A tip of the hat to Sgt. Howard Bowen and the other Pendleton police officers who are growing out their hair to donate to Locks of Love.

Hairstyles come and go each generation, but cops with long hair haven’t been around since the 1970s — and that was mostly on television.

One big reason is the upkeep. Taking care of a flowing mane isn’t easy, and the police department staff aren’t getting trims until all ten participants have pushed out ten inches of follicles.

Another is the image. The male officers will be the first to tell you they get curious looks as they’re on patrol. It’s not a common sight, and many departments have rigidly enforced rules about officer appearance.

While the Pendleton department has its own set of rules, Chief Stuart Roberts gave his blessing to the project. Bowen then convinced nine others in the department to join him.

The hair will be used to make wigs for children who have lost their hair after undergoing chemotherapy or who have alopecia.

In short, the officers are taking on sideways looks so children with diseases don’t have to.

A kick in the pants to the Umatilla County Elections Department for, again, being slow on the response during Tuesday night’s election.

The handful of ballot boxes around the county closed at 8 p.m. All the ballots that had been mailed in were being tallied throughout the day. The county compiled its first public report at 8:10 p.m. and posted it on its website soon after, with about 85 percent of the vote accounted for.

Then, silence until 12:32 a.m.

The big race, for the county commissioner seat, was all but locked up in the first count. George Murdock held a lead of 300 votes, and statistically speaking, it would have taken a miracle for anyone to catch him with just 1,400 votes still to be counted.

But if it had been closer, we don’t expect our calls would have been answered either, or the department would have sent out the results any sooner.

One of the themes of the campaigns for commissioner this year was transparency, and now that Murdock is joining the commissioners, we hope he takes a good look at the way information is passed between the government and the public.

At tip of the hat to the numerous groups in Eastern Oregon that are remembering the reason for Memorial Day.

Right here within our readership area, celebrations are planned in Hermiston, Ione and Pendleton.

Give thanks to those who fought for this country by taking some time to attend one of these events, or make a donation to the USO or Wounded Warriors or similar charity of your choice.

Need the details? Here they are:

Ione’s American Legion Post 95 and Auxiliary will host a ceremony Monday at 10:30 a.m. Monday at the flagpole at Ione Community School, 445 Spring Street. Following the ceremony, there will be a public service at the Ione American Legion Hall.

Ione isn’t the only city to take part. VFW Post 4750 will lead a flag ceremony at Hermiston Cemetery, located off South Highway 395, starting at 10 a.m. on Memorial Day. Members of the Army National Guard will be present and the names of all area veterans who died in the past year will be honored.

Pendleton, too, with the help of VFW Post 922, will host Monday a pair of ceremonies. The first starts at Pendleton Pioneer Chapel Folsom-Bishop at 131 S.E. Byers Ave. That event starts at 9 a.m. and another begins at 11 a.m. at Olney Cemetery, 865 Tutuilla Road. It will include the posting of colors, the national anthem, prayers and remarks by Merle Jackson and Clifford Smith. An avenue of flags representing local veterans killed in action was erected Thursday and will remain through Monday.

Take some time out of the holiday weekend to remember what the holiday is for, and tip your hat to those veterans who surely deserve it.

Whenever the world of Washington seems hopeless, someone will point out that the Senate Judiciary Committee did a good job on immigration reform.

That’s it? Yeah, pretty much.

Immigration reform has been the 2013 bipartisan bright spot in the Senate, unless you were really moved by the day they voted to debate gun control before killing all the gun control plans. The committee members cheerfully plowed through 300-odd proposed amendments, while taking turns telling which country their great-grandfather came from. There was, of course, a lot of disagreement, although almost everybody seemed to enjoy slapping down ideas offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Mainstream Republicans have been super-energized to do immigration reform ever since the Hispanic vote went against them in the last election. Democracy does work. If somebody came up with a dramatic poll showing that all the people with diabetes, asthma and chronic back problems had voted against Mitt Romney, there would no longer be a problem getting funding for health care reform.

