Oregon without Californians

Tom Huppi

unread,

Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98

to

David Kaye wrote:
>
> Chris Gattman wrote the quoted material below:

<snip - ignorant "go back to xyz" class bullshit>

> How quickly people forget that in 1980 the Oregon economy was so bad due
> to the death of fishing and logging, and Tom McCall's admonition to
> "Please stay home", that the Orecon economy was on the road to collapse.
>
> How bad was it? You could go into downtown Portland or Medford or
> Springfield, whereever, and see for vacancy signs on 1 of every 4 retail
> spaces. You could go into the neighborhoods and see 1 out of every 4
> homes were for sale.
>
> How bad was it? In 1985 so many people defaulted on their FHA loans that
> the Federal government had to run ads in the Oregonian selling off homes
> for whatever they could get. Homes were selling for $10,000 to $15,000
> for 2 and 3 bedroom homes.

But the remaining 49 states were doing just great right? I would
hazard a guess (because I don't feel like doing the research)
that peaks and troughs in Oregon's economy largely correlate with
those of the nation. Not unlike most states though regional
considerations such as you have noted certainly factor in.

> How bad was it? There was serious talk in the Oregon legislature about
> LEGALIZING drugs and LEGALIZING prostitution.

What in the fuck has *that* got to do with anything? Let me
guess...people who are out of work have more time to formulate a
rational philosophy about what freedom means?

> What saved it? Californians moved to Oregon and bought the homes
> Oregonians were selling to them. Californians took their money and
> invested in Oregon.

Was *that* it? Well go-lee gee wilikers!

> You Oregonians should be damned THANKFUL that we Californians dropped our
> money on your state, or today it would still be as poor as Mississippi.

I'm perfectly happy with immigration of Californians up here
since they often bring skills that attract high tech firms. I'd
rather see immigration from Asia though. More bang for the buck
as it were, and the folks tend not to be such pompous assholes.

--
Tom
http://www.abode.com/t/zFAAA.html

gatt

unread,

Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98

to

David Kaye wrote:
>
> Chris Gattman wrote the quoted material below:

> " In fact, why don't you all go back to California and fight your wars
> " down there? One immigrant doesn't have a right to tell another
> " immigrant that (s)he shouldn't move up here.

>
> How quickly people forget that in 1980 the Oregon economy was so bad >due to the death of fishing and logging,

> What saved it? Californians moved to Oregon and bought the homes
> Oregonians were selling to them.

> You Oregonians should be damned THANKFUL that we Californians dropped >our money on your state, or today it would still be as poor as >Mississippi.

Well, my mother's half of the family is from Mississippi and they would
tell you that they're very proud to live there.

So, what. Do we owe you something? Californians move up here, plow
under the valley, build five-story homes in the west hills that destroy
the skyline that makes Portland magnificent and contribute to the
traffic problem, pollution and gross overdevelopment. They bring up
their executives while we dumb ol' hillbillies work for $7 at temp
jobs. They build homes on sand dunes and want special treatment when
the ocean vetoes their zoning ideas.

Hell, with 70,000 people moving into the metropolitan area a year, this
place is a damned utopian society thanks to you rich guys. Gee thanks.

Oregonians don't owe anybody anything and don't think for a minute that
we're going to start appreciating some six-digit savior from Los Angeles
that came in, bought the farm and turned it into a strip mall.

California didn't move up here to bail us out. They saw an opportunity
and seized it without a passing thought to us. You've got to be kidding
if you expect people to thank you for coming here. Remember, one in
four homes might have been for sale, but the average Oregonian still
can't afford a home so what's the difference? Remember also that Oregon
has the third highest cost of housing compared to average income.

It sounds like you think we're too natively stupid or incapable to fix
our own economy. Oregon can and will solve its economic problems on its
own, thank you.

Chris
"She flies with her own wings." -Oregon's pre-civil war state motto.

gatt

unread,

Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98

to

David Kaye wrote:

> Well, don't count me among the pompous assholes. I'm not a California
> chauvanist; there are plenty of things wrong here, as there are in >Oregon. I like both places. So sue me.

Yeah, but you live in San Francisco which is a truly magnificent city.
I had the pleasure of working down there on a contract for two and a
half months last autumn. Except for the cost of housing I don't see why
anybody would want to leave the place.

Chris

gatt

unread,

Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98

to

David Kaye wrote:
> look in the issues circa 1980-83. It may >open your eyes.
>
> Don't just look at the headlines, but look at the classified sections >and see the halfpage and fullpage ads by the government trying desperately >to sell homes of people who'd lost their jobs.
>
> I remember driving through the Portland area and one of the suburban >radio stations was having a morning swapshop type program. Over and >over again people had ads saying, "I'm out of work. I will do *any* >kind of work..." and such.

Yeah...let's see. 1981. My dad drove a Porsche and could afford a home
on his salary. Concert tickets at the Coliseum were $12. (They go for
up to $100 now, and parking...)

Loggers and millworkers were out of jobs. Well, the line workers were.
The CEOs and investors did just fine. Most of grunts are reemployed now
and NOT in high tech. Most of the folks in high tech are temps and
drive Neons or Hondas, struggle to find affordable housing and hope that
someday they can buy a modest home. They have jobs, but they don't have
the standard of living that their so-called saviors from the south
enjoy, but all of a sudden standard of living equates more to quality of
life than it used to. It has to, because you can't drive down, say,
Skyline road on a sunny day anymore and enjoy the country drive.

