in each city and help them become members of Love INC.
   We know about Love INC and Polly Siler through countless meetings, endless work and long days; we have sold the people of Newberg the message of Love INC. Polly needs to be given the top community award our community can give her. She is a leader of an outstanding program. She made Newberg a Love INC town.
   But, now it is time to do the same thing, take the same name and the same mission to every other town and city in Oregon. Once we have done that, and once each town has a Love INC and each Love INC has set up their own hotline, Oregon becomes more ready to serve the families of active duty service personnel.
   Knowing the dedication of the people of Yamhill County, I know other communities would like to do the same thing. Oregon, of all the 50 states in the United States, cares about the needs of the families of active duty service personnel.
   I am asking you, each one of you, to phone our senators and representatives of our federal government and our state government to say you agree with this column. Thank you, I knew you care about the families of our active duty service personnel.
   Someone phoned me a few days ago to ask me if Devon, my granddaughter, was home yet. She is home. She is fine and trying to learn how to be a veteran. She made it, thank God, and thank you for your prayers. While she was in Afghanistan I told her you were praying for her and you wished her well. On her behalf, I thank you.
   Bob Hutchinson is a retired pastor and Newberg resident

March 31, 2007
Why dedicate funding for state police?

The History
   In 1979, the Oregon State Police patrol division had 641 troopers and a dedicated funding source. Today after 26 years of the general fund there are 287 troopers, a decrease of more than 55 percent. In that same time period Oregon’s population has grown more than 30 percent, registered vehicles have increased 65 percent. Oregon ranks dead last in the nation in the ratio of state troopers per capita.
   In the past 26 years there have been Democrats and Republicans in the majority. The results have been the same, the safety of the road traveling public has not been a priority. The Oregon State Police has seen bipartisan nonsupport. The patrol division has lost 374 positions since 1979.
   The 1999 legislature authorized 100 new trooper positions out of the general fund. Those positions never became a reality.   After hiring the first 25 troopers the funding was stripped. During the 2001 five special sessions, a recruit school of 40 troopers to replace vacant positions was canceled, many staff positions were left vacant and eventually 129 troopers were laid off. The 75 positions that were never hired, the 40-person recruit school that was canceled, and several of the laid-off troopers still have not been recovered.

The Problem
   There are no longer 24-hour patrols anywhere in Oregon and there hasn’t been since the layoffs. In most areas there are only one or two troopers on duty at a time, making long response times to crashes or other calls.
   In 2005, 24,000 out of 45,000 citizen driving complaints went unanswered because no troopers were available. Comparing the years 2000 with 2005, Troopers responded to 7,000 more crashes and 15,000 more citizen driving complaints with 100 less troopers. The result is the amount of traffic stops have gone down nearly 30 percent from 2000.
   The state police has been forced into a reaction mode, rather than being proactive in enforcement and preventing crashes from occurring. Fewer troopers on duty allows illegal drugs to flow undetected from other countries into Oregon communities.
   In the past 20 years, more than 11,000 people have died and more than 675,000 people have been injured in more than 1 million crashes in the state of Oregon. Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for all people ages 3 to 33. In Oregon there is a fatal traffic crash every 18 hours. Someone in Oregon is injured in a crash every 18 minutes and a traffic crash occurs every 13 minutes. Forty-one percent of fatal crashes are alcohol and/or drug related. These crashes are preventable.
   In addition to the personal impact, traffic crashes also have a negative impact on our economy. In a study done by the National Safety Council, every traffic fatality has a $1.1 million impact. Every serious injury has a $49,700 impact, and for every crash involving only property damage there is a $7,400 impact. The state of Oregon had a negative impact of more than $1.4 billion to our 2005 economy because of traffic crashes.

The solution
   The answer is to return the state police patrol division to a dedicated source of funding. Almost every state police agency in the nation is funded through some sort of dedicated funds. In the recession after September 11th, Oregon was the only state to lay off state troopers, California and Washington hired more.
   Section I of the Oregon Constitution states in part, “all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness.”
   I call on the legislature to follow the constitution, and follow the plea from the OSP. Give them what they need to complete their mission. Not a random number of additional troopers to say you did it, but a dedicated funding source which allows for OSP to grow without the fear that they won’t be able to hire the authorized positions like what happened in 1999.
   Without the fear that OSP will shrink the next time the legislature meets, but with the knowledge that the legislature has taken care of a public safety crisis not just this session, but for the future so the state police can grow its numbers to what they once were.
  Only then will we see less crashes, deaths and injuries. Only then will we make the dent in drug trafficking like we know we can. Only then can the legislature dust their hands and say “job well done.”
   Andy Moyer is vice president of the Oregon State Police Officers Association

March 28, 2007
Gay group’s visit a chance for Christians to shine
   In response to the article “Equality Ride: Simple discussion of gays or an abomination?” written in your March 14, addressing the Virginia-based Soul force, comprised of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gender communities, I am completely lost as to what the problem is with this group visiting Christian Colleges, in particular George Fox.
   To me, it is truly the damned that feel so threatened by this planned visit, citing reasons such as, “trickle down effect,” or opening the door to sure disaster or promotions of lifestyle.
   If God lives in our heart and we truly walk in victory, how could they be any sort of a threat? How will those that are in spiritual jeopardy ever want what we have if we never allow them close enough to see the spirit of God working in us?
   My Christian faith has not or will not waver because someone does not agree with it. In fact it becomes more steadfast. What a great opportunity George Fox has to reinforce their Christian values, and represent Newberg, Oregon, in a loving and spiritual light.
   We have a full-time job as children of God; to welcome the unsaved as joyfully as we welcome the ‘saved.’ Thank the Lord for the opportunity to face the people that do not seem to know the Lord. We are the seeds that need to be planted and multiply in forums and discussions such as this on April 5.
   Some of those people who commented in the article seem to be basing their fears on worldly notions instead of God’s heavenly promises. We mustn’t succumb to non-Christian fears; it defeats our purpose in walking in faith.
   It seems ridiculous to me that we would not realize the wonderful potential for serving God by extending our love to fellow human beings or lost sheep. We are not saviors, Jesus already has that covered, but we are servants. We do not choose whom to serve, but we know that God plans every appointment and all he requests is we to show up wearing his armor.
   L.L. Nash is a Newberg resident

March 24, 2007
McKern farmstead well worth saving; residents are behind it
   The efforts to save, move and restore Luke McKern’s house and barn for the purpose of creating a heritage center are not a matter of community politics, but rather a matter of a community-sponsored project coming face-to-face with a challenging, complex and difficult mission. The learning curve is steep. The goal, however, remains worthwhile and attainable.
   There is no question that Luke McKern was a pioneer, having walked the Oregon Trail to the Chehalem Valley in 1850. Luke’s been gone a long time now, resting in the pioneer cemetery near the new location for his house and barn, so we’ll never know if he would be pleased that several of his descendants are involved in supporting the efforts to preserve the McKern family homestead.
   No one took on this project without first counting the cost and no one made gross assumptions. The Newberg Graphic accurately reported that the community cares about and supports this project.   Members of the committee Friends of Historic Newberg have worked on this project for more than a year, meeting with folks from the Oregon State Office of Historic Preservation, groups from Tualatin and Sherwood who have saved and moved similar structures, and approaching the Chehalem Park and Recreation District to become a partner in this project.
   All members of the committee have made financial contributions of at least $500 and some have donated thousands. Costs incurred by publicity, brochures, signage, mailings, etc., have been paid out of their pockets, not out of the funds raised within the community. And more than 150 hours of labor have been donated to prepare the house and barn for the move, with additional help from volunteers within the community.
   Donations of a new roof, electrical work, period appropriate landscaping and maintenance have been secured. Financial donations to date are nearing $30,000.  There is a long list of volunteers waiting to begin work on the interior of the house, pending the move.
   The Chehalem Park and Recreation District superintendent and board are to be commended for their vision and commitment to this project. They are intelligent people in roles of great responsibility. They could have said no and moved on. No one would have blamed them and any fallout would have been of short duration.
   But they didn’t say no. They offered two acres of land and a temporary loan to help cover moving costs with the understanding that the Friends of Historic Newberg, working with the community at large, would repay the loan in full. Their decision showed a willingness to partner with the community, at some risk to CPRD, rather than a fear of being politically incorrect.
Community fund-raising, grants and donations of materials and services will continue the restoration work once the house and barn are moved. When opened, the heritage center will be run by volunteer staff. As it becomes self supporting a paid position of curator/director may be created.
   A local couple has offered to gift the heritage center with a covered wagon to help tell the Oregon Trail story. Donations of period appropriate furnishings are already being offered, including more than $5,000 of heritage quilts and textiles. Less than 10 percent of the furnishings in the Hoover-Minthorn House are original Minthorn pieces, but that does not diminish the sense of being in the historically furnished home of an 1880s Quaker doctor.
   The McKern house is structurally sound an built like a tank. It would be more appropriate to call it an ugly duckling at this stage, rather than an albatross. It is a classic Italianate home with simple elegant lines and beautiful roof brackets. With a rebuilt two-story front porch, new roof, and fresh paint it will be a welcome addition to any neighborhood and an asset to our Chehalem Park and Recreation District.
   Airplanes, helicopters and truck traffic are a fact of life in Newberg. The new site for the McKern buildings is beautiful, bordered on three sides by firs and old oak trees. It is pastoral and peaceful, with abundant wildlife and gorgeous views of the valley. We’re thankful for such a location.
   Let’s see, a chance to visit the downtown Chehalem Cultural Center and see a room filled with pioneer and farming artifacts, that has walls covered in recycled 1874 siding turned inside out or a chance to visit a re-creation of an 1860-1890 Chehalem Valley pioneer farmstead, located on two acres with a nearby wetlands, heritage fruit orchard, vegetable and herb garden, covered wagon, hawks circling overhead ...
   I know which one I’d want to visit and that’s why I’ve joined with other Newberg area citizens and the Chehalem Park and Recreation District to make our heritage center a reality.
   Lorraine Hall is a Newberg resident and curator of the Hoover-Minthorn House Museum.