High points in the committee’s long slog toward passage included a proposal from tea party icon Mike Lee of Utah to exempt employers of “cooks, waiters, butlers, housekeepers, governesses, maids, valets, baby sitters, janitors, laundresses, furnacemen, caretakers, handymen, gardeners, footmen, grooms and chauffeurs of automobiles for family use” from checking to make sure their help had the proper legal status. It didn’t go anywhere, but if you happen to run into Lee, feel free to say: “The butler did it.”

The most painful low point in the committee’s deliberations came at the end, when the Democrats gave up on an amendment allowing same-sex spouses the same right as heterosexuals to apply for permanent resident status for their partners. It’s not every day when you hear a senator announce that he had decided to support a move that involved “rank discrimination.” But the Republicans who were needed to get an immigration bill through the Senate had made it supremely clear that if any hint of gay marriage entered the legislation, they were going to take their toys and go home.

Decide for yourself how you feel about this one, people. Stand up for equality or finally get a major bill through the Senate? Defend equality or cave in and hope that the Supreme Court bails you out when it rules on the Defense of Marriage Act next month?

It is, at minimum, a useful reminder of what lawmaking looked like back in the days when the two parties made deals and we complained that nobody was sticking to their principles. Back to the can-do days when senators routinely said things like Sen. Orrin Hatch’s explanation of his thinking on immigration: “I’m going to vote this bill out of committee because I’ve committed to do that.”

The bill, which would give millions of undocumented residents a path toward eventual citizenship, goes to the full Senate, where it actually looks as though it’s going to pass. Any further progress would require cooperation from the House of Representatives, the circle of hell where the damned are condemned to spend eternity voting to repeal the health care reform law.

Perhaps you missed the one last week. Let me summarize:

— “The Obamacare law must be ripped out by its roots!”

— “The 37th time! The 37th time!”

— “A malignant tumor that’s metastasizing on America’s liberty!”

— “We have spent over 56 hours on the floor debating repeal of the law of the land!”

The House Republican leadership would probably rather have been working on something else. But the newer members whined that they’d hardly had an opportunities to repeal Obamacare .

“It sends a great statement back to our district,” said Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., whom many people enjoy quoting because they like saying Ted Yoho.

Also, it’s hard for the Republicans to agree among themselves about anything else. One influential conservative organization recently urged Speaker John Boehner to drop the whole legislation idea completely and just hold committee hearings about the IRS scandal and Benghazi forever.

“Recent events have rightly focused the nation’s attention squarely on the actions of the Obama administration,” argued Heritage Action for America. “It is incumbent upon the House of Representatives to conduct oversight hearings on those actions, but it would be imprudent to do anything that shifts the focus from the Obama administration to the ideological differences within the House Republican conference.”

We really hate it when they get imprudent.

n

Gail Collins is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times.

Only six months after the failure of the famously bad Measure 80, marijuana legalization advocates are demonstrating some serious smarts. We’re just as surprised to say that as you probably are to hear it. But Measure 80 sponsor Paul Stanford and pro-pot group New Approach Oregon, who are eyeing the November 2014 ballot, have placed the Legislature in quite a bind: Lawmakers can help legalize pot, or they can render themselves completely irrelevant. Either way, marijuana legalization wins.

The pressure is mounting thanks, in part, to public opinion, which is far from discouraging to the legalization movement. Sixty-three percent of likely Oregon voters believe that marijuana should be taxed, regulated and legalized, according to a May poll commissioned by New Approach Oregon. This piggybacks on a March poll in which more than 80 percent of likely voters said they believe pot will be legalized in Oregon sooner or later.

About 50 percent of those polled in March by a different firm indicated support for marijuana legalization and regulation, which is about 13 percentage points lower than the May result. It’s hard to know why the two polls differ so widely, says Dave Walker, a vice president at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, which conducted the May poll. But the questions are worded differently, and the May poll is a little bit further removed from the 2012 election, giving Oregonians a chance to watch legalization unfold in a neighboring state, Washington. It’s a much less threatening idea now than it might have been then, says Walker.