The other folks in high tech went to college, learned the skill and
started their own businesses. They're doing just fine on their own.
Nike, Microsoft and Tektronix are not Californian even though they DO
contribute to the vast sprawl that some sparkly-eyed, clueless asshole
decided to call the "silicon forest."

The high school that I attended in 1984 had no full-time police patrol,
no fences, no kids carrying handguns, no metal detectors or
breathalyzers and the worst thing a kid might have to worry about was a
black eye. There were no crips, there were no bloods. The schools
are so charming nowadays with all this economic growth, aren't they?

I seem to remember that the entire nation was struggling then.

-Chris

Tom Huppi

unread,

Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98

to

David Kaye wrote:
>
> Tom Huppi wrote the quoted material below:

>
> " But the remaining 49 states were doing just great right?
>

> I was living in San Francisco, as I am now. I drove up to Oregon for the
> first time in 1980. The economy in the Bay Area was fabulous. I owned a
> mailbox rental agency and a telephone answering service. We were swamped
> with clients. We expanded to 24-hour service that year and I hired maybe
> 5 to 8 more employees.
>
> After all our expansion, I took a vacation. I set foot in Oregon, my
> first stop was at some diner in Medford along the old 99 highway, and the
> woman behind the counter told me that all they had was coffee and dessert.
> They had used up everything else as they were going out of business. I
> remember asking why, considering her shop was on *the* major thoroughfare.
> She told me that everybody was out of work. The mills were closing or had
> closed, and people were leaving town. That really shocked me because I'd
> never known such a thing myself. This is one of the reasons I remember it
> so well.

Comparing a smallish mill town during a mill closing to a major
metropolitan area during an economic recovery is bound to create
a rather stark contrast. That such a memory would stick with you
is no surprise. That it would become the basis for an argument
about California rescuing Oregon from certain destruction 15
years later on the usenet is a different story.

I am rather proud of Oregon for extracting itself from the
economic problems surrounding the declining timber industry, and
doing so with very little of the massive military/industrial
money which the country is now paying interest on. Sure it
helped that some folks from CA bought houses here, but lets be
realistic.

<snip>

> ... This impressed me about Oregon and
> caused me to consider moving there a few years later. Little did I know
> that the OCA lurked just around the corner.

We all have our demons! They're better than...um...well...some
other group, but I can't think of one off hand :-)

> " I'm perfectly happy with immigration of Californians up here
> " since they often bring skills that attract high tech firms.
>

> Exactly.

>
> " rather see immigration from Asia though. More bang for the buck
> " as it were, and the folks tend not to be such pompous assholes.
>

> Well, don't count me among the pompous assholes. I'm not a California
> chauvanist; there are plenty of things wrong here, as there are in Oregon.
> I like both places. So sue me.

If the shoe fits, wear it...I mainly just wanted to (sort of)
call someone a "pompous asshole" for the hell of it. It's much
more difficult to do in real life :-)

--
Tom
http://www.abode.com/t/zFAAA.html

David Kaye

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

Chris Gattman wrote the quoted material below:

" In fact, why don't you all go back to California and fight your wars
" down there? One immigrant doesn't have a right to tell another
" immigrant that (s)he shouldn't move up here.

How quickly people forget that in 1980 the Oregon economy was so bad due

to the death of fishing and logging, and Tom McCall's admonition to
"Please stay home", that the Orecon economy was on the road to collapse.

How bad was it? You could go into downtown Portland or Medford or
Springfield, whereever, and see for vacancy signs on 1 of every 4 retail
spaces. You could go into the neighborhoods and see 1 out of every 4
homes were for sale.

How bad was it? In 1985 so many people defaulted on their FHA loans that
the Federal government had to run ads in the Oregonian selling off homes
for whatever they could get. Homes were selling for $10,000 to $15,000
for 2 and 3 bedroom homes.

How bad was it? There was serious talk in the Oregon legislature about

LEGALIZING drugs and LEGALIZING prostitution.

What saved it? Californians moved to Oregon and bought the homes

Oregonians were selling to them. Californians took their money and
invested in Oregon.

You Oregonians should be damned THANKFUL that we Californians dropped our

money on your state, or today it would still be as poor as Mississippi.

--
(C) 1998 Every society honors its live conformists
David Kaye and its dead troublemakers
dk at wco.com

David Kaye

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

Tom Jones wrote the quoted material below:
" I respectfully submit, you're full of shit.

Perhaps you're not old enough to remember. If that is the case, or if
your memory is poor, you might go to a library that stockpiles old copies
of the Oregonian and look in the issues circa 1980-83. It may open your
eyes.

Don't just look at the headlines, but look at the classified sections and
see the halfpage and fullpage ads by the government trying desperately to
sell homes of people who'd lost their jobs.

I remember driving through the Portland area and one of the suburban radio
stations was having a morning swapshop type program. Over and over again
people had ads saying, "I'm out of work. I will do *any* kind of work..."
and such.

--
(C) 1998 A cockroach can live for several
David Kaye weeks without its head.
dk at wco.com

David Kaye

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

Tom Huppi wrote the quoted material below:

" But the remaining 49 states were doing just great right?

I was living in San Francisco, as I am now. I drove up to Oregon for the
first time in 1980. The economy in the Bay Area was fabulous. I owned a
mailbox rental agency and a telephone answering service. We were swamped
with clients. We expanded to 24-hour service that year and I hired maybe
5 to 8 more employees.

