Here’s an economic development idea: Fill up some of our empty space with a rock climbing wall and an indoor paintball arena.
Sisters could use a few more attractions like that — the kind that would draw both locals and visitors without a lot of negative impact. Maybe a public-private partnership between some entrepreneur and the Sisters Park & Rec District?
No, these faqcilities don’t promote family wage jobs. But maybe there’s a knock-on effect; just a few more amenities that make Sisters a destination for fine, healthy fun might make a difference in attracting that small manufacturing firm.
It’s just a notion, but hey, wouldn’t it be fun on a cold winter night to go out and climb a rock wall or blast away with your friends?
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
It’s no sin to make a buck
There was an interesting piece in the news recently about a guy who ran a for-profit outfit that staged charity events. His company raised hundreds of millions of dollars for charities — and the company profited handsomely.
Win-win, right? Nope. In the minds of purists, the entrepreneur was “profiteering” and he was ultimately chased off.
The charities subsequently took on their own fund-raising — and the totals plunged. Brilliant.
We should take care that we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot in the same way in Sisters. You often hear rhetoric that portrays anybody in the development business as “greedy,” just out to make a buck. Well, that’s no sin. Too many people resent everybody else’s money but their own (which is, of course, well-earned).
We need a lot of work in our forests, and somebody’s gonna have to make a buck to make it happen. It’s okay to cut down trees for profit. It really is. It is possible for forest health and economic health to be compatible.
Destination resorts are a hot-button topic around here. But each should be individually evaluated on its merits and impacts, not on the fact that somebody is going to make a lot of money.
Some resorts may have a negative impact, some may be positive, some may be pretty much neutral. We should weigh impacts on resources and traffic and on neighborhoods along with potential economic and resource benefits without getting all stirred up about the “greed” of developers.
Sure, there are greedy people out there. Others may have visions that are too grandiose for Sisters. We must be vigilant and rigorous in applying standards, whether it’s logging protocols or development guidelines. But those who are willing to invest in Sisters on the prospect of adding value to the community and making a profit for themselves should be applauded, not demonized.
Jim Cornelius
Win-win, right? Nope. In the minds of purists, the entrepreneur was “profiteering” and he was ultimately chased off.
The charities subsequently took on their own fund-raising — and the totals plunged. Brilliant.
We should take care that we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot in the same way in Sisters. You often hear rhetoric that portrays anybody in the development business as “greedy,” just out to make a buck. Well, that’s no sin. Too many people resent everybody else’s money but their own (which is, of course, well-earned).
We need a lot of work in our forests, and somebody’s gonna have to make a buck to make it happen. It’s okay to cut down trees for profit. It really is. It is possible for forest health and economic health to be compatible.
Destination resorts are a hot-button topic around here. But each should be individually evaluated on its merits and impacts, not on the fact that somebody is going to make a lot of money.
Some resorts may have a negative impact, some may be positive, some may be pretty much neutral. We should weigh impacts on resources and traffic and on neighborhoods along with potential economic and resource benefits without getting all stirred up about the “greed” of developers.
Sure, there are greedy people out there. Others may have visions that are too grandiose for Sisters. We must be vigilant and rigorous in applying standards, whether it’s logging protocols or development guidelines. But those who are willing to invest in Sisters on the prospect of adding value to the community and making a profit for themselves should be applauded, not demonized.
Jim Cornelius
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Merry Christmas out there
Merry Christmas (or whatever holiday you celebrate) to all of you out in the blogosphere.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The shoes hurled round the world
George W. Bush greatly — and typically — “misunderestimates” the depth of contempt and hatred he has stirred in the Arab world.
When an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at the lame duck president, Bush dismissed the gesture as a way to get attention.
Typical smirking smugness.
In Iraqi culture, throwing your shoes at someone is the gravest form of insult. It’s like spitting in the president’s face, only moreso. The fact that Bush doesn’t get that speaks volumes.
Bush never understood what he was getting us into in Iraq and he still doesn’t. He will go to his grave unreflective and unenlightened.
The Arabs as a culture have a long memory. It will take decades to overcome the damage this president has done. Let us hope that never again will we be led into the mire by a president who considers stubborn, arrogant ignorance a virtue.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
P.S. You do have to hand it to Bush, though. His reactions were good. And I thought that Bill Clinton was the guy used to ducking things thrown at his head.
When an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at the lame duck president, Bush dismissed the gesture as a way to get attention.
Typical smirking smugness.
In Iraqi culture, throwing your shoes at someone is the gravest form of insult. It’s like spitting in the president’s face, only moreso. The fact that Bush doesn’t get that speaks volumes.
Bush never understood what he was getting us into in Iraq and he still doesn’t. He will go to his grave unreflective and unenlightened.
The Arabs as a culture have a long memory. It will take decades to overcome the damage this president has done. Let us hope that never again will we be led into the mire by a president who considers stubborn, arrogant ignorance a virtue.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
P.S. You do have to hand it to Bush, though. His reactions were good. And I thought that Bill Clinton was the guy used to ducking things thrown at his head.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
‘Pristine’ is a dirty word
I was talking with a friend recently about the state of our forests and it occurred to me that one word is a symptom (and maybe a cause) of a lot of wrongheaded thinking.
That word is “pristine.”
You hear it a lot in reference to the Sisters Country, often in commentary from “Environmentalists” opposing cutting trees or developing some part of the forest.
Especially if there’s the possibility of making a dollar involved. Dirty money versus “pristine” forests.
There’s nothing pristine about the forests of the Sisters Country. They’ve been meddled with for over a century, with logging, fire suppression, road-building, riding, hiking, pot growing — virtually every kind of human activity.
Pretending that the forests are “pristine” only makes it more difficult to enact the kind of human intervention that is needed now to restore the health of those forests.
The forests need massive intervention. Thinning, burning, cleanup — aggressive management, this time focused on forest health as the top priority.
And somebody has to make money somehow so that the work can be sustained over the long haul.
The old paradigm of conflict between “lock it up” and “get the cut out” is no longer valid. We need new paradigms. First, we have to retire the word “pristine.” Pristine ended long ago. Human industrial civilization is here in force; the choice is whether our impact is negative or positive.
I care a lot more about whether the forest is healthy than if it is “pristine.” And healthy is going to take a lot of work.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
That word is “pristine.”
You hear it a lot in reference to the Sisters Country, often in commentary from “Environmentalists” opposing cutting trees or developing some part of the forest.
Especially if there’s the possibility of making a dollar involved. Dirty money versus “pristine” forests.
There’s nothing pristine about the forests of the Sisters Country. They’ve been meddled with for over a century, with logging, fire suppression, road-building, riding, hiking, pot growing — virtually every kind of human activity.
Pretending that the forests are “pristine” only makes it more difficult to enact the kind of human intervention that is needed now to restore the health of those forests.
The forests need massive intervention. Thinning, burning, cleanup — aggressive management, this time focused on forest health as the top priority.
And somebody has to make money somehow so that the work can be sustained over the long haul.
The old paradigm of conflict between “lock it up” and “get the cut out” is no longer valid. We need new paradigms. First, we have to retire the word “pristine.” Pristine ended long ago. Human industrial civilization is here in force; the choice is whether our impact is negative or positive.
I care a lot more about whether the forest is healthy than if it is “pristine.” And healthy is going to take a lot of work.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Looks like Bi-Mart’s on its way
Unless something untoward happens, it looks like Sisters will have a Bi-Mart store in a few months.
The company filed an application for a minor modification on the former Ray’s site last week (see this week’s Nugget page 1 or www.nuggetnews.com).
It’s going to be interesting to see what the reaction is. Bi-Mart is a chain and some folks really don’t like the idea of chain stores in Sisters. Of course, Ray’s is a chain, too, and nobody seems to mind having a supermarket...
I think that Bi-Mart is the best thing that could happen at ThreeWind Shopping Center. It’s a Northwest company, employee-owned and a contributor to its communities. It carries goods that we’d otherwise be going to Bend for.
It’ll compete with some of our existing stores, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing, though the thought of going up against a big player surely makes some folks in town nervous. Competition usually makes everyone better.
The worst thing that could happen out there is blight — a dead or dying shopping center right along Highway 20 wouldn’t do anybody a lick of good.
A solid store with an updated and improved Western facade will look good, stimulate business for Radio Shack and Coyote Creek and fill a need in Sisters. Sounds good to me.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
The company filed an application for a minor modification on the former Ray’s site last week (see this week’s Nugget page 1 or www.nuggetnews.com).
It’s going to be interesting to see what the reaction is. Bi-Mart is a chain and some folks really don’t like the idea of chain stores in Sisters. Of course, Ray’s is a chain, too, and nobody seems to mind having a supermarket...
I think that Bi-Mart is the best thing that could happen at ThreeWind Shopping Center. It’s a Northwest company, employee-owned and a contributor to its communities. It carries goods that we’d otherwise be going to Bend for.
It’ll compete with some of our existing stores, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing, though the thought of going up against a big player surely makes some folks in town nervous. Competition usually makes everyone better.
The worst thing that could happen out there is blight — a dead or dying shopping center right along Highway 20 wouldn’t do anybody a lick of good.
A solid store with an updated and improved Western facade will look good, stimulate business for Radio Shack and Coyote Creek and fill a need in Sisters. Sounds good to me.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, December 4, 2008
The forest needs fire
The Forest Service blew it and they know it.
Failure to discuss mop up in detail, lack of clarity about who was responsible for what, maybe a little complacency, led to an escape of a prescribed burn in the Metolius Natural Research Unit this fall. The Wizard Fire ended up covering 1,840 acres and costing $4 million.
That’s a big mistake.
But this mistake can’t be allowed to send a valuable program up in smoke. We need prescribed fire in Sisters’ forests. Prescribed fire has protected local communities from destruction by wildfire. The GW Fire west of Black Butte Ranch hit a treated area and dropped down like it had been hit by a left hook. The evidence is clear on the ground.
Beyond the safety considerations, fire is a necessary natural element of the health of our forests. The more we mimic natural fire patterns, the healthier our forests will be.
Hike through any area of Sisters’ forests and you’ll find acres of land choked with vast stands of small, unhealthy trees. Those acres won’t be healthy until they burn.
Sure, you can cut trees and mow underbrush, but that’s not efficient and it’s not natural. Fire is nature’s tool and it must be ours.
Nobody likes dealing with the smoke and brown needles and blackened trunks don’t look like the picturesque forests we tout to visitors. But they’re worth putting up with for the benefits, which aren’t so long in coming.
There’s no excuse for lapses in patrols on a burn and the Wizard Fire is a violation of public trust the Sisters Ranger District has worked hard for the past decade to earn. They must do better and they owe it to us to demonstrate that they will do better.
But we need to give them the chance. Our forests need the fire.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Failure to discuss mop up in detail, lack of clarity about who was responsible for what, maybe a little complacency, led to an escape of a prescribed burn in the Metolius Natural Research Unit this fall. The Wizard Fire ended up covering 1,840 acres and costing $4 million.
That’s a big mistake.
But this mistake can’t be allowed to send a valuable program up in smoke. We need prescribed fire in Sisters’ forests. Prescribed fire has protected local communities from destruction by wildfire. The GW Fire west of Black Butte Ranch hit a treated area and dropped down like it had been hit by a left hook. The evidence is clear on the ground.
Beyond the safety considerations, fire is a necessary natural element of the health of our forests. The more we mimic natural fire patterns, the healthier our forests will be.
Hike through any area of Sisters’ forests and you’ll find acres of land choked with vast stands of small, unhealthy trees. Those acres won’t be healthy until they burn.
Sure, you can cut trees and mow underbrush, but that’s not efficient and it’s not natural. Fire is nature’s tool and it must be ours.
Nobody likes dealing with the smoke and brown needles and blackened trunks don’t look like the picturesque forests we tout to visitors. But they’re worth putting up with for the benefits, which aren’t so long in coming.
There’s no excuse for lapses in patrols on a burn and the Wizard Fire is a violation of public trust the Sisters Ranger District has worked hard for the past decade to earn. They must do better and they owe it to us to demonstrate that they will do better.
But we need to give them the chance. Our forests need the fire.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Gun control means no Glock-in-the-Pants
So New York Giants football star Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg accidentally while fumbling for his Glock in a Manhattan nightclub. Seems he was carrying the .40 pistol in his waistband in what’s known as “Mexican Carry.” No holster.
The gun slid down his pant leg and he grabbed at it with his free hand (the other one had a drink in it).
The Glock has no “safety.” It has a little tongue in the trigger that serves as a kind of fire control device, but it’s a military/police pistol. It’s supposed to be carried in a holster and if it is properly handled it’s perfectly safe. (Still hate Glock’s but that’s another issue).
The gun ain’t idiot-proof, however, and Plaxico proved it.
New York has draconian handgun-possession laws and Plaxico is facing three to five in jail. Mayor Bloomberg wants maximum prosecution. He’d better get it. No special deals for superstar athletes.
Once again, we see the problem of guns in the hands of idiots. It’s not something we can solve, but I hate to see responsible firearms owners penalized with laws and ridiculous safety measures to make up for the Plaxico Burresses of the world.
Maybe we just have to hope for Darwinian action to take effect. Think about it. A little to the left and he wouldn’t reproduce.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
The gun slid down his pant leg and he grabbed at it with his free hand (the other one had a drink in it).
The Glock has no “safety.” It has a little tongue in the trigger that serves as a kind of fire control device, but it’s a military/police pistol. It’s supposed to be carried in a holster and if it is properly handled it’s perfectly safe. (Still hate Glock’s but that’s another issue).
The gun ain’t idiot-proof, however, and Plaxico proved it.
New York has draconian handgun-possession laws and Plaxico is facing three to five in jail. Mayor Bloomberg wants maximum prosecution. He’d better get it. No special deals for superstar athletes.
Once again, we see the problem of guns in the hands of idiots. It’s not something we can solve, but I hate to see responsible firearms owners penalized with laws and ridiculous safety measures to make up for the Plaxico Burresses of the world.
Maybe we just have to hope for Darwinian action to take effect. Think about it. A little to the left and he wouldn’t reproduce.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Trampled by the herd
Would you kill someone to get a bargain?
Apparently a bunch of Wal-Mart shoppers in Long Island were willing to do just that. They trampled a 34-year-old temp as he unlocked the doors to let in a ravening horde of bargain-hunters who had lined up the night before for a wee-hours opening.
They didn't do it with intent, but they sure didn't seem to care what got in their way. And, after the death was announced and the store was closed down, they basically said, "Screw you. We came to shop." And kept right on going.
A guy died so that people could get a few bucks off on Christmas presents? Wow. That's in keeping with the spirit of the season.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Apparently a bunch of Wal-Mart shoppers in Long Island were willing to do just that. They trampled a 34-year-old temp as he unlocked the doors to let in a ravening horde of bargain-hunters who had lined up the night before for a wee-hours opening.
They didn't do it with intent, but they sure didn't seem to care what got in their way. And, after the death was announced and the store was closed down, they basically said, "Screw you. We came to shop." And kept right on going.
A guy died so that people could get a few bucks off on Christmas presents? Wow. That's in keeping with the spirit of the season.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Giving thanks in troubled times
There is something about troubled times — especially troubled times in the economy — that focuses the mind.
Somehow, it’s easier to appreciate what you’ve got when getting more is a little harder. There are signs of this all over Sisters. People seem to be taking a little more time to appreciate how rich we really are.
It’s hard to be thankful when you’ve just lost your job and I’m not waxing sentimental about poverty, which is rearing its ugly, diminishing head in Sisters as the crunch comes down.
There are some hurting people in our community.
But we can all be thankful that there are some who take on the difficult task of helping these folks, from the dedicated advocates at Sisters Family Access Network to the volunteers at the Sister Kiwanis Food Bank to the many churches whose congregations have stepped up to help the indigent with purchases of hygiene products, wood cutting and other assistance.
We have a community that works, where neighbors take care of each other. That is riches beyond price.
Folks in Sisters are rallying to support their local businesses, the businesses that sponsor events, contribute to schools and add to the vibrancy of the community. Individual holiday “shop local” vows are catching on — and it makes a difference.
Most everybody I know is cutting back this holiday season — but not in ways that cheap out on their friends and loved ones. People are simply being a little more thoughtful, seeking to give in ways that have lasting value, both materially and spiritually.
That notion seems to be gaining traction around the country.
I would never wish hard times upon my countrymen. There is no inherent nobility in want; I prefer prosperity. But it is gratifying to see that our community and our country seems to respond to hard times with a return to more substantial values.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Somehow, it’s easier to appreciate what you’ve got when getting more is a little harder. There are signs of this all over Sisters. People seem to be taking a little more time to appreciate how rich we really are.
It’s hard to be thankful when you’ve just lost your job and I’m not waxing sentimental about poverty, which is rearing its ugly, diminishing head in Sisters as the crunch comes down.
There are some hurting people in our community.
But we can all be thankful that there are some who take on the difficult task of helping these folks, from the dedicated advocates at Sisters Family Access Network to the volunteers at the Sister Kiwanis Food Bank to the many churches whose congregations have stepped up to help the indigent with purchases of hygiene products, wood cutting and other assistance.
We have a community that works, where neighbors take care of each other. That is riches beyond price.
Folks in Sisters are rallying to support their local businesses, the businesses that sponsor events, contribute to schools and add to the vibrancy of the community. Individual holiday “shop local” vows are catching on — and it makes a difference.
Most everybody I know is cutting back this holiday season — but not in ways that cheap out on their friends and loved ones. People are simply being a little more thoughtful, seeking to give in ways that have lasting value, both materially and spiritually.
That notion seems to be gaining traction around the country.