Clearly, a well-written legalization measure on the 2014 ballot would have a very good chance of passage. Unfortunately, a badly written measure would have a pretty good shot, too. The Legislature is in the perfect position to guide the process. New Approach Oregon has worked with lawmakers on a legalization proposal, House Bill 3371, that would require the state to tax and regulate marijuana and license stores in which it could be sold. Adults would be able to grow a small amount of marijuana for their own use. The bill is in committee.

New Approach Oregon would like the Legislature to vote either this session or during next year's session to send the proposal to the ballot. If that doesn't happen, direct democracy will take over.

To that end, Stanford -- who helped New Approach Oregon shape HB3371 -- says he'll contact the secretary of state's office this week to start the initiative machinery for two proposals, one an updated version of Measure 80 and the other a constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana. Stanford says he'll stop work on the two initiatives if lawmakers refer HB3371 to the ballot this session.

If that doesn’t happen, several other things will. Stanford says he’ll file a version of HB3371 as well, then conduct some polling as soon as the three receive ballot titles. He will proceed with the initiative with the best chance of winning. Lawmakers should ask themselves whether they’d rather live with HB3371 or Measure 80, Part II.

It would have been difficult just a few years ago to imagine lawmakers asking voters to legalize marijuana. Now, it seems irresponsible for lawmakers not to. Oregonians support legalization, some version of which is certain to appear on the November 2014 ballot. Advocates have given lawmakers a chance to choose and shape the version that voters see. If they pass up that chance, they can hardly complain credibly about the result.

For the Capital Press

Hold the party hats. This year marks the 40th birthday of the federal Endangered Species Act, but it's less a time for celebration than re-examination.

In fact, one of the big problems with this law -- both in its structure and in the way it is enforced -- is that its accomplishments are hard to identify. What's the point in an anniversary toast when we don't really know what we're toasting?

Enacted in 1973 under President Richard Nixon, the ESA authorizes federal officials to identify "endangered" and "threatened" species, and foster recovery through regulation.

In one respect -- the economic impact -- the results are easily seen. Indeed, they can be calculated with sometimes painful specificity.

Recently, for example, farmers in California's San Joaquin Valley have had to idle tens of thousands of acres because irrigation was cut back to help the 3-inch Delta smelt.

In the Pacific Northwest, the timber industry has been decimated by the ESA listing of the spotted owl.

And in an iconic example stretching back to the early days of the law, completion of Tellico Dam in Tennessee was blocked for years. The Supreme Court held that the tiny snail darter's interests must come first, because the ESA takes precedence, "whatever the cost."

But if the law's price in lost projects, property rights and productivity is real, its success in its intended purpose -- saving species -- is too often a matter of guesswork and inference.

We know that approximately 2,000 animals, fish, birds and plants have been placed on ESA lists over the years. But only a couple of dozen have been removed. And whether the ESA can be credited for those recoveries can be a cloudy question, partly because of the notoriously elastic criteria for "endangered" and "threatened."

Is the ESA doing more harm than good for imperiled plants and wildlife? When a listed species is found on someone's property, the law punishes the owner by stifling even the most sensitive plans for productive use or development. To put it diplomatically, this does not always encourage free-will reporting by landowners and cooperative strategies to help.

Do we actually have a clue what the real state of most threatened and endangered species is? Twice-a-decade assessments of listed species are supposed to take place, but regulators have treated this as an optional duty, leaving hundreds of species unreviewed -- and their status uncertain -- for years on end.

If we're serious about species protection -- and doing it without undermining the environment for jobs and community well-being -- it's not hard to find aspects of the law that need to be made more sensible, credible and fair. A few examples:

* Regulations should reflect sound science. The ESA currently doesn't require peer reviewed science to justify listing a species or labeling property as "critical habitat." The "best available" evidence is enough to suffice -- a term that is read to mean, essentially, any evidence at all. Result: a pattern of overly broad habitat maps and a number of faulty listings due to "data error."

* Listings should be based on biology, not zip codes. The ESA currently applies not just to species as a whole, but to any "distinct population segment" of a species. Regulators exploit this term's vagueness to label thriving species as "endangered."

It's past time to revisit the terms of the ESA and introduce real accountability and balance, so we can be confident that resources are being used effectively, species are actually being protected -- and the economy is not being unnecessarily endangered.