After all our expansion, I took a vacation. I set foot in Oregon, my
first stop was at some diner in Medford along the old 99 highway, and the
woman behind the counter told me that all they had was coffee and dessert.
They had used up everything else as they were going out of business. I
remember asking why, considering her shop was on *the* major thoroughfare.
She told me that everybody was out of work. The mills were closing or had
closed, and people were leaving town. That really shocked me because I'd
never known such a thing myself. This is one of the reasons I remember it
so well.

" What in the fuck has *that* got to do with anything? Let me

" guess...people who are out of work have more time to formulate a
" rational philosophy about what freedom means?

I don't remember who it was. Perhaps it was in the early days of Neil
Goldschmidt's administration or maybe even prior to that. But the idea to
legalize "vices" was a baldfaced attempt to bring in tourism. I guess the
powers that be figured that if Nevada could generate tourism out of a
desert, Oregon could maybe do something, too.

One of the talkshows, and I want to say it was Brad Eaton's on KXL, talked
about the pros and cons. Generally the opinion of callers was that it
would be "good for the economy". This impressed me about Oregon and

caused me to consider moving there a few years later. Little did I know
that the OCA lurked just around the corner.

" I'm perfectly happy with immigration of Californians up here

" since they often bring skills that attract high tech firms.

Exactly.

" rather see immigration from Asia though. More bang for the buck
" as it were, and the folks tend not to be such pompous assholes.

Well, don't count me among the pompous assholes. I'm not a California
chauvanist; there are plenty of things wrong here, as there are in Oregon.
I like both places. So sue me.

--
(C) 1998 An ounce of gold can be drawn into a wire reaching
David Kaye from SF to San Jose (or Philadelphia to New York).
dk at wco.com

Robert Mashlan

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

tjo...@transport.com (Tom Jones) wrote:

>I respectfully submit, you're full of shit.
>

>Oregon, without ONE Californian, would be more of Heaven on Earth than it
>already is, today.
>
>DON'T CALIFORNICATE OREGON!

I've got an idea of what to do with California - considering that they
have a pretty bad attitude towards mexican immigrants, but feel its
perfectly alright to them immigrate outside of California, I propose
that they build a 15 foot high fence around the whole state, and lease
the whole damned state to Mexico for about 50 years or so.

David Kaye

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

gatt wrote the quoted material below:

" Well, my mother's half of the family is from Mississippi and they would
" tell you that they're very proud to live there.

Fine. It's still the poorest state in the USA.

" So, what. Do we owe you something? Californians move up here, plow
" under the valley, build five-story homes in the west hills that destroy

" the skyline [....]

Perhaps the Portlanders shouldn't have sold them the property in the first
place, eh? What I'm getting at is this: Oregonians wanted money. They
sold out. They got money. Now, they're complaining about
Californication. It's really their own fault, isn't it? You can't buy a
home, a property, or a business if it wasn't for sale in the first place.

" Hell, with 70,000 people moving into the metropolitan area a year, this
" place is a damned utopian society thanks to you rich guys. Gee thanks.

Oregon is very progressive with their greenbelt infill laws, which put
rings around Portland, Salem, and Eugene some years back. Areas inside
the zone can be infilled. Areas outside the zone can't be rezoned for
smaller lots. Thus, the farmland, the rolling hills, and such are
protected. Oregonians should be proud, but many aren't because they see
it as an "unnecessary" encroachment on property rights. Had there not
been a greenbelt law, Portland's development would reach clear to the
Dalles on the one side and to Astoria on the other, a stretch of about 150
miles, just as happened from Ventura to San Diego and east to San
Bernardino.

" Oregonians don't owe anybody anything and don't think for a minute that
" we're going to start appreciating some six-digit savior from Los Angeles
" that came in, bought the farm and turned it into a strip mall.

We Northern Californians don't like Los Angelanos either. But the fact
remains that some Oregonian sold them the land.

" You've got to be kidding
" if you expect people to thank you for coming here.

Well, I owned a restaurant and had 19 Portlanders working for me.
Unfortunately, the landlord got greedy, raised the rent astronomically,
and the employees stole a *lot*. This was my one business failure. I
left town, having dumped about $60,000 (my life savings) on Portland. <oh
well>

I'm not bitter. It was a learning experience. I did learn never to ever
own a restaurant. I came back to SF with about $200 to my name after
paying off various debts, paid off as many other debts as I could, and
went on with the next phase of my life.

" It sounds like you think we're too natively stupid or incapable to fix
" our own economy. Oregon can and will solve its economic problems on its
" own, thank you.

I didn't say that at all. But notice that the way Oregon solved much of
its economic problem was: tourism. If you're gonna keep your state green,
you can't promote tourism. It just encourages them.

--
(C) 1998 Does your California vehicle meet smog, noise,
David Kaye and safety laws? Call the CHP at 916-657-7261
dk at wco.com

David Kaye

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

gatt wrote the quoted material below:

" Yeah, but you live in San Francisco which is a truly magnificent city.

" I had the pleasure of working down there on a contract for two and a
" half months last autumn. Except for the cost of housing I don't see why
" anybody would want to leave the place.

And I live in the Bernal Heights area, which only a few months ago paved
its last major dirt roads. This is in the middle of a city of 700,000.

But all this idealism aside, SF is not Disneyland, which is a difficult
point to put across to many people. It's a hard city, expensive, and
corrupt from top to bottom. In the USA it's probably the closest any city
comes to anarchy. This is why I like it, but for the uninitiated, it can
rip them off. SF is full of rip-off artists, be they religious cults or
politicians.