March 21, 2007
Historic significance of McKern buildings means their worth saving
   I agree with Mr. Malone that moving, repairing and maintaining the McKern house will be costly (more so than anticipated). But I disagree that the house is not worth the trouble; saving that old house and barn is well worth the money and effort.
   It is true that Mr. McKern wasn’t a famous figure, just an ordinary citizen like you or me. But he was here with a working farm long before the people who came from Champoeg settled in Newberg. Mr. McKern’s house and barn are the oldest still standing in this area. Aren’t they something to treasure and keep?
   The two structures luckily are still sound and good examples of how people lived 150 to 130 years ago. If we don’t save this old legacy, will 20, 30, even 50 years from now people be asking “They could have save the buildings, why didn’t they?” Once those buildings are gone, there is no bringing them back.
   I hardly think the house is an albatross hanging around anyone’s neck, even Mr. Malone’s. It is all to easy to call in the bulldozers. Thirty minutes of pushing and shoving and the old house is history.
   What the Park and Rec District board has done is not “politically correct.” They have simply recognized the value of the old house and barn (as did the National Historic Register), generously given land to hold them and promised to loan Friends of Historic Newberg part of the funds to move it. They have made no other commitment. No other of their funds should be involved.
   I wish other organizations and people in Newberg were as farsighted and civic minded as the park board and Mr. Clements.
   This kind of move can be accomplished if enough people get behind it. Tualatin has recently saved and moved an old church and is now using it as a recreation center and community gathering spot. They use volunteers to run it and to date have been very successful. Why can’t we do the same?
   It will be difficult, but like the people working for the animal shelter — who are to be admired for their dedication — I think the result will justify the efforts.
   All the other of Mr. Malone’s objections are spurious.
   He doesn’t like the way the building looks and wouldn’t want it in his neighborhood. I wouldn’t either the way it looks now, but once restored, it will be a beauty. It is a classic house of its period, and a very expensive one for its time. It must have once been a show place in the Newberg area. It could be again.
   He says there isn’t enough McKern furniture left to furnish the house. Whoever said there would be? Very few families keep such furniture through the wear and tear of the generations. It is perfectly reasonable to use furniture from other sources as long as it is of the same period.
   Why not furnish the house with donated furniture? I have an old rocker, circa 1850, which came to Newberg with my great-grandparents in the 1880s. If the old house is restored I plan to donate it. It means the rocker will be safely kept beyond my lifetime and that other people can enjoy it as I have.
   Mr. Malone believes the funds to move the house would be better used elsewhere. That would be nice, but however much money is saved by not moving the house, it won’t be used to pave the streets. Those funds come from the city of Newberg.
   As for using the old siding from the house, I am no carpenter, but the effort would probably cost more than it is worth unless volunteers do the stripping and rebuilding. I don’t think you will find volunteers clamoring to do this.
   And since the house doesn’t belong to the park board, why should siding from the old house go for their projects?
   Mr. Malone speculates that the house will need red lights on the roof to warn airplanes. Since most of the trees in the area are taller than the house and they have no lights, why should the house need them? Come on, already.
   As for the noise, if that is a major problem why are the developers building numerous houses just as close to the runway and just as vulnerable to excess decibels. It’s not as though this airport has large jets landing every five minutes.
   So much of old Newberg, much of it worth saving, has vanished before the bulldozers. To preserve this small part of our history will take more hard work than I like to think about, but doing so is worth the effort. Don’t listen to the naysayers, the bah humbug types — few things worth doing are easy or cheap or convenient. Please help save this old house.
   Mary Brillas is a Newberg resident

March 17, 2007
Perhaps the McKern buildings aren’t worth the trouble?
   I’m not one for mixing in community politics, but I feel compelled to comment on the ongoing crisis concerning the Luke McKern House. I’m sure Mr. McKern was a fine man, but if he was indeed a pioneer of sorts, as some have claimed, I can’t help but think how embarrassed he might be with this issue. As a pioneer moving west, I would speculate that he knew the value of money and that it was hard to come by in those days, as Lorraine Hall states, “Money is not growing on the trees.”
   By taking on this project without first counting the cost, Mrs. Hall has made a gross assumption, much like the one The Newberg Graphic appears to make when stating that the community got behind plans to save this house.
   I understand that Chehalem Park and Recreation District has to do what is politically correct, but some how I feel that they are being held hostage over this problem. If they don’t back this effort they look bad, and if they give or loan money they don’t have a lot of, they look bad. What a choice!
   And what’s the plan if Mrs. Hall does get the thousands needed to make the move? How many more thousands of dollars will need to be raised to renovate this house with the authentic materials of that period? Where will the funds come for the period landscape? Is Park and Rec going to have to fund a curator? And who will pay for the grounds to be cared for? Does anyone possess any furniture, dishes, quilts, or the like that belonged to Luke or his family or will the house be furnished with items the family never saw?
   Another thing, I know I wouldn’t want that albatross in my yard, so why does someone think it should go on Park and Rec land? Wow, to think that thing almost ended up on the new golf course. But is the district’s land west of the airport any better? Will this two-story period house need a red beacon on the roof to meet with FAA requirements for structures in a flight path? Some single-story ones in the area do.
   Will the people attending the picnics, camp fires, storytelling or weddings mind the occasional noise of low flying aircraft or large trucks using their exhaust breaks as the travel down Highway 219?
   Mrs. Hall, I hope you won’t take offense at my comments. I know your heart is in the right place, much like the lady who has been trying to raise money for the animal shelter. For every $2,000 she raises, the price of building materials goes up $5,000. Or those behind the effort to erect a new Welcome to Newberg sign on the lot west of the large flag pole. We’ve already got three very attractive, very expensive signs at the entrances to town and yet when you’re in downtown the sidewalks are so bad you may be looking for signs out of town to safer footing.
   Because I’ve made my share of blunders, I would not be writing this unless I had something positive to add. Maybe you could save yourself a lot of money and heartache if your contractor would instead strip the siding off ol’ Luke’s house, turn it inside out and reinstall it bare side out in one of the many classrooms that Park and Rec has vacant in the old Central School community center.
   They’re looking for ways to fill the spaces and you;re looking for a cultural setting for your museum. It’s a quieter setting, can be filled with period artifacts, close to civic corridor, room for outdoor activities, ADA accessible, and the list goes on.
   With the rest of the house demolished and hauled away, you have no large moving cost or utility moving cost which leaves more for the museum itself. You win, Park and Rec wins, the community wins. Luke would be proud.
   Mike Malone is a Newberg resident

March 14, 2007
Make your voice heard on growth and Newberg’s future
   In the past few years there has been increasing concern among Newberg citizens about how to manage growth.
Newberg faces significant challenges as new developments are added to its edges without the infrastructure to support the additional traffic to main roadways, new children in schools and other pressures.
   As a community, we need to develop some vision for what we want this town to look like 10 or 20 years from now. Most of the key decisions that shape the future of Newberg and surrounding Yamhill County areas are made by a very few people without any significant public input.
   There are always opportunities to participate in local government for those who take the time to understand the process by which decisions are made. Unfortunately, this process is exceedingly time-consuming and can be frustrating given the competing interests of all the stakeholders.
   I speak from experience. Recently, I have come to understand the process by which the city adds new land and homes by attending many of the urban growth boundary meetings, as well as some of the hearings considering bringing new properties into the UGB.
   Since most of us are uneducated about the process, let me briefly summarize how it works: Each city in Oregon is mandated to provide enough land in their urban reserve areas and urban growth boundaries to satisfy future growth projections.
   As land was beginning to become scarce in the past few years, the Committee on Newberg’s Future was formed to address how and where the city should grow over the next 20 to 30 years. They met 26 times over the course of two years, culminating in a set of recommendations to Yamhill County and the Newberg City Council in July 2006.
   Then, the city and county began holding neighborhood meetings to seek public input on the specific recommendations for each area that is proposed to become part of the Newberg UGB.
   This is now an ongoing process as the Newberg Urban Area Management Commission evaluates all the input to decide on which areas surrounding Newberg are most appropriate for bringing into the Newberg UGB and URA. This is a well-planned and orderly process that provides ample opportunity for public input for those who have the time and patience.
   In addition to this process are other UGB proposals that come up as property owners along the city boundary sell out to developers. Once property is within the UGB, a property owner can apply for annexation to bring their property into the city limits. Ultimately, annexations require a vote by city residents.
   Once within the city, building can proceed using city resources (sewer and water) and land can be developed at much higher densities than if it remained in the county zoning. Developers like density because they can squeeze more money out of a parcel of property.
   The end result of this process is piecemeal development around the fringes of Newberg. Unfortunately, the road system of Newberg was not designed to handle this pattern of growth since Highway 99W is the only major east-west route and it will surely remain so for many years to come.
   With all the politics being played out, a realistic means of funding the Newberg-Dundee bypass is unlikely to materialize in the near future.
   Growth is sure to happen. People will come to Newberg and Yamhill County because it is a very nice place to live. As we plan for growth, Newberg and the surrounding areas of Yamhill County need to develop a vision that will guide growth.
   There are many questions that need to be addressed. The most basic question is how much growth can this community handle and still maintain the quality of life that we desire?
   Contrary to what some community leaders have claimed, we are not mandated by the state to grow. The state only requires cities to set aside enough land to accommodate projected growth. But since the amount of land that is designated for development is based on the population forecasts, this “forecast” is really more like a recipe.
   There were three scenarios for growth that Newberg City Planners evaluated in 2004-2005. The Committee on Newberg’s Future recommended that the city adopt the medium population forecast of 38,352 people by 2025 and 54,097 by 2040. These numbers have become the foundation for subsequent recommendations for land needs and supply.
   If it means eating up more countryside and clogging our major roads with more traffic, are we going to accept this recipe for growth? Are we going allow our future to be shaped by the bottom line of corporations or investors from outside our community? Does it make sense to allow any further growth that will add traffic to Highway 99W until the Newberg-Dundee bypass is completed?
   Citizens who care about the direction we are headed should start looking closely at the process that is driving growth in our community and make their voices heard.
   Thankfully, there is one democratic step that comes up every time new property is brought into the city. The annexation vote is the only time that the public can truly voice an opinion that counts. I strongly urge all my fellow citizens to vote no on all future annexation requests until the bypass is completed and we have a comprehensive, community-driven plan for Newberg’s future.
   John Lowery is a Newberg resident

