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
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