The mayor gets murdered and the the gunman, another politician, gets
indicted for manslaughter, as if he'd accidentally hit him in a car. One
of the Mitchell Brothers porno kingpins kills the other one (in order to
"save him from himself") and gets probation because the mayor and the
police chief go to their theatre and drink with them all the time.

The mayor's political consultant stuffs the ballot box on the 49er
stadium/shopping mall issue and nobody's charged, even though the voting
was done the day *before* and was clearly illegal. This is the Real San
Francisco.

How can I choose to live here? When I lived in Portland, people knew my
business, knew when I brought people home, knew when they left the next
morning. I was confronted by people I didn't even know, questioning why I
had so many people in and out of my apartment. I'm horny, okay? I play
Scrabble, okay? In SF, though people may know, they keep to themselves.
They give each other space to live their own lives. More than the view,
more than the food, more than the architecture, the St. Patrick's Day
parade, Carnaval, more than Chinese New Years, THIS is why I live in SF.

--
(C) 1998 Help with budgeting and paying off bills? Consumer
David Kaye Credit Counseling Service, 1-800-777-PLAN
dk at wco.com

Derek R. Larson

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

In article <6eqhke$6o8$2...@news.ncal.verio.com>,

David Kaye <d...@removeme.wco.com> wrote:
>
>Perhaps the Portlanders shouldn't have sold them the property in the first
>place, eh? What I'm getting at is this: Oregonians wanted money. They
>sold out. They got money. Now, they're complaining about
>Californication. It's really their own fault, isn't it?

That's very much the case. Once the economy tanked in the Reagan
recession, all of Oregon's high ideals went out the window because people
needed work. California was the largest recipient of Reagan's tax-funded
defense largesse so its economy recovered much more quickly, providing a
tremendous incentive for Californians to move to and invest in Oregon
communities. It would be interesting to trace the political influence of
those investors, as there's a clear correlation between the influx of CA
money/people and the rise of Orange-county style Republicanism in
Oregon...but I doubt you could prove causation. What happened in Oregon
in the 80s was happening all over. Things got bad and people made a
conscious choice to sacrifice quality of life for getting by, period.

My home town lost about 25% of its population in the mid 1980s. When I
left for college in '86 there were less than 8,000 people there. Today
there are almost 13,000. Those new residents are driving a building boom
that has eaten up farm land and green space around the town and
propelled the addition of a huge Wal-Mart, a McDonald's, and many other
businesses to the local strip mall. But isn't that better then having an
empty downtown and sending the residents into Salem to buy food? I
remember playing at a benefit concert for the "Downtown Development
Association" around 1983-- they were trying to get people to simply come
downtown in hope that someone would try to re-open one of the businesses
on main street. It wasn't a pretty picture.

I don't think there's anything inherently Californian about those that are
driving the negative impacts of this recovery/growth period. It's a class
issue-- people with lots of money don't often have the same values as
those who are just getting by, and when the $35K/year local gripes about
the loss of small farms to wealthy hobby ranchers the guy with the money
doesn't give a shit. I suspect that the gap between wealthy and poor in
Oregon has increased dramatically over the last decade, and that's
undermining Oregon's historical tradition of having a somewhat level
society (even if that wasn't the reality).

Population growth is the root of many evils, and it's behind most of the
declining quality of life issues in Oregon. Add is a large group of
vocal, self-interested voters that don't care about anyone else and what
do you get? Measure 5 and the eventual rise of the OCA.

The reaction to the situation at The Capes is very telling in this light.
I wonder just how many people were rooting for the $400,000 weekend homes
to fall into the surf?

-drl
--
________________________________________________________________________
Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
"Eastward I go by force, but Westward I go free!" -H. D. Thoreau
-----------------------php.indiana.edu/~drlarson------------------------

Brian Varine

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

I think we're all missing one big point here. It's not the
"Californians" that a screwing up Oregon, rather, it's the people who
moved to California in the 70's, ruined it, and now don't like it. They
look to the North as their next territory to ruin. From everything I've
read and seen, California used to be a nice place too.

Brian Varine

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

Derek R. Larson wrote:
> Population growth is the root of many evils, and it's behind most of the
> declining quality of life issues in Oregon. Add is a large group of
> vocal, self-interested voters that don't care about anyone else and what
> do you get? Measure 5 and the eventual rise of the OCA.

Self interested voters had nothing to do with Measure 5 and the others.
It was our worthless politicians, Democrats and Republicans. For years
they've known that Prop Taxes were too high and people were getting fed
up with them. They could have fixed the problem or at least made an
attempt to do something and they haven't done squat. Even after Measure
5 the State Legislature sat on their asses and blamed the other party
for the problem. It was out of pure desparation that voters approved 5
and 47. Measure 5 was passed when? 1991? They had over 5 years to do
something and didn't do anything. Look at Kitzhaber, nice guy but what
has he done? Zip. He promised to do something about prop taxes in his
election and nothing has been done. To blame this on self interested
people is a joke-EVERYONE has their own best interests at heart.

David Kaye wrote:

> Few people act in altruism, and even fewer when money is involved.
> Californians didn't invest in Oregon out of altruism, but because there
> were good investment opportunities there. But the end result is the same:

> California rescued Oregon. So, for Oregonians to pretend that California

> is the Evil Empire is nonsense.