I would never wish hard times upon my countrymen. There is no inherent nobility in want; I prefer prosperity. But it is gratifying to see that our community and our country seems to respond to hard times with a return to more substantial values.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Beaver’s bound to rise...
When I was a young feller I was fascinated by the Mountain Men. Obsessed is probably more accurate.
A life of buckskins, beaver trapping and black powder seemed to my 12 or 13-year-old mind to be the real life for a man. I felt a powerful nostalgia for things I’d never see. I didn’t even like to read about the decline of the Fur Trade. I wanted it to be forever 1832.
But of course, that’s not the way life works. The heyday of the Mountain Men lasted 20 years or so. The market for beaver fur crashed as fashion switched from beaver top hats to silk top hats. The voracious trappers had pretty well trapped out the great fur country by then anyway.
Something akin to my youthful nostalgia is at work in the halls of power right now. There’s a movement afoot to bail out the Big Three automakers. As David Brooks says, it may make sense to keep them afloat as a jobs program and then let them go bankrupt, but bailing them out just props up decrepit companies.
The beaver hat has been supplanted by the silk topper. That started decades ago. And the Big Three have “trapped out” the country with low-mileage SUVs and trucks (yes, I own one). Their “brigades” are bloated with ridiculous union-backed legacy programs that pay people for not working.
But the idea of letting the Big Three go — to innovate or die — tears at the very fabric of America. I submit that it’s not just about the jobs, though that is obviously a big deal. It’s the same sense that made me want it to be 1832 again and forever.
We want it to be forever ’55 when we were makin’ Thunderbirds (apologies to Mr. Seger).
Last night I saw Chris Matthews get downright weepy about the idea of American carmakers who could build such a cool car that it meant everything to have one. He can’t believe that those days are gone, never to return.
The Mountain Men couldn’t believe their way of life was ending either. They gathered at a rendezvous on Green River in 1839 — the last of its kind — to bemoan the low price of beaver and its scarcity.
Never mind, they told each other. There’s beaver country yet to be discovered. Beaver’s bound to rise.
But it would never be 1832 again. 1955 and the Thunderbird are gone, too. No bailout is ever gonna bring ’ em back.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
A life of buckskins, beaver trapping and black powder seemed to my 12 or 13-year-old mind to be the real life for a man. I felt a powerful nostalgia for things I’d never see. I didn’t even like to read about the decline of the Fur Trade. I wanted it to be forever 1832.
But of course, that’s not the way life works. The heyday of the Mountain Men lasted 20 years or so. The market for beaver fur crashed as fashion switched from beaver top hats to silk top hats. The voracious trappers had pretty well trapped out the great fur country by then anyway.
Something akin to my youthful nostalgia is at work in the halls of power right now. There’s a movement afoot to bail out the Big Three automakers. As David Brooks says, it may make sense to keep them afloat as a jobs program and then let them go bankrupt, but bailing them out just props up decrepit companies.
The beaver hat has been supplanted by the silk topper. That started decades ago. And the Big Three have “trapped out” the country with low-mileage SUVs and trucks (yes, I own one). Their “brigades” are bloated with ridiculous union-backed legacy programs that pay people for not working.
But the idea of letting the Big Three go — to innovate or die — tears at the very fabric of America. I submit that it’s not just about the jobs, though that is obviously a big deal. It’s the same sense that made me want it to be 1832 again and forever.
We want it to be forever ’55 when we were makin’ Thunderbirds (apologies to Mr. Seger).
Last night I saw Chris Matthews get downright weepy about the idea of American carmakers who could build such a cool car that it meant everything to have one. He can’t believe that those days are gone, never to return.
The Mountain Men couldn’t believe their way of life was ending either. They gathered at a rendezvous on Green River in 1839 — the last of its kind — to bemoan the low price of beaver and its scarcity.
Never mind, they told each other. There’s beaver country yet to be discovered. Beaver’s bound to rise.
But it would never be 1832 again. 1955 and the Thunderbird are gone, too. No bailout is ever gonna bring ’ em back.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A victory for the "Economic Developers"
Lon Kellstrom, Pat Thompson and Jerry Bogart are in on the Sisters City Council. Mayor Brad Boyd is out.
Too bad about Boyd. He had his negatives, mostly involving style, but he had a strong grasp of the job and was diligent in doing the work. Some good things happened in the City of Sisters under his impetus and I think the citizens who voted him out will miss his efforts, whether they realize it or not.
It's always hard to put a finger on what exactly sways the electorate, but let's assume that the Kellstrom, Thompson, Bogart argument that Sisters needed a change in leadership and attitude, especially in the area of economic development, resonated with voters.
There's some merit to the idea that attitude alone is important; certainly it can be argued that Sisters has over the years (before as well as during Boyd's tenure) alienated some players who could have an impact on economic development. Perhaps that can be fixed to our benefit. Perhaps the idea of creating a position of Economic Development Director is a good one and perhaps a new council can deliver on it (I'm still not sold on that, but I'm willing to be convinced).
Regardless, I think the "economic development slate" is going to find it hard going; that the gap between desire and achievability on their ideas for economic development is wider than they realize.
All three are good men and have the best interests of the whole community at heart. The idea that they represent "Californication" is misplaced. Sisters has not sold its soul to "The Developers." Quality economic development, filling the industrial park with clean, innovative enterprises with good-paying jobs would be a very good thing for Sisters. Hopefully, the new council can preside over that very scenario.
But ask the owners of industrial park properties; that's easier said than done.
I hope the new councilors and the re-elected Kellstrom recognize that they have created expectations in the community that are going to be hard to meet.
They've signed on for a big job.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Too bad about Boyd. He had his negatives, mostly involving style, but he had a strong grasp of the job and was diligent in doing the work. Some good things happened in the City of Sisters under his impetus and I think the citizens who voted him out will miss his efforts, whether they realize it or not.
It's always hard to put a finger on what exactly sways the electorate, but let's assume that the Kellstrom, Thompson, Bogart argument that Sisters needed a change in leadership and attitude, especially in the area of economic development, resonated with voters.
There's some merit to the idea that attitude alone is important; certainly it can be argued that Sisters has over the years (before as well as during Boyd's tenure) alienated some players who could have an impact on economic development. Perhaps that can be fixed to our benefit. Perhaps the idea of creating a position of Economic Development Director is a good one and perhaps a new council can deliver on it (I'm still not sold on that, but I'm willing to be convinced).
Regardless, I think the "economic development slate" is going to find it hard going; that the gap between desire and achievability on their ideas for economic development is wider than they realize.
All three are good men and have the best interests of the whole community at heart. The idea that they represent "Californication" is misplaced. Sisters has not sold its soul to "The Developers." Quality economic development, filling the industrial park with clean, innovative enterprises with good-paying jobs would be a very good thing for Sisters. Hopefully, the new council can preside over that very scenario.
But ask the owners of industrial park properties; that's easier said than done.
I hope the new councilors and the re-elected Kellstrom recognize that they have created expectations in the community that are going to be hard to meet.
They've signed on for a big job.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Local option gets hammered
Sisters' Local Option levy for schools got hammered at the polls yesterday, going down by a 52-48 margin. (UPDATE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 12:30 P.M.: Not hammered exactly. The numbers posted by the county clerk after midnight last night were not final; the margin narrowed down to 26 votes. TWENTY-SIX).
It's not a disaster for the school district — yet. The school board can go out again next spring, but they'll have to do a better job of convincing voters like this one:
"I will be voting NO on the local option tax. No more money being thrown towards the system that blantantly and consistantly mishandled and mismanaged money. Education is moving towards the internet.Why are we being asked to buy more books ? The current hi-school is poorly designed and heat bills soaring..we live on a limited income and need that money for our fuel costs." (blog comment received 11/3 re: "Off to the races," September 16).
There you have it — the two major problems facing the district. They've lost taxpayers' trust with the $1.2 million debacle of the payback to ODE and with administrative turmoil over the past several years.
And people are so nervous about the economy that they are willing to see severe cuts to education in order to hold on to what they've got. Some feel they've got no choice.
UPDATE: If the district has to shift only a couple of dozen votes, that economic argument can be overcome. The trust problem will still require some work.
Both of those problems will not go away by spring and the board is going to have to fight to overcome them. And they must overcome them. Local Option funds make the difference between quality and mediocrity.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
It's not a disaster for the school district — yet. The school board can go out again next spring, but they'll have to do a better job of convincing voters like this one:
"I will be voting NO on the local option tax. No more money being thrown towards the system that blantantly and consistantly mishandled and mismanaged money. Education is moving towards the internet.Why are we being asked to buy more books ? The current hi-school is poorly designed and heat bills soaring..we live on a limited income and need that money for our fuel costs." (blog comment received 11/3 re: "Off to the races," September 16).
There you have it — the two major problems facing the district. They've lost taxpayers' trust with the $1.2 million debacle of the payback to ODE and with administrative turmoil over the past several years.
And people are so nervous about the economy that they are willing to see severe cuts to education in order to hold on to what they've got. Some feel they've got no choice.
UPDATE: If the district has to shift only a couple of dozen votes, that economic argument can be overcome. The trust problem will still require some work.
Both of those problems will not go away by spring and the board is going to have to fight to overcome them. And they must overcome them. Local Option funds make the difference between quality and mediocrity.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Friday, October 31, 2008
We’re all socialists now, Part II
Apparently election rhetoric penetrates down into middle school.
Talking to my brother this morning, he told me that his 12-year-old daughter was quizzing him about socialism. “Are Democrats socialists, Dad? I need to know this.”
The kids are talking about this stuff, which is good. Of course, they’re also obsessing about Sarah Palin’s makeup artist, but who can blame them? The media is, too.
My brother couldn’t give her the answer she wanted before her ride to school came. Too long and complicated.
Nah. It’s actually quite simple. Yes, Democrats are socialists. So are Republicans. Democrats favor socialism for the poor: “Spreading the wealth around.” Republicans favor socialism for the rich: Spread the wealth to defense contractors on no-bid contracts and bail out investment bankers.
The productive middle class foots the bill. Simple. Take your pick.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Talking to my brother this morning, he told me that his 12-year-old daughter was quizzing him about socialism. “Are Democrats socialists, Dad? I need to know this.”
The kids are talking about this stuff, which is good. Of course, they’re also obsessing about Sarah Palin’s makeup artist, but who can blame them? The media is, too.
My brother couldn’t give her the answer she wanted before her ride to school came. Too long and complicated.
Nah. It’s actually quite simple. Yes, Democrats are socialists. So are Republicans. Democrats favor socialism for the poor: “Spreading the wealth around.” Republicans favor socialism for the rich: Spread the wealth to defense contractors on no-bid contracts and bail out investment bankers.
The productive middle class foots the bill. Simple. Take your pick.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The quiet before the election
It’s a quiet day today; the phones aren’t ringing much and the election-season flood of letters has ceased.
It’s a strange kind of quiet, accentuated by the gloomy skies. It feels like people are holding their breath, waiting to see what happens next Tuesday.
We’ll have the local election results posted at www.nuggetnews.com as soon as they are available on Tuesday night. The print edition will, as always, lag a week behind. So it goes as a Wednesday weekly with a Tuesday press time.
The local option question and the city council election are the main points of local interest. I think the local option will pass, but not by a comfortable margin. Too many people are feeling pinched by the economy to expect a mandate for local school funding.
My guess is that Mayor Brad Boyd will hold on to his council seat, and so will Lon Kellstrom. I think that Jerry Bogart will take the third seat, but that’s just a guess based on what I hear on the street and that’s mostly a self-selecting sample.
A couple of people have taken exception to the fact that The Nugget did not mention Wendy Holzman at all in our endorsement a couple of weeks ago. It has long been our practice to offer our reasons for endorsing those we choose and not to discuss reasons for not endorsing a candidate.
It’s an effort to be positive, but I can see how it could be taken amiss.
One online commentator wonders if it’s “a problem with women.” Sigh. Well, someone’s always going to impute sinister motives... Sorry. It ain’t nearly so dramatic. That’s the kind of thing that makes me love politics so much.
Endorsements are just another opinion. An informed and educated opinion, but only that. I hope the opinion is valued, but it should only be a part of the mosaic good citizens put together for their voting decisions.
One thing I try never to lose sight of in this job — or in life — is that no matter how much research you do, how much thought you put into making a decision, no matter how passionately you believe in your position, you could be wrong.
Examples I’ll never live down: I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought he was the lesser of two evils. Wrong. We endorsed Greg Brown for Sheriff. Twice. Wroooong!
I’ve made my picks, made my call on ballot measures, put my ballot in the slot at City Hall. I hope I made the right choices, but I’m not sure. I did my due diligence and I think I’m right. But, you know, I could be wrong.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
It’s a strange kind of quiet, accentuated by the gloomy skies. It feels like people are holding their breath, waiting to see what happens next Tuesday.
We’ll have the local election results posted at www.nuggetnews.com as soon as they are available on Tuesday night. The print edition will, as always, lag a week behind. So it goes as a Wednesday weekly with a Tuesday press time.
The local option question and the city council election are the main points of local interest. I think the local option will pass, but not by a comfortable margin. Too many people are feeling pinched by the economy to expect a mandate for local school funding.
My guess is that Mayor Brad Boyd will hold on to his council seat, and so will Lon Kellstrom. I think that Jerry Bogart will take the third seat, but that’s just a guess based on what I hear on the street and that’s mostly a self-selecting sample.
A couple of people have taken exception to the fact that The Nugget did not mention Wendy Holzman at all in our endorsement a couple of weeks ago. It has long been our practice to offer our reasons for endorsing those we choose and not to discuss reasons for not endorsing a candidate.
It’s an effort to be positive, but I can see how it could be taken amiss.
One online commentator wonders if it’s “a problem with women.” Sigh. Well, someone’s always going to impute sinister motives... Sorry. It ain’t nearly so dramatic. That’s the kind of thing that makes me love politics so much.
Endorsements are just another opinion. An informed and educated opinion, but only that. I hope the opinion is valued, but it should only be a part of the mosaic good citizens put together for their voting decisions.
One thing I try never to lose sight of in this job — or in life — is that no matter how much research you do, how much thought you put into making a decision, no matter how passionately you believe in your position, you could be wrong.
Examples I’ll never live down: I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought he was the lesser of two evils. Wrong. We endorsed Greg Brown for Sheriff. Twice. Wroooong!
I’ve made my picks, made my call on ballot measures, put my ballot in the slot at City Hall. I hope I made the right choices, but I’m not sure. I did my due diligence and I think I’m right. But, you know, I could be wrong.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Congratulations, Mr. President. Lucky you.
In a week and a few hours, this long and grueling presidential race will be over — and one of these two poor saps will be declared the ... winner (?).
The next president will inherit two wars, an economy farther in the tank than it’s been in my lifetime and a nation that remains fractured along culture war fault lines.
This is like running a marathon and climbing to the podium where a tree-limbed hulk in an executioner’s hood hits you over the head with a sledgehammer.
Ain’t you glad you won?
Let’s assume the trend holds and Obama is the winner. An historic moment. Congratulations. Now, get to work.
He’ll have to assemble a transition team that immediately starts to work in concert with the Bush Administration on administering the trillion dollars in bailouts and he’ll have to participate in the pending decision whether to extend the bailout to the wheezing U.S. auto industry.
A decision will have to be made as to what to do with the dead-letter status of forces agreement in Iraq.
And on and on...
There is no time for a relaxed transition, no time for a victory lap. Obama will have to be the most active and engaged President-elect in U.S. history.
Love him, hate him, remain ambivalent, we’d all better wish the man well. I’m glad I’m not him right now.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
The next president will inherit two wars, an economy farther in the tank than it’s been in my lifetime and a nation that remains fractured along culture war fault lines.
This is like running a marathon and climbing to the podium where a tree-limbed hulk in an executioner’s hood hits you over the head with a sledgehammer.
Ain’t you glad you won?
Let’s assume the trend holds and Obama is the winner. An historic moment. Congratulations. Now, get to work.
He’ll have to assemble a transition team that immediately starts to work in concert with the Bush Administration on administering the trillion dollars in bailouts and he’ll have to participate in the pending decision whether to extend the bailout to the wheezing U.S. auto industry.
A decision will have to be made as to what to do with the dead-letter status of forces agreement in Iraq.
And on and on...
There is no time for a relaxed transition, no time for a victory lap. Obama will have to be the most active and engaged President-elect in U.S. history.
Love him, hate him, remain ambivalent, we’d all better wish the man well. I’m glad I’m not him right now.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Economic development in Sisters? What’s that?
As we watch the surreal spectacle of a “conservative” Bush Administration preside over the socialization of the nation’s financial institutions, Sisters has its own economic questions to wrestle with.
Economic development has become the centerpiece of the City Council election.
“Economic development” is one of those mom-and-apple-pie things: Nobody is against it. Everybody wants family-wage jobs and clean industry that is compatible with Sisters’ quality of life. The tricky part is how you get them.
The Chamber of Commerce and the City look at each other like a pair of outfielders who are waiting for there other to call the pop fly: “You got it!” “No, you got it!”
The current pop fly is the idea of creating an economic development director position. I’m not so sure that’s a good idea. What would such a person do? We have two business parks ready for development; it seems to me that the developers themselves are best placed to try to attract clients.
What could a quasi-governmental economic development director do that the private developers can’t do better?
The fact that the two business parks remain empty testifies to the challenges Sisters faces in attracting family-wage jobs and clean, compatible industry. Land costs are comparatively high. Sisters is off the beaten path for quick transportation. Redmond has an enterprise zone. There is a lack of workforce housing.
And, right now, the national economy is working against us.
The City could do more to attract business — reducing development fees, offering tax incentives. But actions like that are not as simple as they seem. Reducing SDCs would require a charter amendment and would reduce the city’s ability to offset the impacts of development. Tax breaks don’t always translate into successful business locations.