James S. Burling is director of litigation with Pacific Legal Foundation. See more at www.pacificlegal.org ]]> http://northwestopinions.com/capital-press/esas-birthday-a-time-for-reflection/feed/ 0 http://northwestopinions.com/capital-press/readers-views-for-april-19-2013/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=readers-views-for-april-19-2013 http://northwestopinions.com/capital-press/readers-views-for-april-19-2013/#comments Thu, 23 May 2013 11:50:53 +0000 Capital Press http://northwestopinions.com/?guid=8ac72fb3e01a1f99dd11c305ef8e4c6a It's not just that Monsanto, Syngenta and other bullying, foreign profit-takers are contaminating our heirloom and regionally adapted seeds and crops. It is also their chemical mixtures of Roundup to kill everything in the soil, avoid plowing and then plant genetically altered seeds that is so destructive.

Media, business and government blame the public for being sick and "out of shape" because they are worried about how America can afford health care. It's the omnipresence of GMOs, refined white GMO beet sugar, GM corn, soy, corn syrup and processed and animal feed, plus unhealthy growing and livestock practices foisted upon the farm communities, that are causing harm.

The huge rise in obesity, diabetes, cancers and heart attacks is related to these foods, which is what the poor, the beleaguered middle class, and the unemployed are habituated to buying since its mass production makes it cheap, available and soothing, though of diminished nutritional value.

Our air and water are filled with pesticides and chemical fertilizers, killing off animals and insects, polluting streams, rivers, lakes and oceans, giving people asthma and other conditions. We are literally breaking the food chain within nature. The addictive cycle of chemical, GMO and pharmaceutical agriculture must be ended through a massive intervention followed by a period of detoxification and economic reforms.

We must undo the patents that allow megacorporations to own "intellectual property rights" of genetically modified organisms, genes and seeds and find remedies for binding contracts that force farmers to continue paying and using these products.

Don't believe the lies from chemical and ag companies that their products are safe and their objectives altruistic and that they just want "to feed the world." If that were true, billions of dollars wouldn't have been spent perfecting and owning genes, but instead used to build wells and support native and sustainable systems. Some 80 percent of the world's food is still grown in small and mid-size operations, the majority of it by women.

Free the farmers and the land from this cycle of abuse! This tired system in place since World War II is losing its efficacy. It has depleted the soils, bred pesticide-resistant pests and sprayed resistant plant diseases, and made people lazy, ill and unresponsive. In the 1950s we were told how wonderful DDT was, yet it was finally banned in America in 1972. GMO is being banned all over the world. We need to transition out of it before all our crops are unexportable and our citizens, animals and environment deteriorate further. Folks, these aren't Mendel's peas, seeds or crops anymore!

This is trans-species tampering, the ultimate arrogance, human folly and act of aggression by putting things where things simply do not belong! How it ever became legal for scientific, moral, and political reasons is highly questionable. Everyone needs to stop and reconsider this dangerous practice. In my book GMO stands for "goddess mightily offended!"

Catie Faryl

Phoenix, Ore.

Let GMO testing run its course

I am a strong supporter for biotechnology, but also believe that your lead editorial of the April 5 edition -- "Zealots froth over biotechnology" -- is guilty of the same disrespect for science that this editorial blames on opponents of GMO crops.

In your eagerness to support biotechnology, you fail to recognize the fundamental truth that the "science" required to make conclusive "science based decisions" for biotechnology and GMO crops has barely begun. Given the scope of how broadly biotechnology can alter the food we grow and eat, and the environment in which our food is grown, it will take decades to complete all of the science needed to comprehend the full impacts of this technology in our environment and food chain, and to make sound science-based decisions regarding implementation. Yes, some research has been done, but most of this science is industry funded, narrowly focused and inherently subject to bias.

We would be wise to consider the case of DDT, one of the first and most powerful insecticides. When introduced in the 1940s, DDT produced miracle-like solutions for a host of insect related problems, and usage became common around the world.