California did not rescue Oregon. I was born here and except for two
years of my childhood I lived here all my life. My family lived here
since 1945. Their relatives and friends, my friends, their relatives
and all the native Oregonians I know were here in the early '80s. It's
kind of funny that none of them feel "rescued." Nor do they feel that
they needed to be.
Most are middle class homeowners, some retired, some deceased.

We did just fine in the '70s, '80s and '90s. We owe no thanks to
California from "rescuing" us from a lifestyle with which we were
perfectly happy.

Furthermore, if you're going to equate development with "rescue" you
better thank Fujitsu and the Japanese investors first because with the
exception of HP and Intel, who were already here, I don't recall any
other great corporate saviors coming in to liberate us from poverty or
whatever you think we had here.

Incidentally, the house my parents built in 1950 after the Vanport flood
just decreased in value because an out-of-stater bought the homes behind
it and built quadriplexes, plowing under the yards and landscaping and
making it a high-density neighborhood. Basically, they're now low-rent
housing for line workers at Fujitsu.

The berry farms and wheat fields are fancy subdivisions now and the
rural road that leads up the hill to my grandparents' farm slid off the
hill in place due to erosion. According to the State of Oregon, this is
because of irresponsible clearcutting that recently occured on the
cliffs over the road. Interestingly enough, the land was parcelled out
to two California developers.

The mudslides have wiped out three turn-of-the century homes on the
scenic highway in two years. So far one life--an elderly retired
woman--has been lost. Ask him if he feels rescued.

-Chris

Chris Gattman

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

David Kaye wrote:
>
> gatt wrote the quoted material below:
>
> " Well, my mother's half of the family is from Mississippi and they would
> " tell you that they're very proud to live there.
>
> Fine. It's still the poorest state in the USA.

You're demonstrating a characteristic about California that is precisely
what we hate: Wealth=happiness.

Except for the quality of education, Mississippi's other problems date
to over a century ago. Who cares--except the elite class--if they're
all relatively poor? So they live in trailer houses or small rural
homes. They're HAPPY that way. They're also some of the friendliest
people I've ever met. They enjoy a quality of life that perhaps
California simply cannot understand. Oregon does(did) too.

>
> " So, what. Do we owe you something? Californians move up here, plow
> " under the valley, build five-story homes in the west hills that destroy
> " the skyline [....]
>

> Perhaps the Portlanders shouldn't have sold them the property in the first
> place, eh?

I didn't sell you anything.

> protected. Oregonians should be proud, but many aren't because they see
> it as an "unnecessary" encroachment on property rights. Had there not
> been a greenbelt law, Portland's development would reach clear to the
> Dalles on the one side and to Astoria on the other, a stretch of about 150

> miles.

You are entirely correct there. The greenbelt laws curb the greed of
land developers and property owners and we are all thankful of that.

> We Northern Californians don't like Los Angelanos either. But the fact
> remains that some Oregonian sold them the land.

Actually, the average west coaster doesn't even consider Northern
California and Southern California part of the same state.

> Unfortunately, the landlord got greedy, raised the rent astronomically,
> and the employees stole a *lot*. This was my one business failure. I
> left town, having dumped about $60,000 (my life savings) on Portland. <oh
> well>

I know a restaurant owner as well (native...lives in Newport) that
struggles financially and has problems with employees. It's definately
a tough gig! He's staunchly against minimum wage hikes, but I don't
know enough about the issue to have an opinion against him. Just out of
curiousity, would you agree or disagree with him? (should he be
required to pay his employees more?)

> own a restaurant. I came back to SF with about $200 to my name after

When I was in SFO last fall I found that it really isn't as expensive as
people say it is IF you live like a middle class Oregonian. The
exception, of course, is housing and auto registration. Do you think
this is true or was I just lucky?

> But notice that the way Oregon solved much of
> its economic problem was: tourism. If you're gonna keep your state green,
> you can't promote tourism. It just encourages them.

Yep. I lived in Cannon Beach for awhile before the great tourism
facelift.
As much as tourism helped clean up the coast and boost the economy, I
can't help but think that it allowed a lot of people to come up (or
down) and nudge out the folks who struggled to make the region what it
is in the first place.

Oh, yeah...in a previous post you said we think that California is "the
evil empire." I need to remind you that California is to the south and
the evil empire is to the north. :> The ranchers are to the east and
they hate us all.

-Chris

gatt

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

Brian Varine wrote:

>
> Self interested voters had nothing to do with Measure 5 and the >others. It was our worthless politicians, Democrats and Republicans.

You are absolutely correct. I had the misfortune of being a college
student with property owning, retired parents when that passed.

To date my parents have NEVER received a penny of tax break because of
measure 5. Instead, their property value was reassessed so they simply
pay what they had previously. All of their neighbors noticed this too.

Funny thing it, they cancelled my program at Oregon State along with so
many others and student enrollment dropped sharply. It still hasn't
recovered. If they taxpayers were paying the same, how come all those
cuts had to be made?

In my opinion the state government held the education system for ransom
and got exactly what they were getting in the first place. Now nobody
wants to listen to property owners because of the "effects" of Measure
5. The state government made its point; screw with their income and
your kids will suffer.

My political standpoint from that moment on was an is "Fire 'em all and
start over." They're getting the same amount of money. I say if they
hurt the schools again they should be thrown out and replaced with fresh
thinkers.