March 10, 2007
Poll numbers confusing on status of Measure 37
   Statistics are a funny thing. You can use results of polls and surveys in so many different ways, depending on the point you hope to make.
   Take for instance David Sale’s March 7 article, titled “Tide May Turn Against measure 37.” As “proof” of such a reversal of tides, Sale reproduces these statistics:
   “According to the survey, 54 percent of Willamette Valley voters feel Measure 37 should either be fixed (39 percent) or repealed (25 percent). A sizable minority, 28 percent of Willamette Valley voters, feel the legislature should leave Measure 37 intact.”
   Well, let’s see. 39 percent think Measure 37 should be “fixed,” but only 25 percent think it should be repealed all together. And although Sale somehow tallies the combined results at 54 percent, my calculator says that 39 and 25 actually totals 64 percent of voters who believe the measure contains flaws as is.
   Now, there’s no way to repeal Measure 37 with only 25 percent support. Such a low show of support for repeal altogether makes George Bush Jr.’s approval ratings appear almost rosy by comparison at 35 percent.
   But if 64 percent believe there are tweaks to be made, in the least it’s a darn good thing the law is being looked at by our elected representatives in Salem. But “tweaks” and “fixes” are a far cry from repeal. The basic tenants of compensation or waiver appear solid, supported apparently by the 75 percent of respondents who did not, in fact, support a total repeal.
   Yep, statistics are funny things, and can be used in different ways. Myself, I am quite happy to hear that 75 percent of Oregonians do not desire repeal, two years after implementation. That’s a better showing than the original bill received. It appears the measure, in concept, has actually gained support.
   I’d like to concede a point, however, the intelligent Viron Fessler made a few weeks ago in regards to Measure 37. It was something any logical mind could grasp, and deserves a serious look when deciding what actual fair compensation would, and could, be in these Measure 37 claims: Mr. Fessler pointed out that the value of a person’s land has been artificially inflated as a result of land use laws.
   This is something I’ve heard before as an argument against the urban growth boundary from the Reason Public Policy Institute, a group which fights the good fight for affordable housing. I loved it then and still do. I certainly can’t deny its equal applicability when determining the value of Measure 37 claims.
   Randy O’Toole of the Thoreau Institute puts the inflated figure at about 40 percent (or $90,000) of retail value for a home selling for $225,000 inside the UGB, for example.
   So this means properties inside (and outside) the UGB have a substantially higher value because of land use laws. Certainly this inflated value can’t be used when requesting compensation or waiver using a value these very same laws artificially inflate.
   Anyhow, good point Viron. I totally agree with your premise. Put me in the 39 percent who believe there are tweaks to be made. There isn’t cause to throw out the baby, but the bath water is a little dirty.
   Brett Lieuallen is a Tigard resident who formerly lived in Dundee

March 7, 2007
Measure 37 proving to be nothing like it was portrayed to the voters
   The great lexicographer Dr. Samuel Johnson had it right back in 1755 when in his dictionary of the English Language he defined “fraud” as “deceit, cheat, trick.” What would he call Measure 37 if he could visit Oregon today?
   A recent independent poll indicated that only 31 percent of the registered voter participants now favor Measure 37. Oregonians are finally realizing the fraud of Measure 37, considering that 61 percent voted for it. And we are yet to see it’s final repercussions.
   The text of the initiative mentions “compensation” 14 times and the equivalence of “waiver” only twice. The overall text is strongly oriented to compensation. But of the 7,000 or so Measure 37 claimants statewide, few have claimed compensation.
   Remember that Measure 37 provided no means for paying compensation claims, failed to define “just compensation” or specify that compensation be determined independently of the naturally biased claimant. Nor were means provided for processing claims. All support the allegation of fraud.
    Yamhill County commissioners Leslie Lewis and Kathy George strongly urged support of Measure 37 in the voters guide, assuring us that most of the claims would be for single dwellings on small acreages. How wrong they were, with the county being subjected to more than 400 claims affecting some 54 square miles. Commissioners George and Lewis are yet to explain their misjudgments as to what went wrong.
   Perhaps today the good doctor might coin two new words: “frauder” and “fraudee,” the former being those who promoted Measure 37 and those who have filed claims for multiple dwellings. Unfortunately. most of the rest of us are the latter, the “fraudees.”
   I failed to look up Johnson’s definition of “greed.”
   Henry Reeves is an Amity resident

March 3, 2007
Feds must get behind idea of paying for loss of timber harvest
   A solution to the “county payments” issue is proving elusive. Without the funds traditionally provided by timber receipts and, more recently, subsidies from the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, several Oregon counties are either beginning to lay off workers or making plans to do so.
   As you can infer from our organization’s name, this is a big concern to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Many of the workers targeted for layoff are members of our union.
   But despite what you may think about public employees and their unions, this issue is not about people “keeping their jobs” — it’s about good public policy and, dare we say it, the moral obligation of the federal government.
   This issue has become much harder than it needs to be. Oregon is the 10th-largest state geographically, yet more than 50 percent of our land is owned by Uncle Sam, who pays no property taxes. Counties rely on property taxes to fund their most basic and essential services.
   To offset that loss of revenue, federal officials agreed decades ago that Oregon counties should receive a share of the funds gained from timber cut on federal forest lands. That system worked fine as long as trees were being cut. But in the 1980s, recession and increased concerns about the environment severely decreased the number of trees harvested, prompting the federal subsidies.
   It’s a fair tradeoff given the reality of our geography.
   Yet our AFSCME International lobbyist working this issue on Capitol Hill says many legislators “just don’t get it.” Never mind that Oregon has counties larger than some states, nor that it’s hardly our fault God covered the Pacific Northwest with trees.
   “They need to diversify their economy out there,” our D.C. lobbyist hears repeatedly.
   Hey, if there were an economic diversification silver bullet, Oregon counties would surely have fired it years ago. Achieving such diversification isn’t easy when your county’s largest landowner is an increasingly uninterested out-of-stater.
   The original Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act was an understood “deal” reflecting both geography and economics. Many lawmakers from other states don’t like the fact that Oregon receives such a large portion of the payouts. But the proportion is based on the reality that this is where the trees are — or at least were.
   And that argument is disingenuous at best. Oregon has no large military bases that receive seemingly endless federal funding. We receive no subsidies for not growing a particular cancer-causing crop. No cash for acres of unused or otherwise inoperative oil derricks. Nationally, people want Oregon to have pristine, publicly owned forests. We’re fine with that, but there’s a price to pay.
   It appears the best solution for now is a one-year “emergency extension” of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act to be attached to a supplemental budget earmarked to move through Congress sometime in March.
   We’re encouraging AFSCME members to write House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and urge her to throw her considerable clout behind this extension, and we urge the general public to join our effort. It’s a Band-Aid at best, but would buy some needed time to hammer out a long-term solution.
   Please note that Congress is rarely swayed by e-mail; take the time to write a “real letter” and invest 39 cents in Oregon’s future.
   Don Loving is a Newberg resident
and public affairs director for Oregon Council 75 of AFSCME

Feb. 28, 2007
State should consider impact Healthy Kids Program will have on business
   In the debate over Oregon’s Healthy Kids Plan, many significant failures of the program are getting little attention. Most Oregonians agree that something needs to be done to help uninsured children get good health insurance. However, the state of Oregon needs to take a hard look at this plan and really study the details and funding, which are being passed over by both the media and many legislators.
   The plan encourages parents who have health insurance for their kids through their employer to switch to a state-assisted program. Many families in Oregon responsibly pay for their children’s health care and forgo other luxuries such as expensive cars and the latest gadgets.
   Even at the newly reduced qualifying amount, this proposed plan would be available to families of four with household incomes of $62,000. The state should be very concerned about how many people will opt out of their current plan to a free, taxpayer subsidized plan.
   The state should also be worried about how many families move to Oregon to join the plan. Yes, they do have to prove residency for six months, but the requirements are very vague and there is no prohibition of coverage for children who are not legal residents or citizens of the United States.
   Finally, the plan requires funding from a cigarette and tobacco tax increase, which means that 20 percent of Oregonians, those that smoke, will be paying for the plan. In addition, retailers such as myself will lose even more sales to Internet and other black market purchases. Our stores rely on the sales of cigarettes to make a profit, and some of the 3,000 retailers in Oregon will have to lay off employees, many of whom have benefits and health insurance.
   Recent news articles have highlighted the fact that cigarette tax collections are declining. Yet the state tosses the economic numbers aside and is pushing forward on an important piece of legislation that relies on an unstable funding source. And, only half of the projected revenue actually goes to the Health Kids Plan.
   State Rep. Merkley, who is helping to pass the plan, states in press release that “nothing we will consider this session is more important for families than affordable, accessible health care for all Oregon;s children.”
   It’s true. Consequently, the Oregon Legislature should take the time to study the details, get the facts on their unanswered questions and find a stable funding source.
   Does the state really want to force children off the plan in two years due to lack of revenues and huge enrollment numbers? If not, legislators need to get it right the first time when implementing this program. We owe it to Oregon’s kids.
   Jim Trenary owns and operates 12 retail stores and gas stations in Oregon

