RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Bill Abendroth's comments:
on Question Time
And how about supporting a measure requiring that "The Committee for the Promotion of Puppies and Kittens" must disclose that 97% plus of their funding is from the NRA, or Exxon Mobil, or Goldman Sachs, etc etc... as opposed to a declaration that the committee is "a grass roots organization of kitten and puppy lovers everywhere!" See, e.g., the fight that Peter DeFazio is in with that astro turf organization.
"I'm not sure, but will definitely look in to that" is not an answer--unless it means "no, I oppose mandatory disclosure of funding sources."
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Question Time
I am reasonably sure you'd need a Constitutional amendment. Under Oregon law, "obscene speech" (however you define it) is still protected speech. For a restriction based on the content of the speech, you would have to show there were no less restrictive measures available, and that having a strip club within a X distance of a school was a problem. I doubt there is evidence showing having a strip club within three, two, one, or even a quarter mile of a school or day care center causes problems serious enough to warrant that type of zoning.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Question Time
Oh oh--now I'm starting to get mad.
Is Mr. Dudley going to continue campaigning in the Senator Gordon Smith model of a bipartisan, ready to compromise, reasonable conservative in the Portland tri-county area--but then suddenly morph into a hard nosed, take no prisoners conservative in eastern and southern Oregon?
Specifically, will Mr. Dudley clarify if he is a "Tea Party" Republican or not, for the entire state of Oregon, as opposed to being a "Tea Party" Republican when convenient?
And for goodness sakes, do not say something silly like "Well, I don't like to be tied to labels..." What I am worried about is if asked "Are you a Tea Party Republican?" Mr. Dudley will give a different answer in Northwest Portland ("Well, I shy away from labels...I like to be my own person...") than he would in Pendleton ("Oh, absolutely!").
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Question Time
Specifically for Mr. Dudley--how can he say (as he did during the 9/30 debate) that he "doesn't know" how much human activities contribute to global warming?
In the first place, there is no scientific dispute as to the causes of global warming. Those few nay sayers who attack human causes are marginal hacks who have not--and cannot--substantiate their claims in recognized peer reviewed journals. See, e.g., Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt (and dozens of other books).
Second, how can you possibly address global warming, if you haven't taken the time to figure out what are the primary causes?
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Question Time
While you're at it, what about the Multnomah County Courthouse? Nevermind earthquakes--a huffing and puffing big, bad wolf could blow that building down.....
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Question Time
Ngalash makes an excellent point. Why should capital gains be taxed at a different rate, period?
If I buy an elephant for $100, feed it for a month, then sell it for $200, I've got a $100. of capital gains. But if I paint my neighbor's fence for $100, that's earned income. Why on earth should those two sources of income be taxed at different rates? (Unless, of course, because rich people have lots of earnings via capital gains--while poor peoples' earnings are exclusively earned income).
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Question Time
I've got two questions, specific to Mr. Dudley, and a third for either candidate. The TOL geniuses (geniui?) can pick & choose which, all, or none:
For Mr. Dudley:
1. You have said that the current economic problems in Oregon are a product of "the politics of the past." Is that fair, considering that in March 2008, the stock market collapsed, the real estate market collapsed nationwide, and the country was thrown into a credit/banking crisis that was the most serious since the Great Depression? Wouldn't you agree that all fifty states suffered a sharp decline in revenue, as a direct result of that crisis--as opposed to anything any one state governor might have done?
2. In the 9/30 debate, you were asked several times what specific cuts you would make as governor. You deflected the question, saying that Oregonians are all tired of hearing "raising taxes" as the first solution to everything, and that the state needs to get its own "spending in order first." I can appreciate that feeling of tiredness--but isn't that beside the point? It sounds to me like you are promising the state free lunches, via announced tax cuts--but refusing to cut any services. Under your vision, it's time for Oregon to make some hard decisions--why do you refuse to talk about what are those hard decisions?
For either candidate:
3. Why in hell is there a statue of Vic Attiyeh in the airport? Could I place a statute of Neil Goldschmidt inside the airport, if I provided the money? How about a statue of some of Oregon's founding fathers, the ones who were proponents of slavery? Believe me--there are good reasons why Vic Attiyeh was Oregon's last GOP Governor. But there he is, life-size in the airport.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on The Blazers Blackout
posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on The Blazers Blackout
At message number 40, I made a two-fold argument that Oregonians do have a "right" of access to Blazer and Oregon college sports games. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on that argument.