Sisters does need to get all its agencies and interest groups on the same page regarding economic development, but we should not fool ourselves. There is not easy formula for getting what we say we want here and even if we all agree, it may not be possible.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Economic development has become the centerpiece of the City Council election.
“Economic development” is one of those mom-and-apple-pie things: Nobody is against it. Everybody wants family-wage jobs and clean industry that is compatible with Sisters’ quality of life. The tricky part is how you get them.
The Chamber of Commerce and the City look at each other like a pair of outfielders who are waiting for there other to call the pop fly: “You got it!” “No, you got it!”
The current pop fly is the idea of creating an economic development director position. I’m not so sure that’s a good idea. What would such a person do? We have two business parks ready for development; it seems to me that the developers themselves are best placed to try to attract clients.
What could a quasi-governmental economic development director do that the private developers can’t do better?
The fact that the two business parks remain empty testifies to the challenges Sisters faces in attracting family-wage jobs and clean, compatible industry. Land costs are comparatively high. Sisters is off the beaten path for quick transportation. Redmond has an enterprise zone. There is a lack of workforce housing.
And, right now, the national economy is working against us.
The City could do more to attract business — reducing development fees, offering tax incentives. But actions like that are not as simple as they seem. Reducing SDCs would require a charter amendment and would reduce the city’s ability to offset the impacts of development. Tax breaks don’t always translate into successful business locations.
Sisters does need to get all its agencies and interest groups on the same page regarding economic development, but we should not fool ourselves. There is not easy formula for getting what we say we want here and even if we all agree, it may not be possible.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The definition of obscene
Seems that executives from AIG, in gratitude for being bailed out by the American taxpayer, went on a $440,000 Caribbean junket.
Breathtaking arrogance. Abysmal judgment. Total ethical bankruptcy.
Perhaps the next time the term bailout is used it should involve bail bondsmen.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Breathtaking arrogance. Abysmal judgment. Total ethical bankruptcy.
Perhaps the next time the term bailout is used it should involve bail bondsmen.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
How about some issues?
Tired of a national political campaign that sometimes seems like Dancing With the Stars (without the pizazz)? Want to grapple with the actual issues instead of the superficialities that dominate the news and the canned responses that pass for “debates”?
This week’s issue of The Economist contains an excellent special section on the election, featuring analysis of the issues and the candidates’ positions on them. It covers the economy; regulation and trade; foreign policy; Iraq and Afghanistan; health care; immigration; energy and the environment; education; crime; and values.
This is the kind of analysis the rest of the media owes us — and never gives us. It’s not talk radio partisan bloviating; it’s not TV news infotainment — this is real substance, put together in a package that is easily read in an evening.
The Economist is available at Barnes & Noble and online. It’s well worth tracking down, whether you’ve made up your mind or not.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
This week’s issue of The Economist contains an excellent special section on the election, featuring analysis of the issues and the candidates’ positions on them. It covers the economy; regulation and trade; foreign policy; Iraq and Afghanistan; health care; immigration; energy and the environment; education; crime; and values.
This is the kind of analysis the rest of the media owes us — and never gives us. It’s not talk radio partisan bloviating; it’s not TV news infotainment — this is real substance, put together in a package that is easily read in an evening.
The Economist is available at Barnes & Noble and online. It’s well worth tracking down, whether you’ve made up your mind or not.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Friday, September 19, 2008
We’re all socialists now
The recent flurry of multi-billion-dollar federal bailouts of major corporations rips the mask off one of the great American myths — the one that proclaims our belief in the free market.
Bull. We believe in a free market when the going is good. When poor business practices and greed on a scale that would make Midas blush create chaos, the titans of the free market cry out for Uncle Sam to come to the rescue.
When people seek subsidy for health care, that’s called Socialism. When giant corporations are subsidized, that’s economic necessity.
If the Right has any decency, there will be a moratorium on using the “S” word when debating any policy that calls for government intervention. With the Bush Administration presiding over the most expensive government intervention in history, even the most shameless paladins of the Right ought to blanch at the hypocrisy of complaining of creeping Socialism.
True libertarians, consistent in their beliefs, have every right to shout their anger from the rooftops — and they should be heard. It has to be admitted, however, that their American ideal is long gone.
Liberals (as the term is used now) don’t believe in the free market; they do seek a form of Socialism. So-called conservatives don’t believe in a free market either — they believe in managing the game for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful.
Who pays? We do. Who benefits? Not us.
I have slowly come to the conclusion that we need to stop deluding ourselves. We are no longer a Republic; we are an Empire. We are no longer the children of Adam Smith, we are the scion of Midas.
What is a citizen to do? I honestly don’t know. We’re riding the tiger. We can’t stay on and we can’t let go.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Bull. We believe in a free market when the going is good. When poor business practices and greed on a scale that would make Midas blush create chaos, the titans of the free market cry out for Uncle Sam to come to the rescue.
When people seek subsidy for health care, that’s called Socialism. When giant corporations are subsidized, that’s economic necessity.
If the Right has any decency, there will be a moratorium on using the “S” word when debating any policy that calls for government intervention. With the Bush Administration presiding over the most expensive government intervention in history, even the most shameless paladins of the Right ought to blanch at the hypocrisy of complaining of creeping Socialism.
True libertarians, consistent in their beliefs, have every right to shout their anger from the rooftops — and they should be heard. It has to be admitted, however, that their American ideal is long gone.
Liberals (as the term is used now) don’t believe in the free market; they do seek a form of Socialism. So-called conservatives don’t believe in a free market either — they believe in managing the game for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful.
Who pays? We do. Who benefits? Not us.
I have slowly come to the conclusion that we need to stop deluding ourselves. We are no longer a Republic; we are an Empire. We are no longer the children of Adam Smith, we are the scion of Midas.
What is a citizen to do? I honestly don’t know. We’re riding the tiger. We can’t stay on and we can’t let go.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Off to the races...
Sisters has a real, live political race on its hands, complete with five candidates vying for three seats on the Sisters City Council and a Political Action Committee backing a slate of candidates with ties to the building industry.
We also have a decision to make about renewing local option tax support for Sisters schools. While there doesn’t seem to be an organized opposition to local option, there is likely to be some resistance from people who aren’t happy about the way the district has handled issues such as the state penalty for the disallowed home schooling program at a local Christian school.
The economy plays into both of these races in different ways.
Taxpayers may be eager to save a few dollars on their tax bill as money tightens up, leaving the school district vulnerable on local option. Voters in the city council election may be motivated in one direction or another by how they perceive the business climate in Sisters.
We’ve been watching the longest political season in American history lumber to its climax. Now Sisters has its own season. It’s (thankfully) much shorter, but it may be just as intense.
Stay tuned.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
We also have a decision to make about renewing local option tax support for Sisters schools. While there doesn’t seem to be an organized opposition to local option, there is likely to be some resistance from people who aren’t happy about the way the district has handled issues such as the state penalty for the disallowed home schooling program at a local Christian school.
The economy plays into both of these races in different ways.
Taxpayers may be eager to save a few dollars on their tax bill as money tightens up, leaving the school district vulnerable on local option. Voters in the city council election may be motivated in one direction or another by how they perceive the business climate in Sisters.
We’ve been watching the longest political season in American history lumber to its climax. Now Sisters has its own season. It’s (thankfully) much shorter, but it may be just as intense.
Stay tuned.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Fear and loathing on the campaign trail (apologies to Hunter S. Thompson)
I hate politics.
I don’t find anything uplifting in it at all. Music, sports, nature — these things lift my spirit, give me a sense of the the vast beauty of the universe and the potential of humankind. Politics is just depressing, the lowest form of human endeavor.
Yet it’s important. Politics is how we choose who makes the policies that affect all of our lives. Policy determines whether we’re safe enough and prosperous enough to enjoy music and sports, whether there will be the means to venture into nature or whether there will be any nature left.
I have friends who are passionately engaged on both ends of the political spectrum. Funny thing is, though they have mighty different bumper stickers, they pretty much have the same values. They want their kids to grow up free, safe and happy, healthy and fulfilled. They want wide open spaces and the means to enjoy them. They like the same kinds of music and probably root for the same teams.
But put them together in a room and start talking politics, they’ll fight like a couple of cats tied up in a sack.
Politics is a form of tribal identity. As soon as you push those political and cultural hot buttons, people who share so much in common start focusing on their differences. Those differences become divides; divides become chasms. People who disagree become adversaries; adversaries become enemies.
Debate becomes conflict, conflict degenerates into a kind of political/cultural civil war.
This is nothing new. Politics in the U.S. (and everywhere else that’s free enough to have any) has always been nasty.
I don’t have a solution to this; I don’t think one exists. But I have made a determination for myself and I stick with it: I’ll never judge a person by his politics — though I might judge him by the way he pursues his politics — (that's him or her for you gender-neutral-language cops) and I’ll never lose a friend over a political disagreement.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
I don’t find anything uplifting in it at all. Music, sports, nature — these things lift my spirit, give me a sense of the the vast beauty of the universe and the potential of humankind. Politics is just depressing, the lowest form of human endeavor.
Yet it’s important. Politics is how we choose who makes the policies that affect all of our lives. Policy determines whether we’re safe enough and prosperous enough to enjoy music and sports, whether there will be the means to venture into nature or whether there will be any nature left.
I have friends who are passionately engaged on both ends of the political spectrum. Funny thing is, though they have mighty different bumper stickers, they pretty much have the same values. They want their kids to grow up free, safe and happy, healthy and fulfilled. They want wide open spaces and the means to enjoy them. They like the same kinds of music and probably root for the same teams.
But put them together in a room and start talking politics, they’ll fight like a couple of cats tied up in a sack.
Politics is a form of tribal identity. As soon as you push those political and cultural hot buttons, people who share so much in common start focusing on their differences. Those differences become divides; divides become chasms. People who disagree become adversaries; adversaries become enemies.
Debate becomes conflict, conflict degenerates into a kind of political/cultural civil war.
This is nothing new. Politics in the U.S. (and everywhere else that’s free enough to have any) has always been nasty.
I don’t have a solution to this; I don’t think one exists. But I have made a determination for myself and I stick with it: I’ll never judge a person by his politics — though I might judge him by the way he pursues his politics — (that's him or her for you gender-neutral-language cops) and I’ll never lose a friend over a political disagreement.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, August 28, 2008
How to win a dirty war
My family just finished watching the excellent PBS documentary “The War That Made America,” about the French & Indian War of the 1750s.
That epic struggle determined who would control North America — and drove in the wedge that would soon split the American colonies from Great Britain. It’s a brilliantly produced, well-paced film, done entirely with top-quality reenactments. No dry history here. This is the kind of history you can reach out and touch.
One of the things that struck me in watching “The War That Made America” is how universally applicable the principles of counterinsurgency are. The British suffered humiliating defeat after defeat at the hands of the French and their Indian allies until they initiated something very like The Surge that has succeeded in largely stabilizing Iraq (at least for now).
For one thing, the British finally put sufficient troops in theater and built the American Provincial forces to sufficient strength to do the job. More importantly, they broke some key allies away from the French.
A group of strange bedfellows, including Quaker and Moravian missionaries and British General John Forbes initiated peace overtures to the Delaware and other Ohio Country Indians to clear the path for Forbes effort to take French Fort Duquesne (now Pittsburgh) in 1758. The French and Indians had destroyed a previous expedition to take the fort in 1755 and Forbes didn’t want the same thing to happen again.
The British essentially bribed the Indians away from the French with trade goods, liquor and promises (later to prove false) to leave their lands alone.
The key figure in the drama was a Delaware leader named Teedyuskung, who had converted to Christianity, then renounced Christianity and took up the hatchet against the British American settlers and who now sought peace for his beleaguered and starving people.
The man had plenty of blood on his hands, but the British cut a deal with him anyway and he used his influence to peel the Delaware and Shawnee away from the French at a crucial moment. Unable to hold Fort Duquesne without the protection of the Indians, the French retreated into Canada, where General James Wolfe would soon conquer them at Quebec.
So, what’s the point of this history lesson?
Roughly the same thing has worked in Iraq. The U.S. has cut deals with tribal leaders who have American blood on their hands (at least indirectly) and has succeeded in breaking a coalition of resistance groups. The most intransigent foes are increasingly isolated and placed under pressure. al Qaeda in Iraq seems to be fleeing to Pakistan (which is not entirely a good thing, but still...).
Anbar Province, once the worst place in Iraq, is being handed over to Iraqi security forces.
No matter what you think about the war in Iraq, The Surge — as a tactical approach more than a simple increase in numbers — is an excellent piece of counterinsurgency work.
It’s distasteful to some, inside the military and out, to cut deals and essentially buy the loyalty (or at least non-hostility) of former enemies. But that’s what works.
It’s a dirty war, just as the French & Indian War was a dirty war. That’s how you win it.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
That epic struggle determined who would control North America — and drove in the wedge that would soon split the American colonies from Great Britain. It’s a brilliantly produced, well-paced film, done entirely with top-quality reenactments. No dry history here. This is the kind of history you can reach out and touch.
One of the things that struck me in watching “The War That Made America” is how universally applicable the principles of counterinsurgency are. The British suffered humiliating defeat after defeat at the hands of the French and their Indian allies until they initiated something very like The Surge that has succeeded in largely stabilizing Iraq (at least for now).
For one thing, the British finally put sufficient troops in theater and built the American Provincial forces to sufficient strength to do the job. More importantly, they broke some key allies away from the French.
A group of strange bedfellows, including Quaker and Moravian missionaries and British General John Forbes initiated peace overtures to the Delaware and other Ohio Country Indians to clear the path for Forbes effort to take French Fort Duquesne (now Pittsburgh) in 1758. The French and Indians had destroyed a previous expedition to take the fort in 1755 and Forbes didn’t want the same thing to happen again.
The British essentially bribed the Indians away from the French with trade goods, liquor and promises (later to prove false) to leave their lands alone.
The key figure in the drama was a Delaware leader named Teedyuskung, who had converted to Christianity, then renounced Christianity and took up the hatchet against the British American settlers and who now sought peace for his beleaguered and starving people.
The man had plenty of blood on his hands, but the British cut a deal with him anyway and he used his influence to peel the Delaware and Shawnee away from the French at a crucial moment. Unable to hold Fort Duquesne without the protection of the Indians, the French retreated into Canada, where General James Wolfe would soon conquer them at Quebec.
So, what’s the point of this history lesson?
Roughly the same thing has worked in Iraq. The U.S. has cut deals with tribal leaders who have American blood on their hands (at least indirectly) and has succeeded in breaking a coalition of resistance groups. The most intransigent foes are increasingly isolated and placed under pressure. al Qaeda in Iraq seems to be fleeing to Pakistan (which is not entirely a good thing, but still...).
Anbar Province, once the worst place in Iraq, is being handed over to Iraqi security forces.
No matter what you think about the war in Iraq, The Surge — as a tactical approach more than a simple increase in numbers — is an excellent piece of counterinsurgency work.
It’s distasteful to some, inside the military and out, to cut deals and essentially buy the loyalty (or at least non-hostility) of former enemies. But that’s what works.
It’s a dirty war, just as the French & Indian War was a dirty war. That’s how you win it.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The American Idea
The United States of America is unique among nations in that it was founded on an idea — not on blood and soil.
The idea is encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence — that mankind comes into the world with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rights exist naturally; they are not granted by a sovereign. Rational man will act in enlightened self-interest in a way that will benefit all.
This idea was the product of Enlightenment thinking and it prevailed in part because the British culture from which we grew and from which we violently broke away half believed it, too.
The trouble is, it’s hard to sustain emotional attachment to an idea. patriotism is so much easier to engender out of blood and soil, a tribal sense of identity.
You have to work at holding tight to an idea. And only an educated citizenry has the tools for that work.
I wonder if our schools (I’m speaking nationally now) are teaching the idea. It doesn’t seem like it. In my darker moments, I sometimes think that the founding principles of America are but a ghost now.
We have grown comfortable with a massive state and orient our lives by its leave. That is dangerous to liberty and an abdication of our own pursuit of happiness.
That goes for both “liberal” who want the state to do more for the welfare of its citizens (ignoring the unintended consequences) and for “conservatives” who want to state to do more for their security and to regulate behavior.
So, here’s the question: How do we hold onto the founding idea in the 21st Century?
Jim Cornelius, Editor
The idea is encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence — that mankind comes into the world with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rights exist naturally; they are not granted by a sovereign. Rational man will act in enlightened self-interest in a way that will benefit all.
This idea was the product of Enlightenment thinking and it prevailed in part because the British culture from which we grew and from which we violently broke away half believed it, too.
The trouble is, it’s hard to sustain emotional attachment to an idea. patriotism is so much easier to engender out of blood and soil, a tribal sense of identity.
You have to work at holding tight to an idea. And only an educated citizenry has the tools for that work.
I wonder if our schools (I’m speaking nationally now) are teaching the idea. It doesn’t seem like it. In my darker moments, I sometimes think that the founding principles of America are but a ghost now.
We have grown comfortable with a massive state and orient our lives by its leave. That is dangerous to liberty and an abdication of our own pursuit of happiness.
That goes for both “liberal” who want the state to do more for the welfare of its citizens (ignoring the unintended consequences) and for “conservatives” who want to state to do more for their security and to regulate behavior.
So, here’s the question: How do we hold onto the founding idea in the 21st Century?
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Monday, August 11, 2008
On anonymity
The post on Steve Swisher quickly veered off into an interesting debate over anonymity on the blog.
Much as I respect Todd Dow’s point of view (and, I’m sure, as he expected), we’re not going to change our policy on anonymity on the blog. We have two forums — Letters to the Editor in the print edition and Article comments on-line — that require verifiable identification.