Feb. 24, 2007
Farmers got a fair deal with SB101
   Gov. Tom McCall had several dreams. In fact, after Senate Bill 100 passed (giving Oregon the first statewide land use planning), he and a bipartisan coalition of state representatives enacted Senate Bill 101.
   SB 101 provided tax breaks to farmers as compensation for giving up development potential and was supported by the Oregon Farm Bureau.
   For more than 33 years Oregon farmers, ranchers and timber growers have received compensation beyond calculation from less-than-market-value property tax assessments. Along with use-appropriate zoning, these breaks have assured that farm, ranch and timberlands remained intact.
   It’s worked! Sprawling cities were kept at bay while real farms and farmers remained protected. And though many, like me, were not old enough to vote when our land use laws were enacted, we accepted them, and now (more than ever) understand their need.
   There’s no guaranteed profit on a land investment, but show me an owner claiming a loss through Measure 37 who can’t sell their lot for more than they paid for it.
   It’s hard to be angry or disrespectful to anyone the age of your parents, but at the crux of their argument is money, pure and simple. Unfortunately, greed is the motivating factor here, not “fairness.” Every dollar given comes at the expense of those who can’t do the same. And many of “those who can’t” likely paid a hefty price to the likes of those who’re now demanding more.
   Perhaps our greatest governor, Tom McCall, went to his grave defending what he described as “The most momentous piece of legislation passed during my time here.” Considering we’re now debating the 505th Senate bill, Tom would have supported it too.
   Viron Fessler is a Gaston resident

Feb. 21, 2007
Let’s enable Spanish-speaking
individuals to get ahead in society
   Columnist Shawna Archibald uses some boobish examples to make her point against declaring English Oregon’s official language.
   Her premise is ridiculous, of course, as no one will be forbidden from speaking Spanish anywhere, if they so choose. But neither will anyone, including government entities, be considered in violation of any equal access clause of any state law by choosing not to use Spanish in literature, training or services.
   One could argue that the proposed law directly violates the spirit of equal access laws, but then it is that very spirit that is changed with these types of proposals. It’s a bit of a chicken and egg, cart and horse sort of debate, peripherally. I myself am ethically torn on the proposed change, if only the equal access debate is taken under consideration.
   However, the issue expands beyond access. As an employer of Spanish-as-a-primary-language employees, I have to disagree with Mrs. Archibald’s larger premise that this type of a law is part of a larger attack by “the man” on these minority speaking citizens.
   I believe most employers of this class of citizen would largely agree that as a group Spanish-speaking immigrants are honest, hardworking, dependable people. They are conservative Catholics, in majority, and strongly family-oriented folk with, somewhat ironically, largely conservative social opinion.
   Recent Spanish immigrants are, of course, as new arrivals have always been poor and usually disproportionately dependent on social services in the first, and often second, generation after arrival. Because of that, they are prone to voting for candidates that support the benefits programs, and access to those benefits programs, that they need.
   Because of this necessity-driven tendency (which is not an actual reflection of their larger social ethic of self-sufficiency. These folks do not come from a country with entitlements, and while they’ll take advantage of the assistance out of necessity, entitlement programs are alien to their culture), often times any move by conservatives to assist these people with an old-fashioned boot to the pants looks like a political backhand.
   As an employer of these folks, what I see as their greatest hindrance for better paying jobs, or promotions, is the lack of English language skills. As long as they choose not to learn to speak English clearly and fluently, they remain in the lowest paying labor positions available, jobs which exclude sales or customer interaction, or management of any level. And the easier it is to get by without acquiring these skills, the longer these people remain on the lowest rungs of the employment ladder.
   So tough love, I say. I want these fine people to move up and out of poverty. But we hold them back by enabling them to “get by” without learning English.
   No one is going to starve with this new law, but many folks might find this just one more inspiration for learning English, and therefore better their social and employment opportunities.
   The entity who ought to be against this proposed law is unions, funny enough. Unions, whose members consist largely of skilled and semiskilled laborers, have the most to loose by the immigrants learning English. Because once they leave the bottom rung of laborers, these folks climb to become plumbers, electricians and steel workers. Trust me when I say they have the will, the smarts, and the work ethic. They simply need the kick to the pants.
   So Shawna Archibald, I’m with you, believe it or not. I too want to help these good people, as does the George family, I believe. But I think you’re a kindhearted enabler, doing more harm than good in the long term, broader picture reality. And if you employed some Spanish-only employees, your perspective might alter somewhat.
   My final thought is this: Ask any recent Spanish-only immigrant what one single thing holds them back from the better jobs more than any other. You already know what they’ll answer. But you’d have to speak Spanish to have asked.
   Bret Lieuallen is a Tigard resident who formerly lived in Dundee

Feb. 17, 2007
Newberg lacks affordable housing
   Residents of Newberg, let’s start with a quiz:
   How well do you know Newberg?
   Have you lived here long?
   Do the teachers who teach your children live here?
   Do those who work in the stores you frequent live here?
   Do those who fight your fires and police your streets live here?
   Would your children like to someday live here?
   OK then, what does a new home cost in our fair city?
   According to a city-commissioned study presented at a public forum on Feb. 1, the average sale price of a new home in Newberg was over $400,000 in the fourth quarter of 2006.
   For those of us who live here, this should be a concern. Those comforted by knowing that the teachers, firefighters, police officers, retail workers and countless other folks we see every day actually live here, this should be a concern.
   For the City of Newberg Planning Department, this is a concern.
   You see, the City of Newberg has a stated, understandable and necessary (Comprehensive Plan) goal “to ensure there is an adequate supply of affordable housing units to meet the needs of city residents of various income levels.”
   While running the risk of being a master of the obvious: $400,000 is not affordable when the average family income as cited in the study is $54,600.
The goal and the reality are not matching. Newberg — we have a problem.
   To its credit, the City of Newberg’s Planning Department, notably in the person of Economic Development Coordinator/Planner David Beam, has seen the problem and has set out to find ways to bridge the vast canyon between what we have and what we need. The commissioned study confirmed the fears as it shows that the City of Newberg is not meeting either its goal for density or diversity of housing. Simply, we need something other than $400,000 single-family single-lot homes. We need this soon.
   A series of public meetings, The Newberg Public Forum on Affordable Housing Through Density and Design, shows ways to bring the sides of the canyon closer.   Funded by a grant from the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program, an extensive list of tools to promote this range of housing options was set out at the recent public forum by the consulting firm Siegel Planning Services, LLC.
   The 18-item list of possible tools includes both “carrots” and “sticks” to encourage the development of affordable housing in our fair city. From “financial incentives” to “mandatory inclusion of affordable housing in annexed property” the list presented is masterful and extensive.
   Now it is up to the city’s planning commission, city counselors and mayor to take the needed steps to adopt a healthy dose of the medicine prescribed for the ailment. The Siegel report has laid out the treatment plan. The patient needs to follow the recommended dosage.
   Speaking of dosage, we now have a brand new hospital in our fair city. Wouldn’t it be great if the entry-level staff at that wonderful addition to our community could actually be a full-time part of our community?
   Speaking of new additions, we have a new golf course and a resort is planned.  Wouldn’t it be great if the people who keep the greens or clean the suites could actually live and maybe even buy a home here?
   Speaking of children, The Newberg Graphic ran a front-page story on Feb. 7, “A Cold Night In the Streets” by Schellene Clendenin, that relayed the experiences of 85 middle and high school age students who spent a night on the streets to call attention to homelessness. The experiment was organized by Love INC, which identified 21 homeless families in Newberg in January. Beyond the wrenching pain of those families, we must ask ourselves will those 85 children be able to one day live here?
   The city planning commission, counselors and mayor will be presented a treatment list to help cure the ailment of a lack of affordable housing in our community. Some medicines don’t taste good and some require a certain amount of bravery. Our elected officials should remember that this ailment cannot go untreated. They need to be brave. We need to support their bravery and foresight.
   The next Newberg Public Forum on Affordable Housing Through Density and Design is scheduled for March 15.       Remember if the average is over $400,000 now, what will it be when your child is ready to buy his or her first home here in our fair city?
 Rick Rogers is executive director of Newberg Area Habitat for Humanity