-Chris

gatt

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

Shoshanna Moser wrote:

> >Yeah, but you live in San Francisco which is a truly magnificent >city.
>

> Crime, corruption, filth, gangs, traffic, the grotesque cost of
> parking, and Willie Brown. Need I go on?

Well, we don't have a Willie Brown, but every thing else sounds about
right. You should look on the bright side, though. San Francisco is
also one of the most culturally enlightened places in America. The
weather is beautiful, the clubs and festivals and cuisines are vivrant
and diverse. I crossed the Golden Gate and on the north side I almost
ran into deer. Hiked through the "open space reserve" by Stanford and
saw forests that rival Oregon. (I particularly enjoyed the sign that
said to make a lot of noise to keep away the cougars!)

The only things I really couldn't stand in San Francisco were the people
at the airport and the peculiar habit you people have of parking in the
middle of the street.

-Chris

Stephanie Spanhel

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

In or.politics gatt <ga...@europa.com> wrote:
> Funny thing it, they cancelled my program at Oregon State along with so
> many others and student enrollment dropped sharply. It still hasn't
> recovered. If they taxpayers were paying the same, how come all those
> cuts had to be made?

College is a choice. _Your_ education was _your_ choice. Why do you want
to make others pay for your choices?

> My political standpoint from that moment on was an is "Fire 'em all and
> start over." They're getting the same amount of money. I say if they
> hurt the schools again they should be thrown out and replaced with fresh
> thinkers.

Fresh thinkers who will arm themselves and take money from innocent people
and give it to you, you mean.

-Steph
--
"Politicians ARE interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue.
Fleas are interested in dogs." -- P J O'Rourke st...@aracnet.com

Brian Varine

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

Stephanie Spanhel wrote:
>
> In or.politics gatt <ga...@europa.com> wrote:
> > Funny thing it, they cancelled my program at Oregon State along with so
> > many others and student enrollment dropped sharply. It still hasn't
> > recovered. If they taxpayers were paying the same, how come all those
> > cuts had to be made?
>
> College is a choice. _Your_ education was _your_ choice. Why do you want
> to make others pay for your choices?

Like it or not you have to have education. If we are going to continue
to have a prosperous economy, we'll need educated workers. It's already
hurting in Oregon where companies have to spend money to go to other
states for recruiting. At Oregon State they can't come up with enough
graduates to fill the demand in the Portland area. Ask any high tech
firm and they'll tell you they are having a hard time finding graduates.

Having said that, tuition for state residents isn't all that bad. I'm
paying roughly $1300 a term +$250 for books. Yeah, it's a lot but a lot
of students don't take advantage of opportunities. It amazes me when I
suggest to some that to get extra money they should join the National
Guard. Who else will give you at least $100 a weekend, give you the GI
Bill (for reservists over 2 yrs it's another $198/month, if you were
active duty for 3 yrs or more, it's $430/month), and some job
specialties have bonuses and Student Loan repayment. Students gasp at
giving up a weekend.

Bob Tiernan

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

On 19 Mar 1998, Derek R. Larson wrote:

> Once the economy tanked in the Reagan

> recession....

And what recession was that? 1981-3 or so? How could
Reagan have caused that if it started before his first
budget was even in effect?

Bob T.

"The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep
that their interests and his own are the same".

-- Stendhal

Elaine Gallegos

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

Hmmm... I would have voted to legalize drugs and prostitution. We'd save
a bundle.

David Kaye (d...@removeme.wco.com) wrote:
: Chris Gattman wrote the quoted material below:

: " In fact, why don't you all go back to California and fight your wars

David Kaye

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

Brian Varine wrote the quoted material below:

" From everything I've
" read and seen, California used to be a nice place too.

Still is. There are areas of California nearly as rural as Harney County.
Northeastern California is barely settled at all. There's also the
Redwood Empire north of Santa Rosa. I think the entirety of Humboldt
County is less than 100,000 people, most in Eureka and Arcata. There's
still lots of space in California, and plenty of places where people say
hi on the street, etc.

--
(C) 1998 The California Bureau of Automotive Repair handles
David Kaye car repair complaints at 1-800-952-5210
dk at wco.com

Eric Salmassy

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

In article <3511EF...@europa.com>, gatt <ga...@europa.com> wrote:
>Brian Varine wrote:
>
>>
>> Self interested voters had nothing to do with Measure 5 and the >others. It
> was our worthless politicians, Democrats and Republicans.
>
>You are absolutely correct. I had the misfortune of being a college
>student with property owning, retired parents when that passed.
>
>To date my parents have NEVER received a penny of tax break because of
>measure 5. Instead, their property value was reassessed so they simply
>pay what they had previously. All of their neighbors noticed this too.
>

>Funny thing it, they cancelled my program at Oregon State along with so
>many others and student enrollment dropped sharply. It still hasn't
>recovered. If they taxpayers were paying the same, how come all those
>cuts had to be made?

Because businesses received the *real* tax breaks. There's been a major shift
in tax burden from business to personal taxpayers.

gatt

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

Stephanie Spanhel wrote:
> If they taxpayers were paying the same, how come all those
> > cuts had to be made?
>

> College is a choice. _Your_ education was _your_ choice. Why do you >want to make others pay for your choices?

I paid my way through college, thank you. But my point remains. They
cut as much from the elementary and high schools. I suppose you're
going to say next that that it was the kids' choice not to be able to
take, say, music classes or ride school buses? The fact is I should
not have gone to college in Oregon but hindsight it 20/20.

> Fresh thinkers who will arm themselves and take money from innocent >people and give it to you, you mean.