This forum offers something different.
Part of the origin of the blog was the belief that there is a well of opinion in the Sisters community that isn’t given voice for precisely the reasons that many of the anonymous commenters cite: fear of retaliation in various forms in their off-line lives.
It is our belief that these opinions should be aired.
I have to say, however, that I regret the need for anonymity, both real and perceived. People should own their beliefs and be willing to stand behind them. On the flip side, people should respect others’ opinions and beliefs and not retaliate against them in business or socially because of them.
There’s tremendous power in standing up for something. I’ve aired an unpopular opinion or two in my day — with my name attached — and have been threatened with every kind of retaliation, including violence. That’s not much fun, but at the end of the day, there’s some satisfaction in facing it down.
I can’t opt for anonymity and wouldn’t if I could.
But everyone has to make such decisions for themselves. The choice is there on this blog — identify yourself or don’t. I don’t think anybody has abused their anonymity or been inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory.
So far, I’ve only had to reject one comment — not because of the opinion, but because it was expressed in scatological terms that we don’t want to encourage.
Would I like to know who’s talking? Sure. Do I think the opinions expressed have no value if I don’t? No. I think it’s good to know what folks are thinking out there, even if I can’t put a face with a name or a name with a thought.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Much as I respect Todd Dow’s point of view (and, I’m sure, as he expected), we’re not going to change our policy on anonymity on the blog. We have two forums — Letters to the Editor in the print edition and Article comments on-line — that require verifiable identification.
This forum offers something different.
Part of the origin of the blog was the belief that there is a well of opinion in the Sisters community that isn’t given voice for precisely the reasons that many of the anonymous commenters cite: fear of retaliation in various forms in their off-line lives.
It is our belief that these opinions should be aired.
I have to say, however, that I regret the need for anonymity, both real and perceived. People should own their beliefs and be willing to stand behind them. On the flip side, people should respect others’ opinions and beliefs and not retaliate against them in business or socially because of them.
There’s tremendous power in standing up for something. I’ve aired an unpopular opinion or two in my day — with my name attached — and have been threatened with every kind of retaliation, including violence. That’s not much fun, but at the end of the day, there’s some satisfaction in facing it down.
I can’t opt for anonymity and wouldn’t if I could.
But everyone has to make such decisions for themselves. The choice is there on this blog — identify yourself or don’t. I don’t think anybody has abused their anonymity or been inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory.
So far, I’ve only had to reject one comment — not because of the opinion, but because it was expressed in scatological terms that we don’t want to encourage.
Would I like to know who’s talking? Sure. Do I think the opinions expressed have no value if I don’t? No. I think it’s good to know what folks are thinking out there, even if I can’t put a face with a name or a name with a thought.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The Perils of Ben Westlund
Nothing like a little salacious detail to get the political press excited.
State Senator Ben Westlund has been taking a pounding in The Bulletin over the past few days over new details given an underhanded release about an incident that occurred 11 years ago.
A sealed letter was leaked to the Associated Press by Westlund’s political opposition. It included embarrassing details that neither Westlund nor the woman involved chose to reveal when the incident broke over a decade ago.
There was no real news here. Westlund had already acknowledged his inappropriate behavior and the woman involved and Westlund put the incident behind them years ago and have become friends. Yes, there’s a gap between an “unwanted hug” and what was described in the letter. So what? The woman involved didn’t want to go any further than what they originally described and was satisfied with the outcome. There was no crime; there was bad behavior, for which Westlund apologized profusely.
The matter has been closed for a decade.
Trot out any pious excuse you want to: this is just dirty election year politics with the political media piling on.
Earlier in this election season, the political media got all atwitter about a story linking John McCain to a lobbyist. An attractive, blonde lobbyist who looked smashing in an evening gown.
Nobody believes that the story was about McCain’s cozy relationship with lobbyists. It was about sex, or the hint of it. McCain’s opponents seized on it because sex sells and sex scandals can damage or destroy a candidate.
This is nothing new. American politics has indulged in sex-scandal mongering since Thomas Jefferson’s opponents first broke the story about his “relationship” with a slave. European politics is rife with scandal, too.
Let’s be honest. This isn’t about moral rectitude. It’s about gotcha and titillation. It’ll never stop, but nobody covers themselves with honor by indulging in it.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
State Senator Ben Westlund has been taking a pounding in The Bulletin over the past few days over new details given an underhanded release about an incident that occurred 11 years ago.
A sealed letter was leaked to the Associated Press by Westlund’s political opposition. It included embarrassing details that neither Westlund nor the woman involved chose to reveal when the incident broke over a decade ago.
There was no real news here. Westlund had already acknowledged his inappropriate behavior and the woman involved and Westlund put the incident behind them years ago and have become friends. Yes, there’s a gap between an “unwanted hug” and what was described in the letter. So what? The woman involved didn’t want to go any further than what they originally described and was satisfied with the outcome. There was no crime; there was bad behavior, for which Westlund apologized profusely.
The matter has been closed for a decade.
Trot out any pious excuse you want to: this is just dirty election year politics with the political media piling on.
Earlier in this election season, the political media got all atwitter about a story linking John McCain to a lobbyist. An attractive, blonde lobbyist who looked smashing in an evening gown.
Nobody believes that the story was about McCain’s cozy relationship with lobbyists. It was about sex, or the hint of it. McCain’s opponents seized on it because sex sells and sex scandals can damage or destroy a candidate.
This is nothing new. American politics has indulged in sex-scandal mongering since Thomas Jefferson’s opponents first broke the story about his “relationship” with a slave. European politics is rife with scandal, too.
Let’s be honest. This isn’t about moral rectitude. It’s about gotcha and titillation. It’ll never stop, but nobody covers themselves with honor by indulging in it.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Steve Swisher: A Mixed Legacy
Steve Swisher has been pushed out of his job in Crook County.
As is the norm in such cases, specifics are hard to come by; the people involved will keep mum publicly and say only that it was "time for a change."
But it's a safe bet that what ran Swisher's tenure onto the rocks in Crook County is the same stuff that caused problems in Sisters during his tenure.
A person intimately involved in the workings of the school district told me yesterday that Swisher is a " better to ask forgiveness than ask permission kind of guy." That seems spot on.
That can be a dynamic leadership style. A person who is willing to push the envelope gets things done. And Swisher got things done. We have a thriving Sisters Schools Foundation largely because of him. Swisher navigated the school district through a potentially disastrous budget crisis. Sisters School District hasn't had a strong sense of leadership in the superintendent's office since he left.
But character is fate and Swisher's style eventually brought grief. Swisher's relationship with his school board soured when several board members put him under heavier scrutiny than he liked during the process of building Sisters High School. He bristled at what he considered micromanagement — at what was really board oversight that was long overdue.
Oversight does not appeal to a " better to ask forgiveness than ask permission kind of guy."
The classic example of the pitfalls of Swisher's style is the debacle that ensued from the Sonrise Christian School "homeschool" program. Sisters is paying a $1.2 million debt to the state for that disallowed program.
Swisher has never taken any real accountability for this mess. Turns out he asked neither permission nor forgiveness.
Swisher must have known he'd worn out his welcome when he left Sisters and when the board could have asked his to come back, they didn't. Too much baggage.
He moved on, eventually winding up in Crook County. He took some of Sisters' best administrators with him: Jim Golden, Lora Nordquist...
Apparently, it wasn't a happy tenure. A lot got done, but the " better to ask forgiveness than ask permission kind of guy" eventually ran out of rope.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
As is the norm in such cases, specifics are hard to come by; the people involved will keep mum publicly and say only that it was "time for a change."
But it's a safe bet that what ran Swisher's tenure onto the rocks in Crook County is the same stuff that caused problems in Sisters during his tenure.
A person intimately involved in the workings of the school district told me yesterday that Swisher is a " better to ask forgiveness than ask permission kind of guy." That seems spot on.
That can be a dynamic leadership style. A person who is willing to push the envelope gets things done. And Swisher got things done. We have a thriving Sisters Schools Foundation largely because of him. Swisher navigated the school district through a potentially disastrous budget crisis. Sisters School District hasn't had a strong sense of leadership in the superintendent's office since he left.
But character is fate and Swisher's style eventually brought grief. Swisher's relationship with his school board soured when several board members put him under heavier scrutiny than he liked during the process of building Sisters High School. He bristled at what he considered micromanagement — at what was really board oversight that was long overdue.
Oversight does not appeal to a " better to ask forgiveness than ask permission kind of guy."
The classic example of the pitfalls of Swisher's style is the debacle that ensued from the Sonrise Christian School "homeschool" program. Sisters is paying a $1.2 million debt to the state for that disallowed program.
Swisher has never taken any real accountability for this mess. Turns out he asked neither permission nor forgiveness.
Swisher must have known he'd worn out his welcome when he left Sisters and when the board could have asked his to come back, they didn't. Too much baggage.
He moved on, eventually winding up in Crook County. He took some of Sisters' best administrators with him: Jim Golden, Lora Nordquist...
Apparently, it wasn't a happy tenure. A lot got done, but the " better to ask forgiveness than ask permission kind of guy" eventually ran out of rope.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Monday, July 28, 2008
We’re broke and things are falling apart
Two discouraging items of news today. They’re related and point to an aching need to refocus our priorities.
Item 1 (from CNN): “It would cost at least $140 billion to repair all the nation’s bridges if work began immediately, a nationwide safety organization said in a comprehensive report Monday.”
Item 2 (from CNN): “The White House on Monday predicted a record deficit of $490 billion for the 2009 budget year.” (That’s off the $128 billion surplus inherited by the Bush administration).
So, our transportation net needs of fixing — and we’re broke.
Now, the bridge situation isn’t quite as dire as the above statement makes it sound. We don’t have to fix all of the nation’s bridges right now. Just about one in four of them.
My personal manifesto is that to live up to our cherished self-image as the greatest nation on earth, we have to have the best educated populace, the best health care system and the best transportation system.
We don’t.
“Nearly one in four bridges needs repairs, and the average age of America’s bridges is 43 years — seven years shy of the maximum age for which most are designed, according to the report, titled ‘Bridging the Gap.’”
“One in five U.S. bridges is more than 50 years old, the report says. ‘Almost one in four bridges, while safe to travel, is either structurally deficient, in need of repair, or … too narrow for today’s traffic volumes.’ the report from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials said.”
We really need to refocus our priorities. We cannot afford trillions of dollars spent on foreign adventures. We cannot afford any more porkbarrel legislation (we should never build, let alone have to repair a “bridge to nowhere”).
The bridge report cites “’a frustrating contradiction’ — better engineering, materials and construction techniques are available, but ‘without a national commitment to bridge investment,’ states cannot afford the improvements.”
That says it, right there. A national commitment. Calling all patriots — make America truly the greatest nation: with the finest schools, the best helath care, top quality roads. Let’s make that national commitment now.
Just as soon as we figure out how to pay that debt...
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Item 1 (from CNN): “It would cost at least $140 billion to repair all the nation’s bridges if work began immediately, a nationwide safety organization said in a comprehensive report Monday.”
Item 2 (from CNN): “The White House on Monday predicted a record deficit of $490 billion for the 2009 budget year.” (That’s off the $128 billion surplus inherited by the Bush administration).
So, our transportation net needs of fixing — and we’re broke.
Now, the bridge situation isn’t quite as dire as the above statement makes it sound. We don’t have to fix all of the nation’s bridges right now. Just about one in four of them.
My personal manifesto is that to live up to our cherished self-image as the greatest nation on earth, we have to have the best educated populace, the best health care system and the best transportation system.
We don’t.
“Nearly one in four bridges needs repairs, and the average age of America’s bridges is 43 years — seven years shy of the maximum age for which most are designed, according to the report, titled ‘Bridging the Gap.’”
“One in five U.S. bridges is more than 50 years old, the report says. ‘Almost one in four bridges, while safe to travel, is either structurally deficient, in need of repair, or … too narrow for today’s traffic volumes.’ the report from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials said.”
We really need to refocus our priorities. We cannot afford trillions of dollars spent on foreign adventures. We cannot afford any more porkbarrel legislation (we should never build, let alone have to repair a “bridge to nowhere”).
The bridge report cites “’a frustrating contradiction’ — better engineering, materials and construction techniques are available, but ‘without a national commitment to bridge investment,’ states cannot afford the improvements.”
That says it, right there. A national commitment. Calling all patriots — make America truly the greatest nation: with the finest schools, the best helath care, top quality roads. Let’s make that national commitment now.
Just as soon as we figure out how to pay that debt...
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
A River Runs Through It
One of the benefits of parenthood is the opportunity to see the world through fresh eyes, to rediscover the magic in things you’ve explored before.
My nine-year-old daughter Ceili recently discovered that she loves fishing. She loves everything about it, from organizing her tackle to making a cast to hooking a rainbow trout. She even likes to gut and clean a fish.
Given her new enthusiasm, I thought she might like to watch a movie that centers around fishing. We went to Sunbuster Video and rented “A River Runs Through It.”
Wow. I hadn’t seen the movie in about a decade. I remembered liking it a lot, but I was astounded at how wonderful a film it really is. Certainly Redford’s best, without the clanking failures in tone of his more recent work.
The movie was a star-making turn for Brad Pitt and it’s easy to see why. He was born to play the luminous but doomed Paul Maclean. He truly lived up to the Maclean patriarch’s assessment that Paul was “more than just a fine fisherman. He was beautiful.”
The Montana setting is magnificently portrayed in it’s rugged beauty, its isolation, its raw, elemental power. The juxtaposition of the vestigial raw frontier (whores and poker games at the hot springs) with the bedrock Scots Presbyterianism of the Maclean home and church, the mixture of tough, rough logging communities with modern Roaring 20s “flapperism” is charming in a way that is hard to describe.
I love that era — love the clothes, the cars, the sense of possibility — so maybe seeing it so lovingly portrayed hit me harder than it might strike another. But there was a charm and magnificence to that way of life in that place and time that is all but lost to us now.
We here in Sisters are lucky to have much of the beauty of that world — without some of the uglier aspects like racial prejudice and thoughtless resource exploitation.
A River Runs Through It here, too, and a magnificent river it is.
Last weekend I took Ceili to Camp Sherman’s fly fishing fair. (After seeing the fly fishing in the movie, she said “I want to do that!”). She tied a wooly booger, took a casting lesson and learned all about bugs from Laurie Adams.
I was almost overcome with gratitude that I am able to offer such opportunities to a lively, inquisitive child. A child who has never pushed a button on a video game, who thinks “old-fashioned” cars are the coolest, who likes Carrie Underwood and Taylor Swift — and Frank Sinatra.
A child who, like Norman Maclean, will be haunted by waters.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
My nine-year-old daughter Ceili recently discovered that she loves fishing. She loves everything about it, from organizing her tackle to making a cast to hooking a rainbow trout. She even likes to gut and clean a fish.
Given her new enthusiasm, I thought she might like to watch a movie that centers around fishing. We went to Sunbuster Video and rented “A River Runs Through It.”
Wow. I hadn’t seen the movie in about a decade. I remembered liking it a lot, but I was astounded at how wonderful a film it really is. Certainly Redford’s best, without the clanking failures in tone of his more recent work.
The movie was a star-making turn for Brad Pitt and it’s easy to see why. He was born to play the luminous but doomed Paul Maclean. He truly lived up to the Maclean patriarch’s assessment that Paul was “more than just a fine fisherman. He was beautiful.”
The Montana setting is magnificently portrayed in it’s rugged beauty, its isolation, its raw, elemental power. The juxtaposition of the vestigial raw frontier (whores and poker games at the hot springs) with the bedrock Scots Presbyterianism of the Maclean home and church, the mixture of tough, rough logging communities with modern Roaring 20s “flapperism” is charming in a way that is hard to describe.
I love that era — love the clothes, the cars, the sense of possibility — so maybe seeing it so lovingly portrayed hit me harder than it might strike another. But there was a charm and magnificence to that way of life in that place and time that is all but lost to us now.
We here in Sisters are lucky to have much of the beauty of that world — without some of the uglier aspects like racial prejudice and thoughtless resource exploitation.
A River Runs Through It here, too, and a magnificent river it is.
Last weekend I took Ceili to Camp Sherman’s fly fishing fair. (After seeing the fly fishing in the movie, she said “I want to do that!”). She tied a wooly booger, took a casting lesson and learned all about bugs from Laurie Adams.
I was almost overcome with gratitude that I am able to offer such opportunities to a lively, inquisitive child. A child who has never pushed a button on a video game, who thinks “old-fashioned” cars are the coolest, who likes Carrie Underwood and Taylor Swift — and Frank Sinatra.
A child who, like Norman Maclean, will be haunted by waters.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Friday, July 18, 2008
Dance with the one who brought you
The Sisters Outdoor Quilt Show has grown over more than two decades into an international event, one that has put Sisters on the map. The event provides a massive shot in the arm to Sisters’ economy every summer.
For many merchants, it is the single most lucrative day of the year. It’s no stretch to say that the show and the week leading up to it keep many businesses afloat in Sisters’ seasonal economy.
Trouble is, it’s been going on for so long with such success that many people who should know better take it for granted.
Visitors comment on buildings that are bare of quilts and wonder whether there are fewer quilts this year, if perhaps the show is diminishing. In fact, the only reason a building is bare during quilt show is because the building owner or a business proprietor doesn’t want quilts on the building.
Why would anyone not want quilts on their building? Maybe the show doesn’t directly boost their particular business. Maybe they want quilt show visitors to see their window displays.
Such thinking is shortsighted and selfish. Everybody in Sisters benefits from the quilt show (and other Sisters events) because they make Sisters’ name and reputation — the reputation that brings visitors year-round and provides the lifeblood of what remains and will probably always remain a tourist-based economy.