Feb. 7, 2007
State land use regulations - an Oregon tragedy
   Based on 34 years of working as a consulting civil engineer and land surveyor, I found it hard to agree with any of the statements put forth by Merilyn Reeves’ guest opinion regarding our land regulation system.
   Unfortunately, the statements are typical of those who defend the system, not work with it. The system is popular because it absolves the majority from becoming involved with and understanding the tragedy that we are inflicting upon ourselves.
   I could mount arguments on almost every sentence, but will present a few comments on a couple of the statements.
Take for example, the comment, “planning has been responsible for making Newberg a livable community, providing for diversity of housing”. Obviously, the writer did not attend with a small handful of our 20,000-plus citizens the open house in Newberg on Thursday night to hear a presentation by a consultant on a government grant who is recommending tools to undo Newberg’s regulations that have stifled creativity, reduced flexibility to match existing conditions, and deprived our community of a diversity of housing styles and affordable housing. If you don’t want to live in a three bedroom, two and a half bath house on a R-1 or R-2 lot rectangular fenced-in lot, you are out of luck in Newberg. Our regulation system has no answer to the testimony presented that 80 percent of Newberg’s R-3 zoned land is owned by two owners who have no intention of developing in their lifetime.   Our housing market is driven by more regulation in the metro area that drives people “until they qualify” for cookie cutter mandated houses in our smaller communities that continue to expand into Willamette Valley farmland.
   For 30 years, I have waited for someone in Newberg to look at the required wide streets in Newberg that increase accident rates about four times over narrow streets, and decrease the odds of a pedestrian surviving a traffic collision from 95 percent at 20 mph to 10 percent at 40 mph. Or someone who has actually counted the vacant parking spaces on our city streets and wondered why we are paving over Willamette Valley farmland to build unused parking spaces. I looked at two streets, and our “on street” parking usage rates were 7 percent to 13 percent. Our land use regulation system results in 2.2 to 2.8 parking spaces per person in Newberg, great livability for cars, but people?
   I am still waiting for one fire marshal in the state to study the issue of whether the person we save in a fire is the one we kill in a car wreck due to mandated wide streets. If our “planning” system actually worked, perhaps we would have been putting our money into residential sprinklers instead of paving more unused parking spaces that we cannot afford to maintain.
   Newberg’s “planning” did not foresee a bypass, it was “planned” after it was determined that we were going to build one. “Planning” has not prevented thousands of cars parked on Highway 99W between Newberg and Dundee from continuing to send exhaust fumes from wasted gas into our air.
   “Planning” has prevented our children from living on our farm when they get old enough to take it over and take care of us in our retirement. “Planning” has not prevented farm or forest lands from being sold to real estate investment trusts that don’t give a rip about soil erosion or sustainable management beyond the three month profit and loss cycle.
   Why do we have a land use system that prevents two single family houses from being built on one parcel of property, yet allows a duplex or hundreds of condominiums on the same parcel?
   I agree that Measure 37 is not perfect, but it appears that it is our government’s interpretations making it a problem. Why else would government say that we can sell our property for development if we live in the city, but not if we live in the country? Why should anyone feel that it is wrong for our citizens to pass a law to restore rights taken away by government without notice?
   Why is it good for Newberg to pump water out of the ground, treat it and pump it to our homes so that we can flush it down our toilet for the City to treat it again before dumping it directly into the Willamette River? Rural homes get their water from springs or wells, then put it back into the ground by their septic systems along with their impervious area storm runoff. Is that not more efficient than “urban growth” that sends sewage and storm water direct to our streams?
   Through 36 years, I have seen the absurd in dealing with our land use system including thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours over an admitted one word typographical error. Instead, we could have been buying conservation easements, designing attractive communities for people to live and shop or encouraging wise land stewardship instead of trying to cram an unworkable system down people’s throats.
   I doubt that the system will change as it it too entrenched with burdensome laws, ordinances and regulations, supported by the uninformed majority, understood by few, and the continued vilification of reasonable people who suggest change.
   Travel to other communities, states and countries, decide what you like and don’t like, then come back to Oregon and see if our development codes allow similar creativity, and you will find that we have created an insurmountable barrier to innovative development.
   Measure 37 is a start to correct our self inflicted wounds, but planning for the future will require more initiative and creative thinking than the simplistic “regulatory solutions” with which we have hobbled ourselves.
 Leonard A. Rydell, consulting civil engineer and Newberg resident

Feb. 3, 2007
Legislators must deal with the inequities of Measure 37 before it's too late
   As a “Friend of Yamhill County” and the recipient of every approved Measure 37 claim within, I’ve long accepted Oregon’s land use regulations as necessity to save farm, ranch and timberland for coming generations.
   It’s a misnomer to claim anyone’s been cheated or robbed of their land value. With benefits beyond calculation, such owners have remained protected from raising property taxes through various use-appropriate deferrals and well defined urban growth boundaries. If their original intent was to divide their land, they simply failed to act. And though most have lived comfortably, enjoying a sustained increase in their land value, too many are using the implementation of Measure 37 to cash in beyond reason.
   As a recent poll indicates, the majority of Oregonian’s now view Measure 37 as a mistake. What was sold to the public as a “fairness fix” has morphed into an unfair and unsustainable land rush.
   Though qualifying land owners have witnessed a constant increase in the value of their parcels, their outrageous claims of “loss” come at the expense of those restricted from doing the same. Had there been no land use regulations, the current value of such rural tax lots would have leveled out far below those of Measure 37 claimants.
   And, not only have their neighbors paid a premium for their homes (providing a healthy profit to the seller), land use regulations assuring a stable community added greatly to that price. The true losers are those having bought into a “stable neighborhood” and whose property value and pursuit of happiness will diminish.
   A victim as well, neighboring property owners with long standing tax deferrals on their timber and cattle operations were one of the first to receive a Measure 37 waiver. Their request was approved by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Though many remain upset over this sole ability to cash in at the community’s expense, the same claimants have now amended their original request, demanding to: “divide the 131.68-acre parcel into one-acre lots and establish dwellings thereon.” Consider that: the claims you see now may apparently be revisited to take even more!
   Beyond such individual abuse, the unanticipated level of corporate greed is equally egregious. With examples of a ranch in Umatilla County, the Cunningham Sheep Co. and Affiliate’s claim is more than 24,000 acres; thousands of acres of apple and pear orchards in Hood River County are destined for subdivision; and in our neck of the woods, Stimson Lumber Company claims are so vast they’re spread between multiple counties.
   Though spokesmen for such corporations and trusts tell us, “This is only to protect our investors,” or “We have no plans to develop yet,” mustn’t we gird for a hostile corporate takeover resembling that of PGE by Enron, ultimately forcing the liquidation of such assets? Thousands of acres of world class timber, cattle and fruit production will become sprawling unplanned communities, each demanding the assets and infrastructure of their respective counties — counties already incapable of paying off such claims. Consider too, the potential lifespan of such a company or trust — with some creative tweaking they may transfer these claims for decades.
   Though many corporations and trusts were large donors to the Measure 37 campaign, their true desires were not advertised to Oregon voters. We were sold (on a crowed presidential ballot) an octogenarian lamenting her inability of build a home for her children, although her actual Measure 37 claim turned into eight homes.
   Oregon’s initiative and referendum is an interesting experiment in democracy.    Though we’re given the ability to alter the state constitution, fortunately, Measure 37 only qualified as a statute. Poorly written, if ultimately unworkable (like others before it), our legislature not only has the right but the responsibility to minimize its damage.
   Viron Fessler, Gaston resident

Feb. 3, 2007
The question is 'Are we really interested in peace?'
   Now, there you go Bruce! You did it again! Why have you concluded I am a Republican? I vote for the man, not for his party. I voted for Carter. You have to admit this, Bruce. A good alternative to a Republican candidate has been hard to find. That is the reason I have voted the Republican ticket.
   And, I am not a right-winger, or a left-winger. I am a conservative. I like the “middle of the road.” Some of us middle-of-the-road types are wishy-washy. I try my best to not be. I think a middle of the road person can have some opinions to which they hold strongly.
   When I asked what we can do to help and then said “pray,” I was very serious. I, like you, believe the world is in a lot of trouble. You seemed to agree with me; but then you said, “God helps those who help themselves.” Many people quote that axiom, thinking it is from the Bible, which it is not.
   I believe the only reason God helps those who help themselves is because those who help themselves get themselves into a lot of trouble and God is the only one capable of getting them out of the mess they are in.
   I know you are not making fun of or ridiculing those who believe we will have to resort to prayer. I believe you, and everyone who reads The Newberg Graphic, would agree prayer is the most powerful, situation changing, war-ending power in the world. It is the most powerful thing we can do.
   I think we need to determine whether we believe Jesus is the Prince of Peace. If we believe he is the Prince of Peace, then he is the one we need to turn to. We have believed ideas and programs can bring an end to war. We have believed we could teach men to war no more. But, now we know war is in the heart of men and only God can change man’s hearts. Most of us, deep in our hearts, believe this.
   The question we need to answer first is: “Are we really interested in peace?” Our record says we are not. Somehow, Americans have decided to export our way of life. We decided we should offer, by force, the Utopian-like life Americans experience. To do that we began causing “regime change” in these countries. We forced regime changes in Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Chile, Iran, Grenada, Afghanistan and ... Iraq. I believe the next country to be offered regime change will be Iran. I sincerely hope we won’t.
   In every instance, rather than offering our way of life, we have been lining our pockets with the country’s money. In every instance of forcing regime change the targeted country has suffered.
   So, if we want world peace we need to look more closely at the regime change God demands. He demands change. He demands honesty. He demands changed hearts and changed lives.
   The Bible says, “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will ‘heal’ their land.”
   America is the country needing regime change. It is badly needed. God offers it. The regime change that results in peace on Earth and joy to the world. May we “turn from our wicked ways” and allow God to change us. It is our only hope.
   Bob Hutchison, retired  pastor and Newberg resident

Jan. 31, 2007
It’s time to repeal the ‘double majority’
   While the 2007 Oregon Legislature is just beginning to pick up steam, already there’s one measure introduced that we believe deserves support. It’s Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 10 and it would eliminate most of the double majority requirements that plague Oregon election law.
   Before we speak to the merits of the measure, let’s make one point clear: SJR 10 doesn’t itself change the law. Instead, if passed, SJR 10 would call on Oregonians to once again consider the issue at the ballot box. After several years of dealing with the consequences of the double majority, we believe that’s an opportunity most Oregonians would welcome.
   Here’s a quick history lesson. The double majority was the brainchild of anti-taxes, anti-union, pretty much anti-everything Bill Sizemore. (This occurred several years before a jury found Sizemore liable of election-related fraud and racketeering in a civil lawsuit.) The double majority law says that any property tax increase must both be approved by a 50 percent majority of those voting and that at least 50 percent of those registered to vote must do so.
    In other words, if there’s only a 49 percent turnout, there’s no need to even count the ballots. It doesn’t matter if 99 percent of those who took the time to vote said “Yes.” In essence, every single person in the 51 percent who didn’t vote is counted as a “No,” and that’s not right.
   Sizemore and other proponents love to compare the double majority to the concept of a “quorum.” If a quorum of a city council isn’t seated, they argue, that body can’t conduct business. That argument may even sound OK at first blush, but then you have to consider where we live.
  Because in 2007, if there’s any state in the country where the “quorum concept” doesn’t hold water, it’s vote-by-mail Oregon. Here, a full 100 percent quorum is reached in every election, because every registered voter receives a ballot and has more than two weeks to return it. You don’t have to worry about the difficulty of getting out to a polling place if you’re handicapped or disabled, you don’t need to worry about bad weather or having the flu on Election Day and so on. Every voter is “in the room” once he or she receives their ballot.
   Once that ballot is in your hand, it’s your responsibility to participate. Indeed, as mentioned, the biggest argument against the double majority is the fact that people who don’t vote are in essence counted as “No” votes. That includes people who have moved, people who have died or others who, for whatever reason, aren’t off each county’s election rolls.
   The double majority has a history now, and it’s not a good one. We’ve seen proposed levies for countless fire districts, libraries, water districts and others easily pass a majority of those who voted only to be vetoed by those who didn’t.
   The double majority is a slap in the face at the fundamental tenets of democracy, and again, Oregon’s unique vote-by-mail system erases it’s proponents biggest sound bite.
   Please note SJR 10 doesn’t change everything. If you’re concerned about jurisdictions trying to “sneak” levies and such in off-cycle elections, that part of the law wouldn’t change. Property tax elections would still have to be held on regular primary and general election dates.
   Nationally, Oregon has always been seen as a leader, a place where we’re willing to take chances and try new ideas. Vote-by-mail was one such idea, and it’s been a good one — several states are now in the process of copying our law. The double majority has not been a good idea — and it’s OK for us to collectively admit that. At the very least, the concept deserves another round of statewide debate, and that’s what SJR 10 would do.
   We encourage you to contact your state legislators and urge them to make SJR 10 a priority this session. We need to open the door for a full examination of this important topic once again.
   Ken Allen is the Executive Director of Oregon Council 75 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
 