In terms of what it means as a practical matter that fans have a right to the games, I would argue that all the parties (Blazers, Colleges, Providers) should be compelled to participate in some form of binding arbitration. A similar model would be the way utilities have to submit proposed rate increases....After all, if I don't like the way PGE runs, I can't buy my electricity from another company, and zoning regulations prevent me from building a two hundred foot windmill to generate my own power. The same is true with the limited number of frequencies available: If I hate all the existing companies, I can't set up my own cable service, for any amount of money.
I know next to nothing about this controversy, but with the little I do know I put the blame at the feet of the Blazers, who are trying to maximize their revenue at the expense of their fan base--despite the level of public money they receive. If the Blazers really need the type of media service they claim, then let them convince an arbitrator......
Bill Abendroth
posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on The Blazers Blackout
I know I am the LAST person to make a comment on this topic--I plan on letting my TV go blank when my rabbit ears stop working--but I am sympathetic to the view that fans do have a "right" to view those games for two reasons.
First, the Blazers (and especially the state colleges) receive an ENOURMOUS amount of government support, in terms of subsidy for arenas and direct state assistance to keep the product going. Otherwise, the colleges couldn't field teams and the Blazers would move to some southern city. So, because there is public funding, that creates a reciporical obligation to provide access to the product--after all, Oregonians are paying for it, even if they don't buy any tickets.
Second, the model of a "free market" does not work for the media. For example, if I think Minute Maid charges too much for lemonade, I can set up a lemonade stand in my front yard and compete with that corporation. However, if I think Comcast is doing a lousy job, I can't buy for any amount of money a broadcast frequency and set up a competing network. When Congress set up the FCC to pass out the limited number of broadcast frequencies, the FCC was directed to administer the brodcast licenses "in the public interest." Part of the "public interest" is (arguably) being able to watch the Blazers, UO and Oregon State sports teams--if you're willing to pay the price.
If those sports are not available at any price, then those broadcasters are not acting in the interest of the public.....
So for those two reasons--the high level of public dollars going to those sports teams, and the "public interest" mandate to broadcasters--I would argue that sports fans do have a good argument that they have the right to view those games.
Bill Abendroth
posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Merkley Wins
1) Are you willing to close the prison camp at Guantanamo? And what about the restoring habeas corpus to the prisoners there who have spent over five years without trial?
2) Virtually all human rights groups--most prominently, Amnesty International--have documented that the US engages in torture and human rights violations, President Bush's denials notwithstanding. What will you do about secret prisons, foreign rendition on CIA 'Ghost Planes,' detention of suspects without trial, and most importantly: banning of torture, either under American direction, or sending suspects to be tortured in Syria or Egypt, for example?
3) And *IF* you have time: During the Democratic primary, then Speaker Merkley differed with Mr. Novick on the issue of a capital gains tax cut. Since then, the federal government has bought AIG, put Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac in receivership, and bailed out Wall Street to the tune of $700+ billion USD. Does now Senator Merkley STILL think a capital gains tax cut is a good idea?
posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Election Night Special
1) Fake Question: Considering Mr. Mike Ericsson's talent for shooting himself in the foot, could he have been elected to Congress, even if he ran unopposed? I don't think so.
2) Real question: President Obama & the Supreme Court. this is a pet issue for me. Here's my suggestion: What about re-appointing Sandra Day O'Connor? She left the Court to help care for her husband, but that's no longer an issue. Her health & brain are still good, and she was the most vocal opponent on the Court against Justice Scalia's view of the consitution. Until recently, the average length of time as a Justice was ten to fifteen years. I think Justice Cardozo was only on the court for nine. But I think re-appointing O'Connor would speak volumes about fighting the Scalia block--and Justice O'Connor would carry a lot more weight than some forty-something kid of a federal judge.
3. Comment: Re: Sec. of State Bradbury crying--I was an aide during the 1987 session of the legislature, when then Senator Bradbury was majority leader. Bill Bradbury was always a big crybaby, but in the good way.
Oh--and THANK YOU for the having the courage to call Jesse Helms a racist.
Bill Abendroth billaben(@)teleport.com
posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context