Some merchants make money by hosting vendors. But if those vendors detract from the show, they are ultimately harming the entity that gives them the opportunity to make their year in a day. Again, selfish and shortsighted.
Some quilters don’t like the rules of the show and set up on their own in unsanctioned displays. Big deal, right? Well, yeah, it is.
The quilt show works hard to maintain the character and quality of the display, which is uniquely based on celebration rather than commerce. The commercial benefits are incidental and accrue mostly to the established merchants of downtown Sisters.
Drafting on the commercial benefits the show brings to Sisters without giving back is freeloading. It’s rude and unseemly behavior. Merchants and quilters alike should dance with the one that brought them. Heck, they’re the ones who put on the dance.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
For many merchants, it is the single most lucrative day of the year. It’s no stretch to say that the show and the week leading up to it keep many businesses afloat in Sisters’ seasonal economy.
Trouble is, it’s been going on for so long with such success that many people who should know better take it for granted.
Visitors comment on buildings that are bare of quilts and wonder whether there are fewer quilts this year, if perhaps the show is diminishing. In fact, the only reason a building is bare during quilt show is because the building owner or a business proprietor doesn’t want quilts on the building.
Why would anyone not want quilts on their building? Maybe the show doesn’t directly boost their particular business. Maybe they want quilt show visitors to see their window displays.
Such thinking is shortsighted and selfish. Everybody in Sisters benefits from the quilt show (and other Sisters events) because they make Sisters’ name and reputation — the reputation that brings visitors year-round and provides the lifeblood of what remains and will probably always remain a tourist-based economy.
Some merchants make money by hosting vendors. But if those vendors detract from the show, they are ultimately harming the entity that gives them the opportunity to make their year in a day. Again, selfish and shortsighted.
Some quilters don’t like the rules of the show and set up on their own in unsanctioned displays. Big deal, right? Well, yeah, it is.
The quilt show works hard to maintain the character and quality of the display, which is uniquely based on celebration rather than commerce. The commercial benefits are incidental and accrue mostly to the established merchants of downtown Sisters.
Drafting on the commercial benefits the show brings to Sisters without giving back is freeloading. It’s rude and unseemly behavior. Merchants and quilters alike should dance with the one that brought them. Heck, they’re the ones who put on the dance.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, July 10, 2008
School district should take a firm line with developer
The partnership that is developing the Lundgren Mill property at the northwestern end of Sisters wants more time to make the final $700,000 payment on its $3.3 million purchase from the Sisters School District.
These aren't the best of times for anybody trying to sell real estate, residential or commercial, and it's perfectly understandable that the developer should want to come to some kind of accommodation. But the school district needs to hold firm. They have a contract with this developer that sets out clear penalties if the developer fails to meet his obligations.
Being a good neighbor is great; being a nice guy is nice. But the school board represents the taxpayers of the school district and it is in their interest the board must act.
That means taking a firm line. No nice guy deals.
So far, the board, or at least the majority of the board, gets it. They realize that they can't ask the voters to support local option taxes if they aren't meeting their fiduciary duties in exercising a contract with a developer.
The board should be fair, but they need to hold firm. A developer's problems are not the school district's problems. Funding programs, teachers, facilities are. We are the district's shareholders and stakeholders. The board owes us their best efforts.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
These aren't the best of times for anybody trying to sell real estate, residential or commercial, and it's perfectly understandable that the developer should want to come to some kind of accommodation. But the school district needs to hold firm. They have a contract with this developer that sets out clear penalties if the developer fails to meet his obligations.
Being a good neighbor is great; being a nice guy is nice. But the school board represents the taxpayers of the school district and it is in their interest the board must act.
That means taking a firm line. No nice guy deals.
So far, the board, or at least the majority of the board, gets it. They realize that they can't ask the voters to support local option taxes if they aren't meeting their fiduciary duties in exercising a contract with a developer.
The board should be fair, but they need to hold firm. A developer's problems are not the school district's problems. Funding programs, teachers, facilities are. We are the district's shareholders and stakeholders. The board owes us their best efforts.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Mighty ugly trash cans
The new trash cans in downtown Sisters are an improvement over the old ones in a couple of ways: they hold more trash and they're presumably easier to dump.
But they are UGLY. Squat, gray blobs of plastic dotting the sidewalks of Sisters.
Maybe it's not a big deal in the big scheme of things, but they detract from the aesthetic appeal of downtown Sisters. Details are important, especially when you are trying to create a pleasing atmosphere for visitors. Volunteers and city staff work hard to maintain beautiful public spaces. We shouldn't be detracting from their efforts.
Surely there are trash cans that function well, are durable and at least blend in unobtrusively. Let's find some and get rid of the gray plastic blobs.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
But they are UGLY. Squat, gray blobs of plastic dotting the sidewalks of Sisters.
Maybe it's not a big deal in the big scheme of things, but they detract from the aesthetic appeal of downtown Sisters. Details are important, especially when you are trying to create a pleasing atmosphere for visitors. Volunteers and city staff work hard to maintain beautiful public spaces. We shouldn't be detracting from their efforts.
Surely there are trash cans that function well, are durable and at least blend in unobtrusively. Let's find some and get rid of the gray plastic blobs.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Sunday, July 6, 2008
What's so great about being an American?
This weekend I got to enjoy a big, thick slice of Americana.
My band, The Anvil Blasters, was invited to open the Wheeler County Bluegrass Festival out in Fossil. It was a beautiful setting on the lawn of the venerable Wheeler County Courthouse (1901) and the small-town charm was palpable. We played our brand of Americana folk music (pretty well, if I do say so myself) and earned a warm ovation.
My dad wore his red-white-and-blue rodeo shirt and a red-white-and-blue ball cap and he grinned like a little kid as we drove through the corridor of flags in Redmond.
It was a day when it felt good to be an American.
Some of my leftward-leaning friends are uncomfortable with overt displays of patriotism. They feel bludgeoned by the flag, force-fed a diet of simplistic "my country, right or wrong" mentality. I can understand that. I don't take too well to "love it or leave it" patriotism that brooks no criticism or dissent.
But that's no reason to reject the symbol. It's all the greater reason to hoist the banner high.
It's our flag — all of us, right, left, center, whatever our color, whatever our creed. It is a beautiful symbol and it stands for genuinely magnificent principles of justice and liberty.
It stands for a nation that has contributed mightily to the betterment of mankind in every field of endeavor — medicine, jurisprudence, art, sport, science...
To get to Fossil, we drove through magnificent American countryside, so beautiful it made us gasp with wonder. We met some fine folks and enjoyed music that is America's gift to the world, grown out of seeds imported from the British Isles, grown into something vibrant and new in America.
Back in Sisters, folks were playing the blues, another American art form with roots stretching from Africa through a painful journey from the American South through Chicago and branching out into the world as one of our most powerful cultural exports. Volunteers were preparing to celebrate the American folk art tradition of quilting and folks were hunting for treasures at the Gem Show — treasures found in the American landscape.
We were celebrating all that is this magnificent, turbulent nation. America the Beautiful. you make me proud.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
My band, The Anvil Blasters, was invited to open the Wheeler County Bluegrass Festival out in Fossil. It was a beautiful setting on the lawn of the venerable Wheeler County Courthouse (1901) and the small-town charm was palpable. We played our brand of Americana folk music (pretty well, if I do say so myself) and earned a warm ovation.
My dad wore his red-white-and-blue rodeo shirt and a red-white-and-blue ball cap and he grinned like a little kid as we drove through the corridor of flags in Redmond.
It was a day when it felt good to be an American.
Some of my leftward-leaning friends are uncomfortable with overt displays of patriotism. They feel bludgeoned by the flag, force-fed a diet of simplistic "my country, right or wrong" mentality. I can understand that. I don't take too well to "love it or leave it" patriotism that brooks no criticism or dissent.
But that's no reason to reject the symbol. It's all the greater reason to hoist the banner high.
It's our flag — all of us, right, left, center, whatever our color, whatever our creed. It is a beautiful symbol and it stands for genuinely magnificent principles of justice and liberty.
It stands for a nation that has contributed mightily to the betterment of mankind in every field of endeavor — medicine, jurisprudence, art, sport, science...
To get to Fossil, we drove through magnificent American countryside, so beautiful it made us gasp with wonder. We met some fine folks and enjoyed music that is America's gift to the world, grown out of seeds imported from the British Isles, grown into something vibrant and new in America.
Back in Sisters, folks were playing the blues, another American art form with roots stretching from Africa through a painful journey from the American South through Chicago and branching out into the world as one of our most powerful cultural exports. Volunteers were preparing to celebrate the American folk art tradition of quilting and folks were hunting for treasures at the Gem Show — treasures found in the American landscape.
We were celebrating all that is this magnificent, turbulent nation. America the Beautiful. you make me proud.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
A victory for individual rights
The Supreme Court’s decision last week striking down the District of Columbia’s comprehensive handgun ban is a major victory for individual rights.
The law prevented citizens from keeping a handgun in their own home for self-defense. That’s wrong. A law-abiding person ought to have the means of self-defense in the sanctuary of their home. Period.
Whether a handgun is the best means is open to debate. A shotgun loaded with #4 shot is a better bet — easier to use in a crisis, less penetration, etc. But law-abiding American citizens should be able to make the choice.
Striking down that draconian restriction is one victory. The other, broader one is that the Court finally made a judgment on the key question of the Second Amendment, arguing that the amendment acknowledges an individual — not a collective — right to keep and bear arms.
That’s a significant moment in the 40-year debate over gun control in this country and it’s a big win for firearms owners.
The decision does not, as alarmists have argued, mean all gun restrictions will go out the window. The Court was very explicit about this. Reasonable restrictions on who is able to purchase a gun are not open for challenge due to this ruling.
And those restrictions are important.
While it is absolutely right that citizens should have the right to arm themselves for self-defense, it is also absolutely right — and very tricky — for the government to regulate who gets their hands on a gun.
As I have argued before in this space, we need to figure out how to do a better job at preventing madmen and criminals from getting guns. Some ability to demonstrate basic competence and safety isn’t a bad idea, either.
Keeping a firearm for self-defense is an awesome responsibility — literally the power of life and death. It must be taken seriously. But the right to self-defense and the means to enforce it are fundamental rights of citizenship. And now those rights are more secure.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
The law prevented citizens from keeping a handgun in their own home for self-defense. That’s wrong. A law-abiding person ought to have the means of self-defense in the sanctuary of their home. Period.
Whether a handgun is the best means is open to debate. A shotgun loaded with #4 shot is a better bet — easier to use in a crisis, less penetration, etc. But law-abiding American citizens should be able to make the choice.
Striking down that draconian restriction is one victory. The other, broader one is that the Court finally made a judgment on the key question of the Second Amendment, arguing that the amendment acknowledges an individual — not a collective — right to keep and bear arms.
That’s a significant moment in the 40-year debate over gun control in this country and it’s a big win for firearms owners.
The decision does not, as alarmists have argued, mean all gun restrictions will go out the window. The Court was very explicit about this. Reasonable restrictions on who is able to purchase a gun are not open for challenge due to this ruling.
And those restrictions are important.
While it is absolutely right that citizens should have the right to arm themselves for self-defense, it is also absolutely right — and very tricky — for the government to regulate who gets their hands on a gun.
As I have argued before in this space, we need to figure out how to do a better job at preventing madmen and criminals from getting guns. Some ability to demonstrate basic competence and safety isn’t a bad idea, either.
Keeping a firearm for self-defense is an awesome responsibility — literally the power of life and death. It must be taken seriously. But the right to self-defense and the means to enforce it are fundamental rights of citizenship. And now those rights are more secure.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Friday, June 27, 2008
Sisters resists self-segregation
The Economist this week published an interesting piece on the increasing self-segregation of American society.
It seems that Americans are increasingly sealing themselves off in communities made up almost exclusively of people just like them in a phenomenon one sociologists dubbed The Big Sort.
We’re not talking about racial segregation here, though that’s a part of it. The phenomenon is one of social and political self-segregation.
“Because Americans are so mobile,” The Economist notes, “even a mild preference for living with like-minded neighbors leads over time to severe segregation.”
The problem with this is that “Americans are ever less exposed to contrary views.” It’s not just living in enclaves where everybody has pretty much the same outlook; they tune into TV and radio that suits their beliefs, read only what they already agree with and nobody around them challenges it. Views in an echo chamber become more and more extreme.
That’s no way to live, no matter what your values. That kind of “safety” is a slow death.
We’re lucky in Sisters. This community, while it is not ethnically diverse, has a broad cross-section of people with a variety of backgrounds, beliefs, and values. And we rub up against each other at community events, in restaurants and at the Post Office. We argue with each other in Letters to the Editor.
I know several people who are close friends, despite being polar opposites in politics and in many of their social attitudes.
That vibrancy is at risk, though. I talk to many people on both ends of the political spectrum, on either side of the cultural divide, who are increasingly intolerant of hearing from people on the other side.
Monocultures aren’t healthy in forests or in human communities. We are blessed to have a vibrant town here. Let’s make sure it stays that way.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
It seems that Americans are increasingly sealing themselves off in communities made up almost exclusively of people just like them in a phenomenon one sociologists dubbed The Big Sort.
We’re not talking about racial segregation here, though that’s a part of it. The phenomenon is one of social and political self-segregation.
“Because Americans are so mobile,” The Economist notes, “even a mild preference for living with like-minded neighbors leads over time to severe segregation.”
The problem with this is that “Americans are ever less exposed to contrary views.” It’s not just living in enclaves where everybody has pretty much the same outlook; they tune into TV and radio that suits their beliefs, read only what they already agree with and nobody around them challenges it. Views in an echo chamber become more and more extreme.
That’s no way to live, no matter what your values. That kind of “safety” is a slow death.
We’re lucky in Sisters. This community, while it is not ethnically diverse, has a broad cross-section of people with a variety of backgrounds, beliefs, and values. And we rub up against each other at community events, in restaurants and at the Post Office. We argue with each other in Letters to the Editor.
I know several people who are close friends, despite being polar opposites in politics and in many of their social attitudes.
That vibrancy is at risk, though. I talk to many people on both ends of the political spectrum, on either side of the cultural divide, who are increasingly intolerant of hearing from people on the other side.
Monocultures aren’t healthy in forests or in human communities. We are blessed to have a vibrant town here. Let’s make sure it stays that way.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Friday, June 20, 2008
Guns in America
The anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination earlier this month brought forth a lot of remembrances from people who knew RFK, people who were at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles the night Sirhan Sirhan pumped three .22 caliber bullets into the Senator at close range.
The most compelling and poignant interview I heard was with Pete Hamill, a writer whom I admire deeply. He noted that in America, a disturbed man with a grievance can always get a gun with which to take out his anger on a human target.
That got my attention. See, I was out shooting while I listened to the interview on OPB.
I've been an avid shooter since I was about 10 years old. There were no guns in my household; it wasn't something I learned from my dad. I was drawn to firearms all on my own, partly from an interest in history and partly from the sheer enjoyment of the art and skill of shooting well.
I've worked in the firearms industry. Now, I shoot probably three or four times a week — mostly small-caliber rifle and clays with a shotgun. I do a little bird hunting, but I'm more a shooter than a hunter. I have a couple of revolvers and shoot them well, but they play a distant third fiddle to the rifle and shotgun.
The shooting sports have brought me hours of enjoyment — enjoyment that I am now sharing with my nine-year-old daughter who is turning out to be a fine shot with both a rifle and a bow.
Firearms have also brought me a modicum of protection. I have been in two armed confrontations with dangerous men, both of which ended without shots being fired. I was glad to have been armed.
And yet...
And yet...
Hamill is right. We've seen it in political assassinations, we've seen it in school shootings, we've seen it in rampages at the mall. A madman can always get a gun with which to enact his madness.
I support the Second Amendment and believe in the individual right to keep and bear arms. But we've got to do a better job of restricting access of those who are menaces to the innocent.
I'm going to buy a new rifle next week. It'll be an easy process. Maybe it's too easy.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
The most compelling and poignant interview I heard was with Pete Hamill, a writer whom I admire deeply. He noted that in America, a disturbed man with a grievance can always get a gun with which to take out his anger on a human target.
That got my attention. See, I was out shooting while I listened to the interview on OPB.
I've been an avid shooter since I was about 10 years old. There were no guns in my household; it wasn't something I learned from my dad. I was drawn to firearms all on my own, partly from an interest in history and partly from the sheer enjoyment of the art and skill of shooting well.
I've worked in the firearms industry. Now, I shoot probably three or four times a week — mostly small-caliber rifle and clays with a shotgun. I do a little bird hunting, but I'm more a shooter than a hunter. I have a couple of revolvers and shoot them well, but they play a distant third fiddle to the rifle and shotgun.
The shooting sports have brought me hours of enjoyment — enjoyment that I am now sharing with my nine-year-old daughter who is turning out to be a fine shot with both a rifle and a bow.
Firearms have also brought me a modicum of protection. I have been in two armed confrontations with dangerous men, both of which ended without shots being fired. I was glad to have been armed.
And yet...
And yet...
Hamill is right. We've seen it in political assassinations, we've seen it in school shootings, we've seen it in rampages at the mall. A madman can always get a gun with which to enact his madness.
I support the Second Amendment and believe in the individual right to keep and bear arms. But we've got to do a better job of restricting access of those who are menaces to the innocent.
I'm going to buy a new rifle next week. It'll be an easy process. Maybe it's too easy.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Gay marriage — pushing the hot button
The California Supreme Court just stuck its thumb down on one of the hottest hot buttons on the American cultural landscape. By declaring a referendum banning gay marriage unconstitutional, the court opened a floodgate and today hundreds if not thousands of gay couples surged through it.