Jan. 27, 2007
What can you do? Volunteer, get the truth, find the right candidate
   To Bob Hutchinson: Apology accepted. I have to tell you, most Republicans and/or right-wingers I encounter are too intransigent and egotistical and seldom, if ever, willing to acknowledge errors, much less apologize for them.
   Kudos to Bob. This is the first step in the lost art of compromise and personal growth, without which our system stagnates and ceases to function.
   Bob asks me: “So what can we do?” and offers one good suggestion: Pray. Yet, God helps those who help themselves.
   So, here are some other suggestions I have offered before in this forum, and elsewhere:
   Get active. Being on fixed income, I nevertheless bit the bullet and am going to march in the Peace March in Washington, D.C,. today (Saturday), and for several days thereafter to lobby Congress. (I won’t really march, I’ll ‘scoot’ along in my walker. But nevertheless, I will be there to act on behalf of our troops and veterans and make a statement against the Iraq war and the coming escalation.)
   Veterans for Peace and Renewable/Sustainable Energy (most wars now are fought over oil and other resources), Veterans In Action, Veterans Against Torture, Disabled American Veterans, Patriot Guard Riders (who escort the fallen to their final rest), and several other veteran groups of which I am a member, will be there in protest and to lobby Congress.
   I was an enlistee, a wartime volunteer in the Vietnam era, and I still remember when there were “only” 3,063 KIAs in Vietnam. More than 55,000 more American troops were yet to die in that ill-begotten war, along with million or so more native Southeast Asians.
   My participation today doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of making any concrete difference — intransigence and egotism on the part of our elected officials will prevent that. I will, nevertheless, be there to be seen and heard face-to-face with congresspersons on both sides of the aisle, many of whom are more concerned with re-election than doing the right thing.
   Volunteer. In previous letters I have recommended that those under 42 years of age, and of sound in mind and body, enlist in a branch of the armed services — volunteer for the coming increase in the Army and Marine Corps, an increase which will need at least 100,000 new, quality troops.
   This nation is devoid of backup in case of another crisis requiring a military response. The all-volunteer active services and the reserves are exhausted and suffer as you cannot believe from extended absences and multiple tours, and what this does to their jobs and their families. You can help them. Volunteer.
   Read and research to get the truth. You must read books written by those in the know — those who have been there (several of whom are even Republicans and right-wingers). Books such as “Fiasco,” “Cobra II,” “Hubris,” “Conservatives Without Conscience,” “State of Denial,” and many others out there that are extremely well-researched, objective works.
   Get to know the candidates in the coming elections. Having been reared in Texas, I know more about the Bushes than I care to, and when I attempted to relay my knowledge to people, even before 2000 (such as the Texas governorship being a relatively week executive position that does not prepare someone for the presidency, and of GWB’s less-than-stellar business management, scholastic and personal histories — all of which did not bode well for the country), I was dismayed to find many folks were more interested in (as the cliche now goes) “who would I like to have a beer with,” rather than who had the best qualifications to be a real leader in the highest elective position on the planet during the most dangerous period in history.
   Lobby locally for civics, geography and history to be taught in our schools.
   These suggestions are just a start. They are my attempt to answer Bob’s question in his Jan. 24 column. So now, I throw Bob Hutchinson’s question back at you readers: “What can you do?” No, more importantly, “What will you do — and when?”
   Bruce Freeman is a Newberg resident

Jan. 24, 2007
We must find some way to come together as a country
   Marni Haley is right. I was condescending and patronizing. Whenever I make this kind of error, I apologize. So, Bruce, I am sorry. I knew I was wrong. I am ashamed. I will not do this again. You, every veteran, everyone serving in our armed forces deserves better. Anyone, veteran or not deserves to be treated better.
   The question now is this: Since President Bush has chosen to continue our involvement, what can we do? We could get very angry, but what will that accomplish. We could join the thousands who are attending rallies around our country in protest. We could say this war is not a just war, it is not a legal war, and it is not a war that limits collateral damage. It is, rather, a war in which anything goes; both we and the enemy have targeted human targets.
   Yes, we could say all this and, most likely, be right. But the question is, “What can we do now?”
   These letters and columns in The Newberg Graphic about the war began because we asked the question, “What can we do to help?” We wanted to act; we wanted to make a difference. We talked about ribbons around trees; support our troop’s messages on our cars, flying the American flag.
   Both Bruce and I said, “It is not enough.” So what can we do?
   We can pray! That is, we can really pray. Mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, friends of soldiers and sailors need to pray. We can pray when we get up and when we lie down. We can pray as the Bible says, “Without ceasing, without stopping.” We can pray for an end to this war and all war.
   Prayer is the most powerful, situation changing, war ending power in the world. It is the most powerful thing we can do.
   We can join “Newberg’s Christians United In Prayer.” Their next prayer service is at St. Peter Catholic Church at 7 p.m. Feb 1.
   Servicemen’s families need help. Everyone knows a family whose has a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan. We can help them. We can knock on their door. We can ask them if there is something we can do to help them. We can phone Love INC to ask if there is a serviceman’s family needing help. Love INC’s number is 503-537-3999. They are on the front lines to help families of servicemen.
   Are you a pupil in our schools? You probably know a class member whose brother, sister, father or mother is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. You can be a friend to them. Pray for them. Let them know you care.
   So we pray, we continue to pray. We help, we care, and if there is anything more we can do, we do that too. Americans have always done this. This is the American way. This is what makes us a great people.
   Bob Hutchinson is a Newberg resident and retired pastor.

Jan. 20, 2007
We must chart another path toward peace
   There are many faces of victory in Iraq. The president’s stated victory was to take out Saddam and to have a democratically-elected government in Iraq; and he said “Mission Accomplished.” However, our military has been further tasked to control the violence within Iraq until such time as Iraq can govern itself.
   An American citizen’s victory, as reflected in the polls, is to bring our troops home and to get out of a civil war. Victory is saving the lives of our soldiers, ending deficit spending and building our defenses at home.
   An Iraqi citizen’s victory is being able to leave the house without fear, to have water and electricity for more than two hours a day.
   An Iraq government victory is to eliminate one or the other religious groups, Shite or Sunni, whichever can strong-arm the nation.
   A U.S. military victory is to follow orders and establish permanent bases in Iraq, maybe Iran, perhaps Syria too.
   A corporate victory is to secure Iraq and the Middle East for the sake of sharing in their oil reserve/profits (the carbon-exchange oil deal), as well as the windfall profits of no-bid contracts.
   A terrorist victory, we can only assume because they have not been brought into the discussion, is to end imperialism whether from within or from without. And, to have a more equitable distribution of wealth within their respective countries.
   A worldwide victory seems to be that there is no victory as we are proceeding now and that the Iraq war has exacerbated the chaos in the Middle East and terrorism worldwide. They have withdrawn their military support.
   So far there has been no face to victory that we can all recognize. But, I think we can find one if we openly discuss the real issues of this war.
   Just suppose that Europe and the rest of the world have just as great of a concern with terrorism as we do and that they are willing to participate in an international force to cope with terrorism if simply invited with humility to share the burden.
   Suppose that all the consumer nations of Middle East oil share in developing a multinational, equitable agreement on how to distribute the limited supply of worldwide oil. That we all agree to manage a fair price that would allow Iraq and perhaps Palestine to rebuild their territories.
   Suppose that our country admits mistakes and withdraws from Iraq to become a member of a multinational group to evaluate and manage Iraq and the distribution of all limited resources including water which the Middle East needs.
   Suppose that our country redirects our military spending into developing an environmentally responsible alternative source of energy.
   Suppose that we take the lead in the prosperity of humanity instead of putting ourselves forth as the police force of the world and therefore the target of terrorism. Let us negotiate.
   Perhaps, all of the above would lead to victory. We are but one of many interdependent nations. The time has passed that we can proceed alone and in insolation or proceed as imperial invaders. Consider, for example, that we could not now retool for a war as we did in World War II because we have exported entire industries including the manufacturing of steel, ship building and heavy equipment.
   Consider that a spreading conflict could lead to a nuclear holocaust for it is not only our allies that can deploy nuclear weapons. A nuclear war is a catastrophe for the entire northern hemisphere of our planet.
   To bully, to dominate, to occupy other nations is to focus terrorism and disaster upon ourselves. We must try another way to peace; what we are doing is not working. Let’s find a new face for victory that all humanity can recognize.
   Marni Haley is a Sherwood resident