Only 20 years later did the first signs of trouble appear. By 1972, public opinion had become so negative that all use of DDT was banned in the USA. Had 10 to 15 years been spent testing DDT before It became widely used, we might have both avoided this poisoning of our environment, and still have DDT available to fight the most virulent of pests in a well controlled and scientifically safe manner.

Biotechnology holds an even greater potential to create miracles for our modern world, but without thorough, long-term testing, how can we be certain there is not also great threats to the safety of our personal health and environment. Given the headlong rush by American agriculture to profit by the rapid implementation of GMO crops and other biotechnology, I feel it is probable that some mistake will be made somewhere which will generate widespread fear and a public backlash. Just like DDT, I fear that such a "mistake" will result in all biotechnology research and use of GMO crops being permanently banned. If this happen, the zealots who penned this editorial will share the blame for this incredible loss to mankind.

Biotechnology can be an incredible gift to mankind -- if we carefully study the whole impacts of such technologies, and make certain these technologies are carefully implemented. We need to use our best science to make biotechnology work right the first time. I pray that this process will be driven by wise and calm minds, and not by those zealots who always fear change, or by those zealots who rush to profit by new technologies without concern for the consequences of their actions to all of mankind.

Ken Donnell

Greenville, Calif.

A funny thing happened on the way to health care reform: Insurance companies began to compete with each other, right out in the open.

A comparison of premiums that health insurers propose to begin charging next year went online last week. Not surprisingly, prices varied, even for identical plans.

More surprisingly, the differences were sometimes substantial. For example, one company listed a monthly premium of $169 for an individual policy to cover a 40-year-old nonsmoker in the Medford area. Another company’s quote was $419 for the same plan.

You can see the proposed rates at www.oregonhealthrates.org/files/medford_individual.pdf. Keep in mind that these are only the first proposals. The rates have not been approved by the state, and won’t be available for real comparison shopping until October.

What’s more, depending on your income, you may be eligible for a tax credit to cover some of the cost. You can find out whether you are eligible by using the online calculator at /coveroregon.com/calculators.php.

Here’s where the funny thing comes in. No sooner had the rates gone up on the Oregon Insurance Division website than two companies asked for a do-over.

Providence Health Plan asked to lower its rates by 15 percent. A spokesman for Family Care Health Plans, whose rates turned out to be the highest posted, said the company would ask to lower its rates even further, according to The Associated Press.

Does this sound like a government takeover of the private marketplace? Hardly. It sounds like competition.

Does it sound like “socialized medicine?” Not exactly. Private insurers are still providing coverage, and care will be delivered by the same doctors and hospitals who are providing it now, not by the government.

The state will approve proposed rates in July. In October, the full CoverOregon website will go live. Coverage begins in January 2014.

There are bound to be bumps in the road as the new system gets put together. Initially, some people will likely pay more for coverage, because companies are not allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. In the long run, costs should come down because nearly everyone will be covered — and because companies will compete on price.

But one thing is clear: Real comparison shopping, which has been nearly impossible in the past because policies varied so widely, will become much easier, because companies are required to offer the same three basic plans, labeled bronze, silver and gold to reflect how much they pay — and how much they cost.

A great many details remain to be worked out between now and next January. But the fact that companies already are jockeying for position on the list of proposed premiums is a positive sign.

The reason I am writing this is because I am so disappointed with our government in the United States.

There are good rich, who care about people and are willing to pay their fair share, and there are the greedy rich, who only want to be the richest person in the world, no matter who it hurts or kills. Hitler was put in charge because of the greedy rich and millions of people lost their lives. It has been proven that groups of people make the same mistakes over and over again.

With 92 percent of the people in the United States in favor of background checks for gun ownership, the Senate not passing it is proof positive that the greedy rich have bought our politicians.

Not only can they buy our politicians, they can do it in secret. Why do we allow them to get away with that?

We need to get the greedy rich out of our politics or we will go down the same road as many societies have in the past and the United States will disintegrate. Twelve thousand people get shot every year in the United States (a lot of them are kids). All we have to do is look at Europe and Australia and we can see that gun control works.

What we need to do is look at everybody who voted no on the background check and get them out of office. They are only worried about getting enough money to get re-elected and that is not what we want for our politicians.

Don Hulick

Pendleton