A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will almost certainly be on the November ballot in California, just in time to add a culture war twist to what will already be a contentious presidential election. It will probably pass, too, inaugurating yet another round of wrangling over this issue, which arouses strange passions.
A large majority Americans oppose gay marriage, though a sizable plurality are okay with civil unions. This seems very strange to me. You're okay with gays having the same rights as married couples, as long as you don't call it marriage.
Uh... okay. Why?
I've never understood the visceral reaction of so many people to the notion of gay marriage. It strikes me as a very definite "none of my business" situation.
I've heard all the arguments. It undermines the institution of marriage. How? Will my marriage be affected by Steve and Dave getting married? Not as far as I can tell. And it's pretty clear that heterosexuals have done just fine on their own undermining the sanctity of the institution. About half of marriages end in divorce, so it's not like the institution is in great shape anyway.
Marriage is about procreation and protecting children. Really? So childless couples shouldn't be married?
Homosexuality is a sin. Nope. Sorry. Off limits. We don't base laws on theological concepts of sin, otherwise we'd be arresting gluttons at the ice cream parlor and stoning adulterers (heterosexual underminers of the institution).
It legitimizes a "deviant lifestyle." It's already broadly legitimized — otherwise the possibility of marriage would be as remote as it was in 1950. Mores change.
It opens the door to all alternative lifestyles — plural marriage or incest. This argument actually has some rhetorical force. If we extend rights to include some must we include any and all? Yet incest is taboo and illegal for compelling reasons of biology (which of course did not stop the legally and regally married of Europe from staying too close to the trunk of the family tree). Polygamy was common ages before the notion of homosexual marriage even existed; it fell out of favor for reasons of contract and inheritance, not on moral grounds.
Marriage defined as being between a man and a woman is not a bulwark against polygamy; polygamy is illegal because marriage is a contract between two persons.
And that's what this all comes down to, for me. The state should be out of the marriage business entirely. All marriages should be civil unions between two persons. Churches may define "marriage" however they choose and if it is unsound doctrine to marry homosexuals, they should not do so.
And then, instead of worrying about Steve and Dave's relationship, we can mind our own.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will almost certainly be on the November ballot in California, just in time to add a culture war twist to what will already be a contentious presidential election. It will probably pass, too, inaugurating yet another round of wrangling over this issue, which arouses strange passions.
A large majority Americans oppose gay marriage, though a sizable plurality are okay with civil unions. This seems very strange to me. You're okay with gays having the same rights as married couples, as long as you don't call it marriage.
Uh... okay. Why?
I've never understood the visceral reaction of so many people to the notion of gay marriage. It strikes me as a very definite "none of my business" situation.
I've heard all the arguments. It undermines the institution of marriage. How? Will my marriage be affected by Steve and Dave getting married? Not as far as I can tell. And it's pretty clear that heterosexuals have done just fine on their own undermining the sanctity of the institution. About half of marriages end in divorce, so it's not like the institution is in great shape anyway.
Marriage is about procreation and protecting children. Really? So childless couples shouldn't be married?
Homosexuality is a sin. Nope. Sorry. Off limits. We don't base laws on theological concepts of sin, otherwise we'd be arresting gluttons at the ice cream parlor and stoning adulterers (heterosexual underminers of the institution).
It legitimizes a "deviant lifestyle." It's already broadly legitimized — otherwise the possibility of marriage would be as remote as it was in 1950. Mores change.
It opens the door to all alternative lifestyles — plural marriage or incest. This argument actually has some rhetorical force. If we extend rights to include some must we include any and all? Yet incest is taboo and illegal for compelling reasons of biology (which of course did not stop the legally and regally married of Europe from staying too close to the trunk of the family tree). Polygamy was common ages before the notion of homosexual marriage even existed; it fell out of favor for reasons of contract and inheritance, not on moral grounds.
Marriage defined as being between a man and a woman is not a bulwark against polygamy; polygamy is illegal because marriage is a contract between two persons.
And that's what this all comes down to, for me. The state should be out of the marriage business entirely. All marriages should be civil unions between two persons. Churches may define "marriage" however they choose and if it is unsound doctrine to marry homosexuals, they should not do so.
And then, instead of worrying about Steve and Dave's relationship, we can mind our own.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Gas pains and the freedom of the road
Some analysts think $4-per-gallon gasoline may be a classic “tipping point,” a moment when market forces quickly and irrevocably change people’s behavior.
Maybe.
I think in the case of gasoline a better analog is the addiction model. Have we “hit bottom?” Are we ready to admit that we are powerless over our addiction to cheap gasoline and can no longer live this way?
I’m not so sure.
Certainly, big changes are afoot. GM is moving with unusual speed for a giant corporation to jettison its fleet of gas-guzzlers — it may completely deep-six the iconic Hummer — on the belief that the increase in gas prices is permanent and may go considerably higher.
I drive a truck that gets 12.8 miles to the gallon, so I am no paragon of virtuous, upright living when it comes to gasoline consumption. I wouldn’t give it up; I need it to tow a horse trailer and it serves me well in other adventures. However, I am walking a lot more. That’s great when the weather is like it is today, a little less pleasant in wintertime. I think I’m going to have to get used to it.
It’s hard to break the addiction to cheap gas because it has brought so much to us. Yeah, yeah, traffic is a mess and pollution is a problem (though we’ve managed to reduce it by a massive amount since I was a kid growing up with stage-three smog alerts in the LA area).
But the ability for people to move freely has added immeasurably to the richness of our lives. It’s easy to forget that just a couple of generations ago, travel was out of the question for most Americans. They never ventured far from home.
When my grandfather was a kid, he took a train trip from the ranch in South Dakota to the stockyards in Chicago — and it was a major event in his young life.
Two decades later he was in a car driving from South Dakota to Southern California, part of the great exodus from the Great Plains during the Great Depression.
In just the past few decades, world travel has become accessible to ordinary people, not just the super-rich.
We don’t want to give up the freedom given by the automobile and the airplane — and we shouldn’t. But as prices keep climbing we’re going to have to. If a hurricane knocks out a refinery, if the Middle East explodes, we’re looking at $7-$8 per gallon gasoline.
I sure won’t be driving that truck much.
Drilling for more oil domestically, refining more oil, may be necessary. Oil is the lifeblood of our civilization and if we try to cold turkey it, we’ll probably die. But more drilling only postpones the day of reckoning, of which $4.50/gallon gas is but a harbinger.
It’s time to put our best minds to work on viable solutions — alternative energy sources from solar to wind, to nuclear, to geothermal to hydrogen fuel cells. We need to develop flex-fuel.
It’s no bad thing to park the car and walk or ride a bike — America as a whole could stand to get off and on. But we shouldn’t forsake the wide world granted to us by the ability to move.
We need to wean ourselves off oil, never forgetting that the black gold gave us the freedom of the road.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Maybe.
I think in the case of gasoline a better analog is the addiction model. Have we “hit bottom?” Are we ready to admit that we are powerless over our addiction to cheap gasoline and can no longer live this way?
I’m not so sure.
Certainly, big changes are afoot. GM is moving with unusual speed for a giant corporation to jettison its fleet of gas-guzzlers — it may completely deep-six the iconic Hummer — on the belief that the increase in gas prices is permanent and may go considerably higher.
I drive a truck that gets 12.8 miles to the gallon, so I am no paragon of virtuous, upright living when it comes to gasoline consumption. I wouldn’t give it up; I need it to tow a horse trailer and it serves me well in other adventures. However, I am walking a lot more. That’s great when the weather is like it is today, a little less pleasant in wintertime. I think I’m going to have to get used to it.
It’s hard to break the addiction to cheap gas because it has brought so much to us. Yeah, yeah, traffic is a mess and pollution is a problem (though we’ve managed to reduce it by a massive amount since I was a kid growing up with stage-three smog alerts in the LA area).
But the ability for people to move freely has added immeasurably to the richness of our lives. It’s easy to forget that just a couple of generations ago, travel was out of the question for most Americans. They never ventured far from home.
When my grandfather was a kid, he took a train trip from the ranch in South Dakota to the stockyards in Chicago — and it was a major event in his young life.
Two decades later he was in a car driving from South Dakota to Southern California, part of the great exodus from the Great Plains during the Great Depression.
In just the past few decades, world travel has become accessible to ordinary people, not just the super-rich.
We don’t want to give up the freedom given by the automobile and the airplane — and we shouldn’t. But as prices keep climbing we’re going to have to. If a hurricane knocks out a refinery, if the Middle East explodes, we’re looking at $7-$8 per gallon gasoline.
I sure won’t be driving that truck much.
Drilling for more oil domestically, refining more oil, may be necessary. Oil is the lifeblood of our civilization and if we try to cold turkey it, we’ll probably die. But more drilling only postpones the day of reckoning, of which $4.50/gallon gas is but a harbinger.
It’s time to put our best minds to work on viable solutions — alternative energy sources from solar to wind, to nuclear, to geothermal to hydrogen fuel cells. We need to develop flex-fuel.
It’s no bad thing to park the car and walk or ride a bike — America as a whole could stand to get off and on. But we shouldn’t forsake the wide world granted to us by the ability to move.
We need to wean ourselves off oil, never forgetting that the black gold gave us the freedom of the road.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
America the Great
America is the greatest country in the world.
You hear that a lot. Unfortunately, that sense of America’s greatness is often defined by political partisans and used as a weapon in political and cultural battles.
That sort of abuse of the notion obscures its truth: We are indeed a great nation, founded on principles that have made the world a better place.
Over strife-filled centuries we have expanded the principle that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to include more and more people. Those inalienable rights no longer apply only to white men of property.
Yet our greatness is under threat. Not from radical Islamic terrorism; while dangerous and murderous, Islamic terrorism cannot destroy the United States.
No, the threat to our greatness comes from our own complacency. We can, and must, do better.
America should be the best in all things. We should have the best transportation system in the world. We should have the finest health care in the world available to all our citizens. We should have the best-educated citizenry in the world.
With all of those things in place, our economic preeminence would be unchallengeable.
But we are not the world’s best. Our transportation system is suffering from decades of deferred maintenance. Our health care system, while still the best in terms of research and innovation, is failing in terms of reaching the citizenry.
While we still produce some of the best and the brightest in the world, our citizenry is falling behind the rest of the developed world in most measures of education.
Infrastructure, health care, education — these are key investments in the future greatness of our nation. I’d add energy independence to the list — requiring investment both in fossil fuels and alternative fuels to achieve.
We are failing our children and their children if we do not buckle down to the job and make these investments now.
There is plenty of room for debate on the best path to get there. It’s going to require a mixture of market forces and government investment to make any of this happen. We cannot afford to spend years quibbling and sniping at each other, spending more than we can afford and neglecting the long-term for short-term pleasure and gain.
If we do not act now, we may lose the greatness that makes America, in Lincoln’s words, the last, best hope of man on Earth.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
You hear that a lot. Unfortunately, that sense of America’s greatness is often defined by political partisans and used as a weapon in political and cultural battles.
That sort of abuse of the notion obscures its truth: We are indeed a great nation, founded on principles that have made the world a better place.
Over strife-filled centuries we have expanded the principle that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to include more and more people. Those inalienable rights no longer apply only to white men of property.
Yet our greatness is under threat. Not from radical Islamic terrorism; while dangerous and murderous, Islamic terrorism cannot destroy the United States.
No, the threat to our greatness comes from our own complacency. We can, and must, do better.
America should be the best in all things. We should have the best transportation system in the world. We should have the finest health care in the world available to all our citizens. We should have the best-educated citizenry in the world.
With all of those things in place, our economic preeminence would be unchallengeable.
But we are not the world’s best. Our transportation system is suffering from decades of deferred maintenance. Our health care system, while still the best in terms of research and innovation, is failing in terms of reaching the citizenry.
While we still produce some of the best and the brightest in the world, our citizenry is falling behind the rest of the developed world in most measures of education.
Infrastructure, health care, education — these are key investments in the future greatness of our nation. I’d add energy independence to the list — requiring investment both in fossil fuels and alternative fuels to achieve.
We are failing our children and their children if we do not buckle down to the job and make these investments now.
There is plenty of room for debate on the best path to get there. It’s going to require a mixture of market forces and government investment to make any of this happen. We cannot afford to spend years quibbling and sniping at each other, spending more than we can afford and neglecting the long-term for short-term pleasure and gain.
If we do not act now, we may lose the greatness that makes America, in Lincoln’s words, the last, best hope of man on Earth.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Covering the ugly stuff
I cringe when the sirens go off, when I get the report of an accident on the highways around Sisters.
It means someone is likely hurt, possibly critically. And in this small town, it’s all too possible that it’s someone I know. (Like it or not, we are all touched more immediately when tragedy befalls someone close).
Last Monday, I came upon the wreck at the intersection of Highway 20 and Barclay Drive as I was driving my daughter to school. I pulled off the side of the road, grabbed my camera, got out of the truck and started taking pictures.
That’s my job.
A man at the scene — a man I know — approached me and berated me for being there and taking pictures. He said it was “sick” to do so, that he knew the people, that they weren’t even out of their cars.
I understood where he was coming from. I’ve been in his shoes. And I told him so. I also told him that the accident was news and it was my job to cover it and that I was going to do so. I also assured him that The Nugget wasn’t going to run photos that exploited the pain and fear of his friends.
A short time later, the man apologized for his angry reaction and we had a good conversation about the dangers of that intersection and what might be done to fix it.
That kind of thing goes with being in “the media.” You learn not to take it personally. And it keeps you on your toes. Where is the line between legitimate reporting and exploitation?
A good friend and I had a conversation some years back about coverage of accidents. She asked why we couldn’t just write about it, why there had to be pictures, images that were upsetting and painful to see. (She also admitted that they were only upsetting and painful when she knew the people in the wreck — an important point).
It’s a valid question. The answer is close to a cliché; an image has a lot more impact than a written description.
But still, is it necessary? Does it serve some valid public purpose?
What I told my friend, and what I continue to believe, is that such images brand themselves on our consciousness in ways prose descriptions cannot. And they can change what we do.
I have seen somewhere around a dozen traffic deaths and many injuries. I drive differently because of them. I approach the Aspen Lakes curve and the Suttle Lake curve with great caution because I’ve seen death there. I approach that nasty intersection assuming someone is going to pull in front of me because I’ve seen the results of just that action.
Even photos taken by other reporters have that effect. I can still see the wreckage of Steve Swisher’s pickup truck in a photo taken by another reporter. And I won’t pass a turning vehicle on the right because I remember what happened to Swisher.
I have drummed into my wife and constantly remind myself that if you drift off the right side of the highway, keep going. Overcorrect and you’ll roll or shoot into the oncoming lane.
I know this because I’ve seen it, over and over again.
My job is to let you see it, too. It’s not pretty and it’s not fun, but maybe it does a little bit of good.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
It means someone is likely hurt, possibly critically. And in this small town, it’s all too possible that it’s someone I know. (Like it or not, we are all touched more immediately when tragedy befalls someone close).
Last Monday, I came upon the wreck at the intersection of Highway 20 and Barclay Drive as I was driving my daughter to school. I pulled off the side of the road, grabbed my camera, got out of the truck and started taking pictures.
That’s my job.
A man at the scene — a man I know — approached me and berated me for being there and taking pictures. He said it was “sick” to do so, that he knew the people, that they weren’t even out of their cars.
I understood where he was coming from. I’ve been in his shoes. And I told him so. I also told him that the accident was news and it was my job to cover it and that I was going to do so. I also assured him that The Nugget wasn’t going to run photos that exploited the pain and fear of his friends.
A short time later, the man apologized for his angry reaction and we had a good conversation about the dangers of that intersection and what might be done to fix it.
That kind of thing goes with being in “the media.” You learn not to take it personally. And it keeps you on your toes. Where is the line between legitimate reporting and exploitation?
A good friend and I had a conversation some years back about coverage of accidents. She asked why we couldn’t just write about it, why there had to be pictures, images that were upsetting and painful to see. (She also admitted that they were only upsetting and painful when she knew the people in the wreck — an important point).
It’s a valid question. The answer is close to a cliché; an image has a lot more impact than a written description.
But still, is it necessary? Does it serve some valid public purpose?
What I told my friend, and what I continue to believe, is that such images brand themselves on our consciousness in ways prose descriptions cannot. And they can change what we do.
I have seen somewhere around a dozen traffic deaths and many injuries. I drive differently because of them. I approach the Aspen Lakes curve and the Suttle Lake curve with great caution because I’ve seen death there. I approach that nasty intersection assuming someone is going to pull in front of me because I’ve seen the results of just that action.
Even photos taken by other reporters have that effect. I can still see the wreckage of Steve Swisher’s pickup truck in a photo taken by another reporter. And I won’t pass a turning vehicle on the right because I remember what happened to Swisher.
I have drummed into my wife and constantly remind myself that if you drift off the right side of the highway, keep going. Overcorrect and you’ll roll or shoot into the oncoming lane.
I know this because I’ve seen it, over and over again.
My job is to let you see it, too. It’s not pretty and it’s not fun, but maybe it does a little bit of good.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Someone is going to die
Someone is going to die at the intersection of Barclay Drive and Highway 20.
What has happened there already is bad enough. there have been four major accidents, three in two years, with more than a dozen people injured, several seriously or critically. People from Sisters, our friends and neighbors, have suffered permanent, life-changing injuries.
We cannot wait two, three, four more years — or more — for the City of Sisters and the Oregon Department of Transportation to do something to improve safety at this intersection. We’re told that a plan must be completed, that funding must be found.
That kind of bureaucratic response tastes like ashes to the families and friends of the injured. Imagine telling that to the next person who is hurt there, or to a family mourning a loved one killed there.