Jan. 17, 2007
Want to slow growth in Newberg? Vote down annexations
   Are too many people or too many cars or those facts combined with a fast growth rate in Newberg creating the transportation problem?
   Our road system here in the Newberg area was designed (I would guess) for a population of maybe 10,000, having about the same service area around us.
   But when we more than double those numbers and only add new streets to accommodate new homes, we really do not help ourselves get around any better.
   Yes we did get the Oregon Department of Transportation to (kind of) work with us to fix the Highway 99W section through town to accommodate more traffic. Now we are responsible for the maintenance of that one too.
   And, yes, the city is working on a northern collector to help with some traffic problems, but all in all we have done nothing in the way of widening or new roads to help. We have in fact added more stoplights, stop signs and barriers to existing roadways, along with slowing them down in a hope that this will fix things.
   It does help to reduce accidents in most cases, but makes for a very confused and irritated driver sometimes trying too stay up with the changes.
   Now where am I going with this? Is it just to condemn growth? Is it to say that the city does no planning? None of the above, really. Because we will always have growth.
   We have made a great effort to stay up with a plan for this action in the city. I believe, though, that we need a slower growth pattern than what we have been following for at least the past two years, maybe three.
   My wife was sitting there one night, listening to me grumble over the idea that we cannot stay at this pace and expect our system of antique roads to keep up.
   I was yelling about the fact that the state of Oregon mandates for us, the city, to maintain a 20-year plan and/or land inventory for growth. If we use it up tomorrow, then the next day we must find more. And in fact that is what I believe we have done — use a 20-year supply up in only 10 years. And this continues to happen.
   Back to my raving; she asked me a simple question that I had no answer for. She asked me why would the state of Oregon force us to do this and not force ODOT and themselves to plan for and keep up the road system for this required growth? This had to be the greatest question that I had ever been asked.
   So I ask you, the citizens and voters of this community, to think about that one for a while and remember that you are in charge of Newberg’s growth. We in Newberg have the ability to vote down annexations on your ballot. If we vote them down, the city has no obligation to keep making Newberg bigger with more homes and more traffic. Most voters do not know this little item, that they actually control Newberg’s growth.
   Yes, our streets are in disrepair right now and they say that we have no money to fix them. The plan to remedy this will come about probably in the first part of February. The city is looking at proposing a road maintenance (or transportation) fee or something like this to place on your water bill similar to the storm water fee.
   Is it the right thing to do? I have mixed feelings on this one and am not sure about how I will vote for you. I would appreciate your comments to me, either in writing, e-mail or by showing up at the meeting.
   Phone calls are nice, but I would prefer something which could be read and heard by all the council.
   I realize that I may have come off as a negative person here. But what I wanted to do was to share with you that we make a lot of decisions for you, and I would like you to consider that you can make serious decisions for yourselves as to growth and help me make some of the others.
   If you want people, then vote that way.
   Roger Currier is a member of the Newberg City Council

Jan. 13, 2007
George should excuse herself from hearings
   (Editor’s note: Karol Susan Welch lives near land that will soon come under consideration by the Board of Commissioners during a Measure 37 hearing).

   I challenge the ability of Commissioner Kathy George to make an unbiased decision in this case, and wish to offer her this opportunity to recuse herself from participation in this matter.
   I base this challenge on the belief that the opponents of this proposed subdivision development will not receive a fair and impartial decision from Commissioner George in light of her very public and proactive support of Measure 37 and of property development resulting from Measure 37 claims.
   My belief in the commissioner’s inability to render a fair and impartial decision is supported by the numerous statements made by Commissioner George, which have appeared generally in print and in The Newberg Graphic specifically over the past few years.
    In print Commissioner George has argued against mandatory public hearings for Measure 37 claims (Feb. 5, 2005, Newberg Graphic) and has stated that holding hearings is “really a waste of effort,” adding that “it’s deceitful to neighbors of Measure 37 claimants to make them think the board can do anything to help them.” (April 5, 2006, Newberg Graphic). In this same article, she is quoted as advising “that just because a Measure 37 claim doesn’t receive a hearing, doesn’t mean the land will be developed without oversight. Development of the land must still go through the planning process to ensure it conforms with building requirements.” (April 5, 2006, Newberg Graphic).
   In a news article published in March 2006, it was reported that “the commissioner has advocated her support for Measure 37” and further states that “the measure returns land rights to property owners, rights she feels were stolen from them by unfair land use laws.”
   Commissioner George has described, in print, her family’s longterm efforts to overturn pre-existing land use laws and implement new land use laws such as Measure 37, and has freely admitted, as well, the George family’s longterm objective to develop their own property under newly instituted land use laws.
   A Dec. 7, 2006, McMinnville News-Register article headlined “Georges file big claim,” states that the Georges “indicated they intend to divide the single tax lot into six 20-acre parcels, five 40-acre parcels and one 66-acre parcel and establish homes on each.”
   The article continues “Kathy George said that was the plan all along, but it was thwarted when regulations associated with Oregon’s land use planning system started kicking in. Oregon’s tight land use planning regulations have had a politicizing effect on many, although the George family’s response has been more aggressive than most.”
   For years Gary George has pushed for relief in the legislature. And Larry George once headed Oregonians In Action, the state’s main property rights lobby, pushing for the sort of reforms now encapsulated in Measure 37.
   “To be honest, our son has worked for 15 years to get our rights back,” Kathy George said, “We’ve always planned to do it.”
   The article concludes, “Where that leaves George and the scores of other Measure 37 claims due to come before the Board of Commissioners in the coming weeks and months wasn’t immediately clear.”
   These statements clearly illustrate that Commissioner George’s strongly held and publicly published opinions regarding Measure 37 and property development resulting from Measure 37 claims compromise her ability to render a fair and unbiased decision in this matter. And I request that she recuse herself from participation in this hearing.
   Karol Susan Welch is a Newberg
resident

Jan. 10, 2007
I resolve to do the things I am doing better
   The New Year’s resolutions. I never actually make them. I find that most people do not. And even those who do, really don’t, because they don’t really do them.
   So, I try and find things that I’m doing and claim them as New Year’s Resolutions, like actually throwing out our Christmas tree prior to March and not letting it mulch in our driveway. Or doing situps at least once a week to tone up my baby fat — that’s pretty doable. Reading a novel once a month, I’ve been doing that for three years now ... I think I’ll keep that resolution for 2007 also.
   I remember my impressionable teenage years when I would hear people of importance encourage resolutions. So, I decided I too would read through the Bible in a year. This was working out fabulously until I hit Leviticus and noticed my reading time really was evolving into a nap time or a speed read session with little or no comprehension of what kinds of meats I was to eat and when I, as a woman, was to leave the camp until I became clean again.
   Running. I think I have now resolved to not incorporate running into my resolutions. I like exercising and being active, but doing one thing 365 days a year for 30 to 45 minutes is way too predictable and boring for me.
   I’ve been dedicated to so many things ... water aerobics, Curves, Pilates, Jazzercise, walking, jobbing, weights, swimming ... loved them all ... for about six months. Love to return to all of them again, but right now I’m doing a program tailored to my current needs; my circuit training includes heavy lifting of car seat and child, cardio when I wrestle my son down to change his diaper, quickness and agility when I anticipate a leap off of a chair into my arms, and endurance when I wake of each morning and basically do the same things I did the day before and the day before that and the day before that.
   Once I tried fasting from chocolate. This was a few days after I announced to my husband that I didn’t think I had an addictive personality, in reference to a Dr. Phil program on meth. I take that back, I do have an addictive personality.
   I have never rationalized so much my need for this devilish treat as I did in that brief period of my hiatus. I think I started seeing strange creatures made of chocolate and having all manner of out-of-body experiences during my withdrawal period.
   One resolution I made a few weeks ago is to never brag about the discipline of your child, especially when they are present. I was oozing with delight over my toddler’s ability to make a positive choice because we were using timeouts. This was promptly followed with him slapping me across the face. Nice.
   My husband and I do sit down and make goals; we just don’t ever seem to do this on or near the New Year.
   New Year resolution makers and keepers are the types who don’t really need to make them because their personalities are disciplined and goal driven, so really it is a concept that really only makes the rest of us feel defeated and worthless. Hence, I’m going to focus on the recycling of the Christmas tree and call it good for this year’s turning of new leaf.
   Rebecca Schneiter is a freelance columnist and Newberg resident

Don’t be idle when it comes to the health of the children
   My son was so excited about starting school, but I was not ready to let him go. After a few days it hit me, I was entrusting him to a world that was beyond my control for the first time in his life. I was terrified.
   Every day we walk to school, hand in hand; Mommy protecting him from the outside world. But it is a big world and even with his hand in mine we were faced with dangers that were out of my control.
   They began as soon as we stepped on to school property. The air in front of the school was gray with exhaust and no one seemed to even notice it. Mothers with babies in strollers were walking them right into plumes of exhaust. The kindergartens were seated right inside the front door where all the fumes were sucked into the building and they were left there to breath it all in for up to 30 minutes every day.
   It is no wonder that 1 in 10 children suffer from asthma and other environmentally caused diseases and these numbers are rising at alarming epidemic proportions since we aren’t even trying to protect them.
   How long will we avoid the obvious and later just say we didn’t know. Our parents did it with cigarette smoke and now we are doing the same thing with environmental toxins.
   What is it about human nature that makes us unable to admit a mistake even with the existence of irrefutable evidence? Instead of saying that we didn’t know and begin to change, we instead are sure that the new information must be wrong. Of course I still see people in their cars smoking with children, so it does take longer for information to get to some people than it does others.
   I contacted the school right away and the principal said that she would look into it. I was so sure that I lived in a world where the health of our children was of utmost importance that I took her at her word. We may be paying these people to educate our children, but I also had the expectation that they would also be keeping them safe while they were in their care.
   Sure, everyone looks out for the potential child molester but protecting the air that the children breath was a totally new concept to her. Her answer was that no one had ever mentioned it before. Now that I had brought it up to her, I thought that it was so obviously dangerous that she would jump right on it.
   Okay, I know that I am a little on the obsessed side of healthy — organic food, green cleaning, and no high fructose corn syrup or saturated fats, but I know that I am not the only one. And as a matter of fact I know that the number of people that are just plain tired of having their bodies attacked by avoidable environmental toxins is growing daily.
   For a long time (was only a few weeks but for me it felt like forever since I had to walk my son through the haze everyday and leave him sitting in that hallway) nothing happened. I wrote a letter, to the point and included studies on how children are affected by breathing in exhaust and sent a copy to the principal and the school superintendent.
   The next day there were cones set out to block off the 15 feet of roadway in front of the school’s main entrance. It was a start and it did stop some of the horrible build up of exhaust directly in front of the doors (I am thankful for that).
   But why stop there? How hard would it be for most people to park and walk their children to the door? A little more effort but no more time consuming, I assure you. We don’t have to have a drive-through school because just in case you’re wondering, rain does not melt children, and cold air does not cause colds but breathing exhaust over time will. The chemical benzo(a)pyrene, which is a vehicle exhaust contaminant, has been linked to lowering the production of antibodies which protect us from viruses.
   I understand that there are people that “don’t do” change, but I have to believe that if they understood the damage they were doing, they would be willing to give it a try. Other areas have “anti-idling” programs in front of schools and they were very successful since on a whole people are willing to do what it takes to protect children. It also does a good turn for the environment at the same time.
   It has been said, “The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.” My question to you is how high will we score? If you would like more information on anti-idling programs or have any other questions, give me a call at 503-537-2602.
   Denise Bacon is a Newberg resident