You clearly have no idea what I mean. See above. What an amazing leap
of logic into a truly bizarre assertion you've made, considering I grew
up in a conservative household that paid its own bills and some of the
highest property taxes in the state. Who the hell are you to tell me
what I mean?

> -Steph

Bob Tiernan

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, gatt wrote:

> The state government made its point; screw with their income and
> your kids will suffer.

> They're getting the same amount of money. I say if they hurt

> the schools again they should be thrown out and replaced with
> fresh thinkers.

Why wait for them to do it again?

Bob Tiernan

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Brian Varine wrote:

> Stephanie Spanhel wrote:

> > College is a choice. _Your_ education was _your_ choice. Why do
> > you want to make others pay for your choices?

> Like it or not you have to have education. If we are going to
> continue to have a prosperous economy, we'll need educated workers.

This country was making a quick and healthy transition
into an industrial powerhouse in the late 19th century
without the so-called "education" system known to us
now. Education isn't the issue, but the issue is
*who* controls it, and whether or not it's compatable
with a free society (such as: is it compulsory? - yes).

Despite progressives' and liberals' disdain for corporations
and big business, they play right into their hands with
their support of "public" skooling along with various
regulations on those who choose to pay more to send their
kids elsewhere.

Joyce Reynolds-Ward

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:56:51 -0800, Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com>
wrote:
snip

>Despite progressives' and liberals' disdain for corporations
>and big business, they play right into their hands with
>their support of "public" skooling along with various
>regulations on those who choose to pay more to send their
>kids elsewhere.

That's because opting out of the public skooling system shows an
untoward desire to take control of your own life....and a scary
tendency to want to think for yourself and make your own choices about
what your child learns, and how your child learns.

'Twas amazing how quickly I got ostracized by a lot of progressive and
liberal political folks for wanting to send my kid to parochial
school. Sending your kid to publick skool is a political litmus test,
and criticizing the publick skool means you must be--shudder--trying
to avoid diversity! Enlightenment! All that other good stuff! Not
to speak of wanting your kid to learn better, or more, or get more
teacher attention...smacks of elitism, right?

However, DARE has never been a part of the curriculum at my son's
school. It is at the local publick skool. And my son's school is
still more integrated than the local school.....plus, as an asset,
he's part of a larger community with multigenerational support which
reaches beyond the parents. Dang. Sounds like "it takes a
village..."

Seriously, for me, the parochial school is the best way to gain the
advantages of a small-town school (smaller classes, more attention,
larger community involvement) with the assets of a large city
(cultural and educational exposure). It's also an asset that this
school is also very much working class, with lots of working two
parent families.

jrw

Stephanie Spanhel

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

In or.politics gatt <ga...@europa.com> wrote:

> Stephanie Spanhel wrote:
> > If they taxpayers were paying the same, how come all those
> > > cuts had to be made?
> >

> > College is a choice. _Your_ education was _your_ choice. Why do you >want to make others pay for your choices?

> I paid my way through college, thank you.

Not if you went to a state supported school.

> But my point remains. They
> cut as much from the elementary and high schools. I suppose you're
> going to say next that that it was the kids' choice not to be able to
> take, say, music classes or ride school buses? The fact is I should
> not have gone to college in Oregon but hindsight it 20/20.

Nope, kids should be able to do all that, if their parent[s] or another
person with money voluntarily pays for it.

> > Fresh thinkers who will arm themselves and take money from innocent >people and give it to you, you mean.

> You clearly have no idea what I mean. See above. What an amazing leap
> of logic into a truly bizarre assertion you've made, considering I grew
> up in a conservative household that paid its own bills and some of the
> highest property taxes in the state. Who the hell are you to tell me
> what I mean?

You act like you have a right to a state supported education, not because
your parents or you have paid upteen dollars in taxes, but because the
public owes you. I'm the public, and I'm saying I owe you nothing, and
I'm sick and tired of your hired thugs stealing from me and giving to you.

Ya see, the first I'd have a modicum of respect for -- because it would
have meant that even though you did use the system you understand that the
system is corrupt, and that you don't have a right to steal to pay for
your hobbies [such as college].

Freedom is not a sometimes thing.

Larry Caldwell

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

In article <6erq03$okn$2...@news.ncal.verio.com>,
David Kaye <d...@removeme.wco.com> wrote:

> Few people act in altruism, and even fewer when money is involved.
> Californians didn't invest in Oregon out of altruism, but because there
> were good investment opportunities there. But the end result is the same:
> California rescued Oregon. So, for Oregonians to pretend that California
> is the Evil Empire is nonsense.

Perhaps if you had been here at the time you would have a different
perspective on what happened. Timber has always been the top industry
in Oregon, and when the Fed bumped long term interest rates to 18% per
year around 1980, it literally shut down the housing industry in the
whole USA. That cut about a billion bucks a year out of Oregon's
income. In a state with only 2.5 million people, that really hurt.

People decided we needed to diversify the economy, so we elected a little
Lebanese rug merchant named Vic Atiyeh (Atieyeh's Carpets in Portland) to
governor. Vic had a clear mandate from the voters to recession-proof the
state, and he did a heroic job of it. He spent as much time in Japan,
Korea and Hong Kong as he did in Oregon for eight years. Every time
he made a trade swing, Oregon gained another half dozen businesses and
another batch of shippers using Oregon's ports, and more international
markets for Oregon's products.