We have known there was going to be a signal at that intersection for a decade, before the road was even completed. If there are other, better options, great. Let’s hear them.
ODOT wasted no time, effort or money putting in a passing lane on Highway 20, allegedly for safety reasons, even though no accident has been recorded on that section of highway.
The agency can certainly fast-track a project where lives are actually at stake.
Every time there is an accident at that intersection, there is an outcry for action. Then it dies down — until the next pileup sends someone to the hospital.
It is time to act. Write to Mayor Brad Boyd at bboyd@ci.sisters.or.us and to ODOT planner Jim Bryant at James.R.BRYANT@odot.state.or.us. Be respectful and courteous; these men have jobs to do and many priorities to balance and anger won’t help.
But let them know how important it is that action be taken NOW, before someone dies and the community of Sisters is left to ask why.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
What has happened there already is bad enough. there have been four major accidents, three in two years, with more than a dozen people injured, several seriously or critically. People from Sisters, our friends and neighbors, have suffered permanent, life-changing injuries.
We cannot wait two, three, four more years — or more — for the City of Sisters and the Oregon Department of Transportation to do something to improve safety at this intersection. We’re told that a plan must be completed, that funding must be found.
That kind of bureaucratic response tastes like ashes to the families and friends of the injured. Imagine telling that to the next person who is hurt there, or to a family mourning a loved one killed there.
We have known there was going to be a signal at that intersection for a decade, before the road was even completed. If there are other, better options, great. Let’s hear them.
ODOT wasted no time, effort or money putting in a passing lane on Highway 20, allegedly for safety reasons, even though no accident has been recorded on that section of highway.
The agency can certainly fast-track a project where lives are actually at stake.
Every time there is an accident at that intersection, there is an outcry for action. Then it dies down — until the next pileup sends someone to the hospital.
It is time to act. Write to Mayor Brad Boyd at bboyd@ci.sisters.or.us and to ODOT planner Jim Bryant at James.R.BRYANT@odot.state.or.us. Be respectful and courteous; these men have jobs to do and many priorities to balance and anger won’t help.
But let them know how important it is that action be taken NOW, before someone dies and the community of Sisters is left to ask why.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Gassing up in Sisters
The recent spike in gas prices has put the hurt on everybody. It costs me around $80 to fill the tank on my pickup truck. Thankfully, I don’t commute far and I can park it and walk when I get to work.
We also own a Subaru Forester, which does pretty well on mileage. So by being mindful about our driving, consolidating trips and driving conservatively, we’re managing okay.
But man, it hurts to pour that much money down the gas tank. Everybody is thinking that way. And that makes people feel insecure about the economic outlook.
High energy costs always drive inflation and that combined with a slow housing market will have a negative impact on Sisters’ economy. But tourism may actually be helped by high gas prices.
Sisters is a tank of gas away from the region’s major metro areas — a relatively inexpensive getaway. Local business that cater to tourism, the Sisters Area Chamber of Commerce, the lodging industry need to put the pedal to the metal on an advertising campaign to convince people that it makes more sense to drive to Sisters than to fly to Disneyland this summer.
If we can do that, our major industry may come out of a long summer of pain at the pump feeling a lot better than some folks out there, who are going to see a steep decline in travel.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
We also own a Subaru Forester, which does pretty well on mileage. So by being mindful about our driving, consolidating trips and driving conservatively, we’re managing okay.
But man, it hurts to pour that much money down the gas tank. Everybody is thinking that way. And that makes people feel insecure about the economic outlook.
High energy costs always drive inflation and that combined with a slow housing market will have a negative impact on Sisters’ economy. But tourism may actually be helped by high gas prices.
Sisters is a tank of gas away from the region’s major metro areas — a relatively inexpensive getaway. Local business that cater to tourism, the Sisters Area Chamber of Commerce, the lodging industry need to put the pedal to the metal on an advertising campaign to convince people that it makes more sense to drive to Sisters than to fly to Disneyland this summer.
If we can do that, our major industry may come out of a long summer of pain at the pump feeling a lot better than some folks out there, who are going to see a steep decline in travel.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Going to the dogs
The Nugget received a letter from a woman who is fed up with barking dogs disturbing her peace. She wants us to do a story about shock collars for barking dogs and we probably will.
Dogs are a constant problem in Sisters. Barking dogs, loose dogs, aggressive dogs. The local sheriff’s deputies spend an awful lot of their time dealing with animal complaints.
It’s not the dogs’ fault. they’re just doing what comes naturally: wandering around peeing on everything, talking to each other and defending their turf.
It’s the owners who aren’t doing their job.
My wife spent most of Monday morning reuniting an old lab that showed up in our driveway with her family. A little girl was most relieved and it was all very touching. but it was clear that Daisy would need to be rescued again. Dad was pretty cavalier. “Yeah, she runs off.”
Well... control the dog!
Incessant barking is maddening; if your dog is a barker, keep it indoors so it doesn’t bother the neighbors.
Don’t let your dog run loose in the neighborhood. If your dog bites a kid, you’ve got a big problem. Leash the critter when you’re on a walk. Yeah, I know your dog responds to voice commands — except when he doesn’t.
I don’t want my dogs tangling with yours. Neither do you.
I hate the idea of using a shock collar to stop a dog from barking. I don’t much care for cops handing out reams of citations for nuisances and dogs at large. But that’s the kind of step people start insisting on when dog owners won’t just do the right thing because it’s the right thing.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Dogs are a constant problem in Sisters. Barking dogs, loose dogs, aggressive dogs. The local sheriff’s deputies spend an awful lot of their time dealing with animal complaints.
It’s not the dogs’ fault. they’re just doing what comes naturally: wandering around peeing on everything, talking to each other and defending their turf.
It’s the owners who aren’t doing their job.
My wife spent most of Monday morning reuniting an old lab that showed up in our driveway with her family. A little girl was most relieved and it was all very touching. but it was clear that Daisy would need to be rescued again. Dad was pretty cavalier. “Yeah, she runs off.”
Well... control the dog!
Incessant barking is maddening; if your dog is a barker, keep it indoors so it doesn’t bother the neighbors.
Don’t let your dog run loose in the neighborhood. If your dog bites a kid, you’ve got a big problem. Leash the critter when you’re on a walk. Yeah, I know your dog responds to voice commands — except when he doesn’t.
I don’t want my dogs tangling with yours. Neither do you.
I hate the idea of using a shock collar to stop a dog from barking. I don’t much care for cops handing out reams of citations for nuisances and dogs at large. But that’s the kind of step people start insisting on when dog owners won’t just do the right thing because it’s the right thing.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war
President George W. Bush waded into the presidential campaign last week with a speech in Israel that compared Barack Obama’s proposals to negotiate with Iran and Syria and other U.S. enemies to the “appeasement” of Nazi Germany in the run up to World War II.
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them that they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before...
“As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement.”
(White House spokesperson Dana Perino blandly denied that the comments were directed at Obama. Right. And there’s no recession and Iraq has weapons of mass destruction).
We’ll leave aside for the moment the complicated history of the policy of appeasement, Britain’s war guarantee to Poland and the blunders (including Hitler’s) that led to a war that nobody wanted in 1939. (Hitler had sought to avoid a repeat of a two front war, then guaranteed it with the attack on Poland).
What is most infuriating about Bush’s comments — calculated as they were to touch the hottest button available — is the false equation of negotiation with appeasement.
One of Bush’s alleged heroes, Winston Churchill, said in 1954 that “to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”
The history of the 20th Century shows that this is true.
Reagan, the icon of the conservative movement, negotiated with the Soviet Union, the “Evil Empire,” even as the U.S. supplied a proxy war in Afghanistan. Those negotiations helped end the Cold War.
In the midst of that existential struggle, when the annihilation of the United States and most of the rest of the world was a real threat, Richard Nixon sat down and negotiated with Mao Tse Tung, the bloodiest mass murderer in history, a psychopath that makes Iran’s mullahs look like Rotarians. The result was the “opening of China” and another step toward ending the Cold War.
The Kennedy brothers negotiated our way out of the most volatile trigger point of the Cold War, ending the Cuban Missile Crisis through quiet back-channel dealmaking.
Jaw-jaw was better than war-war.
Negotiation=Appeasement only for men like Bush, who perceive any kind of dialogue as weakness, who cannot conceive that even the most ardent of our adversaries can act pragmatically, who prefer to rely on the hollow strength of the bully.
They had their chance and it’s proved disastrous. It remains to be seen whether John McCain or Barack Obama will be best equipped to do the hard work of negotiation with enemies. Right now, McCain seems to be parroting the Bush line. Hopefully that’s just politics. He used to be smarter than that.
Obama’s got the right idea, but he may not be tough enough.
We’ll see. But whoever sits in the Oval Office will need to take the real lessons of history to heart: Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them that they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before...
“As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement.”
(White House spokesperson Dana Perino blandly denied that the comments were directed at Obama. Right. And there’s no recession and Iraq has weapons of mass destruction).
We’ll leave aside for the moment the complicated history of the policy of appeasement, Britain’s war guarantee to Poland and the blunders (including Hitler’s) that led to a war that nobody wanted in 1939. (Hitler had sought to avoid a repeat of a two front war, then guaranteed it with the attack on Poland).
What is most infuriating about Bush’s comments — calculated as they were to touch the hottest button available — is the false equation of negotiation with appeasement.
One of Bush’s alleged heroes, Winston Churchill, said in 1954 that “to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”
The history of the 20th Century shows that this is true.
Reagan, the icon of the conservative movement, negotiated with the Soviet Union, the “Evil Empire,” even as the U.S. supplied a proxy war in Afghanistan. Those negotiations helped end the Cold War.
In the midst of that existential struggle, when the annihilation of the United States and most of the rest of the world was a real threat, Richard Nixon sat down and negotiated with Mao Tse Tung, the bloodiest mass murderer in history, a psychopath that makes Iran’s mullahs look like Rotarians. The result was the “opening of China” and another step toward ending the Cold War.
The Kennedy brothers negotiated our way out of the most volatile trigger point of the Cold War, ending the Cuban Missile Crisis through quiet back-channel dealmaking.
Jaw-jaw was better than war-war.
Negotiation=Appeasement only for men like Bush, who perceive any kind of dialogue as weakness, who cannot conceive that even the most ardent of our adversaries can act pragmatically, who prefer to rely on the hollow strength of the bully.
They had their chance and it’s proved disastrous. It remains to be seen whether John McCain or Barack Obama will be best equipped to do the hard work of negotiation with enemies. Right now, McCain seems to be parroting the Bush line. Hopefully that’s just politics. He used to be smarter than that.
Obama’s got the right idea, but he may not be tough enough.
We’ll see. But whoever sits in the Oval Office will need to take the real lessons of history to heart: Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Friday, May 16, 2008
No option but local option
The Sisters School Board is going to seek public input before deciding whether to ask voters to approve a local option tax to fund schools in the 2009-10 school year and beyond.
There’s not much to discuss. Sisters schools won’t be excellent without local option. They won’t even be good. Local option is 9 percent of the budget; about $1 million a year.
The schools can’t do their job without it.
There are rumblings in the community about organized opposition to local option, from people who are angry about the school district’s handling of the disallowed “homeschool” program at the Christian school, or about the district’s approval of bond funding for elementary school projects, or about the firing of a biology teacher last year — or any number of things.
Shooting down local option would be a pyrhhic victory, an act of pure destruction that achieves nothing and harms much, including those who perpetrate it.
Whatever the faults of the school district and its leadership, the community must rally as it has in the past to provide the local financial support required to make the schools function, to educate the children of our community.
There may be tactical considerations — whether to seek a vote in November or next spring; how much to ask for for how long — but the district needs to communicate one thing loud and clear. Community support through local option is critical; as a community, we cannot afford not to provide it.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
There’s not much to discuss. Sisters schools won’t be excellent without local option. They won’t even be good. Local option is 9 percent of the budget; about $1 million a year.
The schools can’t do their job without it.
There are rumblings in the community about organized opposition to local option, from people who are angry about the school district’s handling of the disallowed “homeschool” program at the Christian school, or about the district’s approval of bond funding for elementary school projects, or about the firing of a biology teacher last year — or any number of things.
Shooting down local option would be a pyrhhic victory, an act of pure destruction that achieves nothing and harms much, including those who perpetrate it.
Whatever the faults of the school district and its leadership, the community must rally as it has in the past to provide the local financial support required to make the schools function, to educate the children of our community.
There may be tactical considerations — whether to seek a vote in November or next spring; how much to ask for for how long — but the district needs to communicate one thing loud and clear. Community support through local option is critical; as a community, we cannot afford not to provide it.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The rock and the roll and the fight for your soul goes on and on
I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of “Expelled” at Sisters Movie House. Nothing stirs up the cultural debate like the battle over teaching “Intelligent Design” or “Evolution” or Creationism” in schools.
It’s not truly a scientific debate. Wait now... I’m not arguing whether or not it’s a settled scientific question. I’m saying that science is merely the weapon here. The battle is over the soul of the culture. That’s why the battle is so savage, why passions are so quickly and intensely aroused.
The Christian faithful feel threatened by a militant science that questions — or rejects — a role for God in nature. Secularists fear that any scientific admission of the possibility of a Creator treads out onto the slippery slope that leads to the imposition of particular religious beliefs upon students.
People’s sense of identity and meaning are wrapped up in this debate. It strikes at the core of many people’s being and invokes Fear, the mother of Anger.
We continue discover more and more about the intricate and wondrous workings of the universe through astronomy, DNA, neuroscience. And none of those who stand on opposite sides of the cultural chasm will find much comfort in what is discovered.
David Brooks, a conservative columnist, tackled this subject in a recent column, which you can find on page 2 of the May 14 issue of The Nugget.
Brooks argues that hard-core materialists are undermined by more complete understanding of the science of the mind:
“The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings... Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain. The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.”
On the other hand, orthodox believers are going to be challenged by “people (scientists) who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.”
It is going to become harder to defend particular theologies that claim a monopoly on Truth, even as it becomes more difficult to deny the sacred that underpins the legitimacy of any theology.
It’s a great time to be alive, a great time to be a seeker.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
It’s not truly a scientific debate. Wait now... I’m not arguing whether or not it’s a settled scientific question. I’m saying that science is merely the weapon here. The battle is over the soul of the culture. That’s why the battle is so savage, why passions are so quickly and intensely aroused.
The Christian faithful feel threatened by a militant science that questions — or rejects — a role for God in nature. Secularists fear that any scientific admission of the possibility of a Creator treads out onto the slippery slope that leads to the imposition of particular religious beliefs upon students.
People’s sense of identity and meaning are wrapped up in this debate. It strikes at the core of many people’s being and invokes Fear, the mother of Anger.
We continue discover more and more about the intricate and wondrous workings of the universe through astronomy, DNA, neuroscience. And none of those who stand on opposite sides of the cultural chasm will find much comfort in what is discovered.
David Brooks, a conservative columnist, tackled this subject in a recent column, which you can find on page 2 of the May 14 issue of The Nugget.
Brooks argues that hard-core materialists are undermined by more complete understanding of the science of the mind:
“The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings... Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain. The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.”
On the other hand, orthodox believers are going to be challenged by “people (scientists) who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.”
It is going to become harder to defend particular theologies that claim a monopoly on Truth, even as it becomes more difficult to deny the sacred that underpins the legitimacy of any theology.
It’s a great time to be alive, a great time to be a seeker.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, May 8, 2008
The Great Pander
Amidst all the hullabaloo over Barack Obama’s whack job pastor and Hillary Clinton’s bitter-ender strategy, the public is missing an actual policy matter — one that is a good illustration of how the three candidates might behave as president.
Clinton and John McCain are touting a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax, which runs 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. Sounds great, right? A little relief from rising prices at the pump would be wonderful, especially for those of us who drive a gas hog pickup truck.
Except that it’s not so great — and both McCain and Clinton know it. No honest economist will tell you they think this is a good idea. The savings for the typical driver are around $30 per gallon, yet it would cost millions in aggregate. These are funds that are used for highway infrastructure, which needs an infusion of cash, not a reduction.
And it is estimated that the tax holiday would cost up to 300,000 highway construction jobs. For Hillary Clinton to tout jobs on one hand while proposing a tax holiday that will eliminate them is... embarrassing.
Actually, the whole thing is embarrassing. Both Clinton and McCain know this is nothing but pandering, trying to show that they feel our pain at the pump.
It’s bad policy. Politicians offer feel-good band-aid solutions that actually make things worse. Leaders eschew cheap political points and cleave to good policy decisions. Score one for Obama.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Clinton and John McCain are touting a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax, which runs 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. Sounds great, right? A little relief from rising prices at the pump would be wonderful, especially for those of us who drive a gas hog pickup truck.
Except that it’s not so great — and both McCain and Clinton know it. No honest economist will tell you they think this is a good idea. The savings for the typical driver are around $30 per gallon, yet it would cost millions in aggregate. These are funds that are used for highway infrastructure, which needs an infusion of cash, not a reduction.
And it is estimated that the tax holiday would cost up to 300,000 highway construction jobs. For Hillary Clinton to tout jobs on one hand while proposing a tax holiday that will eliminate them is... embarrassing.
Actually, the whole thing is embarrassing. Both Clinton and McCain know this is nothing but pandering, trying to show that they feel our pain at the pump.
It’s bad policy. Politicians offer feel-good band-aid solutions that actually make things worse. Leaders eschew cheap political points and cleave to good policy decisions. Score one for Obama.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Moroland
I've just started what promises to be a great book: It's titled Moroland — 1899-1906.
It's the story of the American conflict in the Philippines at the beginning of the 20th Century — as the author describes it, "America's first attempt to transform an Islamic society."