Like Korea, Vietnam and Bosnia – U.S. will get out of Iraq with time
   My friend Bruce: You and I, and a few other Newberg residents have in a real sense become journalists. We made that list, by having two or three or more guest columns appear in print in The Newberg Graphic.
   By being connected to this great endeavor, we have gained some responsibilities.
   Let me explain further: It is a great honor to be able to put pen to the paper through the wonders of the publishing of the news and opinions in our community. It is our responsibility to use the same care as others; who have made the writing of news their life’s work
   You fail to use constraint in your writing. Let me mention a sentence out of your recent guest opinion. You said, “I started out with some degree of humor, not really being able to fathom the degree of neglect and separation this administration and the majority of Americans seem to enjoy in this time of war and natural catastrophes which we continue to endure.”
   Bruce, I do not entirely understand what you are saying. But I do not believe there are any people in our country, and certainly not in the Willamette Valley, who seem to enjoy a neglect or separation from the war and natural catastrophes. Many of us have family members in Iraq. Some of us have had family members who have survived Katrina.
   Bruce, I live to get a letter from my granddaughter in Afghanistan. I am not holding the war at arm’s reach. Bruce, you have linked two events in our experiences together. Can you tell me what the war in Iraq has to do with Katrina?
   I believe I know the connection; but it is a connection that is tenuous, at best. I think what you are trying to say is the president and a majority of Americans do not seem to be bothered by the war in Iraq. You seem to think they are able to hold both these things at arm’s reach. I think you introduced Katrina to provide added strength to the position you are taking. There is no connection between the two. They are separate events.
   Now, I do not believe you are serious when you write about a massive enlistment of all those persons able to enlist. You want them to provide relief for those presently serving. You seem to want Americans to become ‘gung ho’ about fighting. Most Americans haven’t even killed a mouse, but now you want every man, women and child to pick up a gun and fight, fight, fight.
   My son Randall is a U.S. Navy recruiter in Portland. I asked him some questions about the training of soldiers. I asked how much it would cost to train servicemen. He said, “You are looking at $150,000 to $200,000.” I asked him how long training would take. He said, “It varies with the branch of the military.” Some take a long time and others do not.
   But then he said, “In the Navy less than 40 percent of our personnel end up actually involved in conflict. Most recruits become cooks, clerks, teachers, truck drivers and the list goes on. He went on to say, “Raw recruits cannot go into battle. They would be a liability. They would get themselves and others killed. The death roll would skyrocket.”
   After he told me those things, I got up from my desk to get a glass of ice water. Sometimes it helps to take a little time out. I did it because I was uncertain what else to write. I decided I wanted to ask you a question:
   “Bruce, what are you actually saying? Bruce, what do you actually mean?”
   As you know, Bruce, I am a substitute teacher three to five days a week. Almost always I ask the students to consider doing an extra credit assignment. I tell them, “We need someone to take on the task of ending war; ending our senseless killing of one another, to take on the task of finding ways people can live alongside each other in peace.”
   The offer still stands. No one has found the answer. I asked more than 500 students last year to take on that task. No one accepted the assignment. But I am still making the offer, “Find a way to end war!” Or, find a way, to withdraw our troops from this war.
   We found a way to get out of Korea. We even found a way to get out of Vietnam. President Clinton committed 20,000 troops to Bosnia. He said it was our moral duty. He said it would prevent the war from spreading to other countries. We found a way to get out. Does that sound familiar?
   We are always sending our servicemen to this conflict and that conflict. We do not pause to think about whether we should or shouldn’t send troops. It is as if our leaders are saying to the leaders of countries around the world, “Here is our phone number! Call if you need our help.”
   Most of the time we know there is no way we can succeed in the conflict. We could not win in Korea, but we went anyhow. We knew we could not win in Vietnam, but we went anyhow. We had no reason to be in Bosnia, but we went anyway.
   And now we are in Iraq. Some of us, you included, do not believe we will ever learn better.
   There are times we should answer the call. But we do not respond to moral conflicts such as the genocide in Darfur, Ethiopia and the Congo, just to name three of the most genocidal wars. We seem to be bystanders when we should be participants. We are willing and able to run everywhere and put out fires others have started. But, we look the other way when we should be involved.
   We Americans believe we can do anything. We have done, seemingly, the impossible over and over. Just as it seemed we would never get out of Korea, we did! It seemed impossible to get out of Vietnam, but we did. And Bosnia, but we did. Now we are in Iraq. What are we going to do? We won’t draft the college girl next door, or the waiter in the restaurant. But we will get out. Even though it seems impossible.
   We will do it. It will take a while longer. That is all.
   Bob Hutchinson is a Newberg resident and retired pastor

If politicians are so keen on war, let them send their sons and daughters into battle
   Recently the current administration decided to reopen discussion about the military draft. After failure to locate weapons of mass destruction, establish a link between Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, or demonstrate an imminent nuclear threat, we are led to believe that the key to stability in Iraq involves an increase in American combat troops.
   The administration has indicated that they have no intention of reinstating the draft; however, the military has reported difficulty meeting the minimum recruiting goals.
   Given the level of integrity demonstrated by the administration to date, any discussion of the draft seems ominous.
   There is still some argument that a lack of will in Vietnam cost us the war, but these arguments lack real substance. In spite of the similarities between the two, we seem to have learned little. From trumped up evidence used to illegally invade another sovereign nation, to unsubstantiated need to increase our combat strength in an attempt to resolve another nation’s protracted civil war, the parallels are obvious.
   Let us offer a modified course of action to prevent us from repeating our failures of Vietnam. This time allow the hawks and neo-cons who scream for war the opportunity to actively serve their country. Realizing they are probably too old to serve in combat, but accepting their patriotic fervor at face value, let them be the first to offer up their sons and daughters to the perils of war.
   Upon reinstatement of the draft allow their son’s and daughter’s names to be offered for the first round of the draft. Allow them the privilege of shedding tears and supporting the mental and physical infirmities of their children.
   Obviously the cost of the war will exceed the shedding of blood. Financing the war will offer another opportunity for these avid patriots to demonstrate the American values they accuse others of not holding dear.
   The time has come for these individuals to step forward and carry their flag waving zeal to the actual battlefield. Let them know the red badge of courage rather than a draft deferment.
   Jim Leard is a Newberg resident

Dissent becomes shrill as country descends further into the Iraq war
   Lisa Ludwikoski of St. Paul characterized my previous letters to the editor as full of “shrill accusations.” I have to agree with her. In my previous perhaps 20 to 30 LTE, going back before the 2004 campaign, I started out with some degree of humor, not really being able to fathom the degree of neglect and separation this administration and the majority of Americans seem to enjoy in this time of war and natural catastrophes which we continue to endure.
   As events progressed, however, and the body counts increased from Katrina and other domestic inaction of the current administration, and from the war of choice in Iraq, I lost all sense of humor. Nothing is funny anymore.
   Instead of shrill, perhaps a better description of my letters would be “desperate.” And here’s just one reason for my continuing desperation:
   Regarding Iraq, and whether you deem this war right or wrong, I am desperate to see every able-bodied person under the current acceptable age of military service of 42 to do what is right and volunteer to relieve our troops at the front in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are under that age, and whether you are going to George Fox or some other university, or if you are in your senior year in high school, or if you are out of school and never served in the military and are single, or in a familial position allowing you to serve, then you should march down to the local recruiter of your choice and enlist. Now.
   We do not have enough troops. The volunteer troops we have are exhausted.  More than 25,000 have been killed or wounded. That is the size of Newberg — gone. Our troop’s families are fragmenting at a rate far beyond the national rate because of prolonged and numerous deployments (just increased and extended this past week) and the resulting absences and financial distress, compounding the psychological stress and strain.
   This exhaustion, and long separations, drives down retention and recruitment, but many who read this have a means to partially belay the desperation of our armed forces. Male or female. You can help.
   We are at war. This nation is in a real shooting war for the foreseeable future. To avoid serving, you must either declare yourself as someone too special to help, or a coward, or a conscientious objector meaning you cannot morally, because of religious beliefs, serve or support our military in any way.
   It is past time for all within distribution distance of this paper to step up and pay something for the freedom which you and your loved ones enjoy. Don’t wait to see what others are going to do. If you are an adult, you don’t have to get anyone’s permission. This responsibility is between you and your conscience and doesn’t involve anyone else.
   Your life, your precious life, must now be interrupted to do what is right. You need to help out our troops in a very real way, before they collapse under the burden. Putting a metallic ribbon on your vehicle is not enough, and never was real support.
   If you are physically and mentally able, you need to get up, now and move out. You must do this — or may you forever know shame for not acting and allowing this moment in our history to pass without you lifting a finger.
   Bruce Freeman is a Newberg resident