2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

John (the prosecutor) comes off a little less than ingenuous here. John would be the first to disqualify me from a jury if I was wearing a FIJA button on my jacket.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Considering that aluminum cans fetched nearly 40c a pound in the late seventies, and about 67c a pound today, you can see that the nickel a can bounty has been a boon to the aluminum industry and has depressed the commodity. If it weren't for the government interference in the free market the price of aluminum recycling would float with the rest of inflation: my guess is around $1.60 a pound.
And from the other end of the politico/ecomomic kaleidoscope, let's look at the nickel a can price. In 1980 a nickel was worth 4 times what it is today. For the program to have the same effect today it did in 1980 it'd have to be 20c a can.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context