This one of those stories you don't learn about in school, though the conflict was arduous and bloody — much more intense than the famous Indian Wars. It presaged American experiences in Vietnam and has obvious resonance with our current situation in the Middle East, confronting Islamic terrorism.
The really cool thing, which I didn't realize until I'd already gotten into the book, is that it is written by a local man, Robert A. Fulton of Bend. It's published by Tumalo Creek Press (www.tumalocreekpress.com). It's available at Paulina Springs Books.
Fulton has done a first-rate job in this, the first of two volumes on this fascinating, little-known subject. The book is clearly exhaustively researched by a man who knows the territory. He was a foreign service officer in the Philippines in the 1960s and walked the country he describes.
The best part is, it is extraordinarily well-written; clear, engaging, readable — qualities not often found in monographs on obscure historical subjects.
I don't know Mr. Fulton, but I intend to track him down. After I've finished this wonderful book.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
It's the story of the American conflict in the Philippines at the beginning of the 20th Century — as the author describes it, "America's first attempt to transform an Islamic society."
This one of those stories you don't learn about in school, though the conflict was arduous and bloody — much more intense than the famous Indian Wars. It presaged American experiences in Vietnam and has obvious resonance with our current situation in the Middle East, confronting Islamic terrorism.
The really cool thing, which I didn't realize until I'd already gotten into the book, is that it is written by a local man, Robert A. Fulton of Bend. It's published by Tumalo Creek Press (www.tumalocreekpress.com). It's available at Paulina Springs Books.
Fulton has done a first-rate job in this, the first of two volumes on this fascinating, little-known subject. The book is clearly exhaustively researched by a man who knows the territory. He was a foreign service officer in the Philippines in the 1960s and walked the country he describes.
The best part is, it is extraordinarily well-written; clear, engaging, readable — qualities not often found in monographs on obscure historical subjects.
I don't know Mr. Fulton, but I intend to track him down. After I've finished this wonderful book.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
There’s gotta be a better way
Imagine looking out your back door toward the forests and mountains of the Sisters country — and seeing a steel structure the size of a football field and 30 feet tall.
That’s the nightmare facing some Tollgate residents as Central Electric Cooperative gets set to upgrade its Tollgate substation to handle 115 kv power. They’re looking at a significant loss of property values as well as a diminished quality of life. The decline in property values will affect everyone in Tollgate, because their homes will be comparables in any appraisal.
The price of progress? Well...
Nobody really disputes the need for a power upgrade. The more wired our society becomes, the more juice we use and there’s really no arguing that. Enhanced reliability is a benefit.
But it isn’t pretty to see neighbors get royally screwed.
The shame of it is that this facility could be pushed 300 yards to the west, into the forest, and nobody’d even know it was there. A wildfire buffer could be easily created while still retaining a screen that would preserve the neighbors’ quality of life.
The Forest Service won’t allow it, because the rules say the agency can’t sell or trade public lands for such facilities unless there’s no other option. CEC owns land for the substation; an option exists and must be used.
The rules are not irrational. They exist to protect public lands and that’s certainly what most of us want. Precedent can be a real bear — bend the rules for some residents in Tollgate and sure as shootin’ somebody will want the same treatment in Idaho or New Mexico.
But “them’s the rules; tough luck” is hard to swallow when a solution seems so easy at hand. Some flexibility seems in order here.
It probably won’t happen — almost certainly won’t happen. The substation will win county approval, it will be built over the next year and the neighbors will try to screen their view as much as they can with their own landscaping. Their homes will never feel quite the same.
Maybe they’ll get used to it, but I doubt it.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
That’s the nightmare facing some Tollgate residents as Central Electric Cooperative gets set to upgrade its Tollgate substation to handle 115 kv power. They’re looking at a significant loss of property values as well as a diminished quality of life. The decline in property values will affect everyone in Tollgate, because their homes will be comparables in any appraisal.
The price of progress? Well...
Nobody really disputes the need for a power upgrade. The more wired our society becomes, the more juice we use and there’s really no arguing that. Enhanced reliability is a benefit.
But it isn’t pretty to see neighbors get royally screwed.
The shame of it is that this facility could be pushed 300 yards to the west, into the forest, and nobody’d even know it was there. A wildfire buffer could be easily created while still retaining a screen that would preserve the neighbors’ quality of life.
The Forest Service won’t allow it, because the rules say the agency can’t sell or trade public lands for such facilities unless there’s no other option. CEC owns land for the substation; an option exists and must be used.
The rules are not irrational. They exist to protect public lands and that’s certainly what most of us want. Precedent can be a real bear — bend the rules for some residents in Tollgate and sure as shootin’ somebody will want the same treatment in Idaho or New Mexico.
But “them’s the rules; tough luck” is hard to swallow when a solution seems so easy at hand. Some flexibility seems in order here.
It probably won’t happen — almost certainly won’t happen. The substation will win county approval, it will be built over the next year and the neighbors will try to screen their view as much as they can with their own landscaping. Their homes will never feel quite the same.
Maybe they’ll get used to it, but I doubt it.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Who says we need a plan?
I have a problem with the "visioning thing."
Call me a cynic. I prefer skeptic. I don't put much faith in "visioning" and community gatherings to plan our future.
That makes some people really angry and I feel kinda bad about that. Believe me, it would be easier to shut up and go along and get along. But I think planning processes like the one that went through another iteration on Saturday are a largely waste of time and resources.
Most of the good things that have happened in Sisters happened because someone or a small group of people had an idea — a vision — and the passion, grit, determination (naiveté?) to push it through, sometimes in the face of outright resistance. The Quilt Show, the Sisters Folk Festival; the new Sisters Brand; the FivePine Campus — all examples of individuals or small groups pursuing a vision and making it happen. There are many more. Yes, I understand that the Community Garden came out of this process. That's a good thing. Yet, I'd argue that the gardeners would have found a way with or without the process.
In my experience, personal initiative is how things get done.
The issue of an economic development plan and an economic development director point to the flaws of the planning model that is currently being pursued. I understand the rationale behind having an economic development leader in Sisters — but what's this person going to do? We've recently seen two major projects that offered the kind of economic development the community says it wants founder and stall against planning delays and changes at City Hall and a suddenly chilly market climate.
When people with a passion and a vision and a vested interest in making it fly can't make something happen in Sisters, what is an economic development director going to do to change things? And if we really need one, why can't a re-energized Chamber of Commerce play the role.
I'm all for people getting involved. But they need to get involved where the rubber meets the road — at City Hall, at the school board, before the planning commission. Or volunteer with one of the multitude of great organizations in the community. Help put on an event or join a service club.
I don't think we need more plans or new layers of bureaucracy. We just need to get out of the way of the people who make things happen.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Call me a cynic. I prefer skeptic. I don't put much faith in "visioning" and community gatherings to plan our future.
That makes some people really angry and I feel kinda bad about that. Believe me, it would be easier to shut up and go along and get along. But I think planning processes like the one that went through another iteration on Saturday are a largely waste of time and resources.
Most of the good things that have happened in Sisters happened because someone or a small group of people had an idea — a vision — and the passion, grit, determination (naiveté?) to push it through, sometimes in the face of outright resistance. The Quilt Show, the Sisters Folk Festival; the new Sisters Brand; the FivePine Campus — all examples of individuals or small groups pursuing a vision and making it happen. There are many more. Yes, I understand that the Community Garden came out of this process. That's a good thing. Yet, I'd argue that the gardeners would have found a way with or without the process.
In my experience, personal initiative is how things get done.
The issue of an economic development plan and an economic development director point to the flaws of the planning model that is currently being pursued. I understand the rationale behind having an economic development leader in Sisters — but what's this person going to do? We've recently seen two major projects that offered the kind of economic development the community says it wants founder and stall against planning delays and changes at City Hall and a suddenly chilly market climate.
When people with a passion and a vision and a vested interest in making it fly can't make something happen in Sisters, what is an economic development director going to do to change things? And if we really need one, why can't a re-energized Chamber of Commerce play the role.
I'm all for people getting involved. But they need to get involved where the rubber meets the road — at City Hall, at the school board, before the planning commission. Or volunteer with one of the multitude of great organizations in the community. Help put on an event or join a service club.
I don't think we need more plans or new layers of bureaucracy. We just need to get out of the way of the people who make things happen.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Art gives back
“Art gives us back what our living takes away.” Don’t remember who said it first. I’m stealing it from Tom Russell.
For some people maybe art is just decoration to hang on the wall. For some people music is just background noise. I don’t understand that. For me, art and music are food and drink; without them I’d starve and waste away.
Good thing I live in Sisters.
Art of all kinds is all around us here. Thanks to the vision of people like Kathy Deggendorfer, art is becoming an economic engine for the community. The schools nurture art and art supports the schools — literally.
Just this month alone artists and musicians will inject tens of thousands of dollars into the school system through My Own Two Hands and Starry Nights.
Art soothes and uplifts; art challenges and disturbs. Art mends your heart and breaks it. It doesn’t have to be fancy. Sometimes it’s perfect and right to simply entertain.
The more you respond to art, the more alive you become.
The well is deep in Sisters and getting deeper and richer all the time. That’s a lot of life given back.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
For some people maybe art is just decoration to hang on the wall. For some people music is just background noise. I don’t understand that. For me, art and music are food and drink; without them I’d starve and waste away.
Good thing I live in Sisters.
Art of all kinds is all around us here. Thanks to the vision of people like Kathy Deggendorfer, art is becoming an economic engine for the community. The schools nurture art and art supports the schools — literally.
Just this month alone artists and musicians will inject tens of thousands of dollars into the school system through My Own Two Hands and Starry Nights.
Art soothes and uplifts; art challenges and disturbs. Art mends your heart and breaks it. It doesn’t have to be fancy. Sometimes it’s perfect and right to simply entertain.
The more you respond to art, the more alive you become.
The well is deep in Sisters and getting deeper and richer all the time. That’s a lot of life given back.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Friday, April 11, 2008
Mt. Rushmore is coming to town
If somebody ever decides to create a Mt. Rushmore for great American songwriters, Rodney Crowell is going to up there. Right there next to his mentors Guy Clark and Townes Van Zandt, just over to the right of Steve Earle (everybody is to the right of Steve Earle), a couple of spots over from Bob Dylan. No kidding.
Rodney Crowell is one of the great ones, the real deal, the rare breed of cat who has had both great commercial success and profound artistic integrity. A singer and songwriter who can make hits and make art, who can sell but not sell out.
He’s coming to Sisters for a Starry Nights Concert on Saturday, April 26. If you hurry, you can still get a ticket.
Seeing an artist of this caliber in an intimate acoustic setting is an unbelievable privilege (especially considering that Crowell, along with all the other Starry Nights artists is donating his time). Once again, Sisters is providing an opportunity out of all proportion to its size.
I first discovered Rodney Crowell when I was about 15 years old, when I heard Emmylou Harris’ version of his “Leavin’ Louisiana in the Broad Daylight.” Crowell was the leader of Emmylou’s Hot Band and she did a bunch of his songs.
I thought “Leavin’ Louisiana” was such a cool song, it may have been the first time I looked at a songwriter credit. I had to know who wrote that thing. My band, The Anvil Blasters, keeps that song in our set list, so I’ve been playing it for, what, 27 years.
Virtually every one of my favorite artists has covered a Rodney Crowell song for the simple reason that he’s produced a huge body of great work, song after song that makes you laugh, makes you stomp your foot, makes you think or just rips your heart right out of your chest.
He made it big as a performer in his own right in 1985 with a record called “Diamonds & Dirt,” which produced five number-one hits on country radio. This was during what Steve Earle calls the Great Nashville Credibility Scare of the mid-’80s during which labels were signing real songwriters who were producing songs of lasting value that also happened to turn into radio hits.
Rodney Crowell is still turning out hit songs for other artists, some of the rare gems to be found on heavily-formatted country radio today. More importantly, he’s still creating fine records of his own.
The autobiographical “The Houston Kid, the social commentary and wrestling with creative and personal growth on “The Outsider” and “Fate’s Right Hand,” stand up with his best work and showcase an artist who, far from resting on his laurels, keeps pushing, taking rhyme, rhythm and melody into new territory with torrents of wild but knife-sharp imagery.
The guy can write — and he’s also a soulful and engaging performer.
Get over to Leavitt’s and get a ticket for this show. The fact that you’re helping keep arts and music programs in Sisters schools is gravy.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Rodney Crowell is one of the great ones, the real deal, the rare breed of cat who has had both great commercial success and profound artistic integrity. A singer and songwriter who can make hits and make art, who can sell but not sell out.
He’s coming to Sisters for a Starry Nights Concert on Saturday, April 26. If you hurry, you can still get a ticket.
Seeing an artist of this caliber in an intimate acoustic setting is an unbelievable privilege (especially considering that Crowell, along with all the other Starry Nights artists is donating his time). Once again, Sisters is providing an opportunity out of all proportion to its size.
I first discovered Rodney Crowell when I was about 15 years old, when I heard Emmylou Harris’ version of his “Leavin’ Louisiana in the Broad Daylight.” Crowell was the leader of Emmylou’s Hot Band and she did a bunch of his songs.
I thought “Leavin’ Louisiana” was such a cool song, it may have been the first time I looked at a songwriter credit. I had to know who wrote that thing. My band, The Anvil Blasters, keeps that song in our set list, so I’ve been playing it for, what, 27 years.
Virtually every one of my favorite artists has covered a Rodney Crowell song for the simple reason that he’s produced a huge body of great work, song after song that makes you laugh, makes you stomp your foot, makes you think or just rips your heart right out of your chest.
He made it big as a performer in his own right in 1985 with a record called “Diamonds & Dirt,” which produced five number-one hits on country radio. This was during what Steve Earle calls the Great Nashville Credibility Scare of the mid-’80s during which labels were signing real songwriters who were producing songs of lasting value that also happened to turn into radio hits.
Rodney Crowell is still turning out hit songs for other artists, some of the rare gems to be found on heavily-formatted country radio today. More importantly, he’s still creating fine records of his own.
The autobiographical “The Houston Kid, the social commentary and wrestling with creative and personal growth on “The Outsider” and “Fate’s Right Hand,” stand up with his best work and showcase an artist who, far from resting on his laurels, keeps pushing, taking rhyme, rhythm and melody into new territory with torrents of wild but knife-sharp imagery.
The guy can write — and he’s also a soulful and engaging performer.
Get over to Leavitt’s and get a ticket for this show. The fact that you’re helping keep arts and music programs in Sisters schools is gravy.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Monday, April 7, 2008
We don’t need a hero
This endless presidential campaign has worn me out. I tuned out weeks ago — or at least tried to. It’s hard to avoid.
The cable news channels are busily picking lint out of their navels and examining it under a microscope, filling their voracious 24-hour news cycle with any bit of political trivia they can conjure, desperately waiting for some real action in Pennsylvania.
Hillary Clinton keeps “misspeaking” (“did I say ‘under sniper fire?’ I meant ‘in a country where snipers have fired’”). McCain keeps offering “straight” talk (“I don’t understand the economy.” “I never said that”). Obama keeps delivering masterful speeches. Tastes great, less filling.
And yet people latch onto a candidate with enviable passion and commitment. For some, Obama is a kind of savior. Clinton partisans will do anything for Hillary. McCain... well, McCain doesn’t seem to inspire much passion. The right can’t stand him. That may mean trouble for him in November.
But anyway...
We want so badly to believe in real leadership .... and we are so consistently disappointed.
Gregory Rodriguez wrote a great column in the LA Times about all this. Here’s a sample: “...the practice of idealizing politicians, of putting presidents or any other elected official on a pedestal, is a little like repeatedly nominating a used-car salesman to the Better Business Bureau. How many Eliot Spitzers does it take before we stop being even a little bit surprised that these people are not only human, they’re wildly ambitious, which makes them especially prone to the big fall?” (Read the column here: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez31mar31,0,5098203.column).
We’ve given the President massive power — too much. And we expect the President to bring “change” to cure what ails us, to remake the world. It ain’t gonna happen folks. The candidates are politicians, with all the human frailties and then some.
We don’t need a hero; we need somebody with smarts and common sense who won’t make too many big mistakes.
The President won’t lead us to the Promised Land. That’s up to us.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
The cable news channels are busily picking lint out of their navels and examining it under a microscope, filling their voracious 24-hour news cycle with any bit of political trivia they can conjure, desperately waiting for some real action in Pennsylvania.
Hillary Clinton keeps “misspeaking” (“did I say ‘under sniper fire?’ I meant ‘in a country where snipers have fired’”). McCain keeps offering “straight” talk (“I don’t understand the economy.” “I never said that”). Obama keeps delivering masterful speeches. Tastes great, less filling.
And yet people latch onto a candidate with enviable passion and commitment. For some, Obama is a kind of savior. Clinton partisans will do anything for Hillary. McCain... well, McCain doesn’t seem to inspire much passion. The right can’t stand him. That may mean trouble for him in November.
But anyway...
We want so badly to believe in real leadership .... and we are so consistently disappointed.
Gregory Rodriguez wrote a great column in the LA Times about all this. Here’s a sample: “...the practice of idealizing politicians, of putting presidents or any other elected official on a pedestal, is a little like repeatedly nominating a used-car salesman to the Better Business Bureau. How many Eliot Spitzers does it take before we stop being even a little bit surprised that these people are not only human, they’re wildly ambitious, which makes them especially prone to the big fall?” (Read the column here: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez31mar31,0,5098203.column).
We’ve given the President massive power — too much. And we expect the President to bring “change” to cure what ails us, to remake the world. It ain’t gonna happen folks. The candidates are politicians, with all the human frailties and then some.
We don’t need a hero; we need somebody with smarts and common sense who won’t make too many big mistakes.
The President won’t lead us to the Promised Land. That’s up to us.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