Atiyeh had a lifetime of experience in international commerce, and
he put it to work doing exactly what he promised the voters he would
do. He succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. By the time the
Bush recession rolled around, nobody in Oregon noticed. While
California was dying, Oregon's economy was rolling merrily along,
and we attracted a bunch of businesses and talent that were having
a hard time south of the border.

It may come as a surprise to you, but most of the really big Oregon
companies have been Oregon companies for a long time. Intel has been
out in Hillsboro since they operated out of a shoebox in the 1970's,
Tektronix is homegrown, and HP has been around since they were
manufacturing junk test equipment that nobody wanted to buy.

Another thing that surprises people is that agriculture is the number 1
industry in Oregon, about 2.5 times the size of all the high tech stuff
put together. High tech managed to nose wood products out of the #2
spot just two years ago, but wood products did $1.2 billion last year,
which is a very respectable showing.

So you have the top three industries in Oregon all involved in
manufacturing real goods that real people use. This is $5 billion
a year in new wealth in a state with only about 3 million people.
There is a solid economic advantage to being producers rather than
consumers. Mostly it means the money comes your way. The result
has been a buildup of capital, which is what you need for economic
growth.

California has been a handy market, and lots of Californians have padded
the wallets of lots of Oregonians, for which we thank them. We also
thank the Japanese and the Koreans and the New Yorkers. They're good
customers.

-- Larry

Larry Caldwell

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

In article <351143...@usa.nospam.net>,
Brian Varine <Witch*D...@usa.nospam.net> wrote:

> Self interested voters had nothing to do with Measure 5 and the others.

> It was our worthless politicians, Democrats and Republicans. For years
> they've known that Prop Taxes were too high and people were getting fed

> up with them. They could have fixed the problem or at least made an

It's the influx of furriners that created the property tax problem.
Just like you, they seemed to have no idea that politicians had
nothing to do with property taxes. Every property tax levied in
Oregon was approved by majority vote, often at elections with less
than 20% voter turnout.

People get the kind of government they deserve. In this case, they
deserved exactly what they voted themselves. They voted the power
into somebody else's pocket and turned the whole mess over to
politicians. It's probably better there. The voters demonstrated
that they couldn't handle it.

-- Larry

Tom Huppi

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:

<snip>

> Seriously, for me, the parochial school is the best way to gain the
> advantages of a small-town school (smaller classes, more attention,
> larger community involvement) with the assets of a large city
> (cultural and educational exposure). It's also an asset that this
> school is also very much working class, with lots of working two
> parent families.

You seem quite satisfied with the state of school choice as it
stands. That's great! I personally don't much care for the idea
of indoctrinating children in their formative years with strange,
ancient supernatural beliefs, but I see it as the price to pay
for freedom of choice. I do think it is desirable to have an
independent oversight body that at the very least does what they
can to reduce the incidence of child molestation in these
schools. These kids handing bibles to my kids 20 years from now
is tolerable. Them molesting my kids 20 years from now is not.

--
Tom
http://www.abode.com/t/zFAAA.html

Bob Tiernan

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Tom Huppi wrote:

[on private schools]

> I do think it is desirable to have an independent oversight body
> that at the very least does what they can to reduce the incidence
> of child molestation in these schools.

Like having 13year old girls lift their dresses and drop
their panties so a police officer with a rubber glove
can "look" for stolen CD's. WOOPS! That was a
government skool, wasn't it?

Bob Tiernan

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Tom Huppi wrote:

> Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:

> > Seriously, for me, the parochial school is the best way to gain the
> > advantages of a small-town school (smaller classes, more attention,
> > larger community involvement) with the assets of a large city
> > (cultural and educational exposure). It's also an asset that this
> > school is also very much working class, with lots of working two
> > parent families.

> You seem quite satisfied with the state of school choice as it
> stands. That's great! I personally don't much care for the idea
> of indoctrinating children in their formative years with strange,
> ancient supernatural beliefs

And a progressive improvement, apparently, was the Prussian
model (copied in America) that indoctrinates kiddies with
lessons on being "good citizens" (i.e. obedient to authority)
who will respect law and order (i.e. accept draft notices
so they can kill people they don't know) and think of the
whole instead of the individual first (i.e. pay taxes and
keep your mouth shut). On the other hand, PC people
look at a Third World school with even stranger and more
ancient and supernatural beliefs and they say "Wow! Look
at that multiculturalism!"

> but I see it as the price to pay
> for freedom of choice.

Thanks for the tolerance, but who's "paying" this price?
Certainly *you're* not.

Joyce Reynolds-Ward

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:28:58 -0800, "Julian Marek" <jma...@cdsnet.net>
wrote:

Please crawl back into your brain-dead hole.

Thank you.

jrw

Joyce Reynolds-Ward

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:25:31 -0800, "Julian Marek" <jma...@cdsnet.net>
wrote:

>What does this have to do with Californians destroying Oregon? The Oregon

>Economic system repaired it's self. And there is no reason that we should
>be grateful to those who bring drugs and destruction to Oregon. Say NO to
>Drugs and Californians in Oregon!

Heh, heh, heh, buddy, when it comes to the underground economy, you'd
better take a good hard look at the marijuana industry in Oregon. As
done by good ol' homegrown backwoods Oregon boys and girls....

jrw...currently swilling a premixed strawberry daqueri.....

Tim Teitenberg

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

In or.politics Larry Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> wrote:
> In article <351143...@usa.nospam.net>,
> Brian Varine <Witch*D...@usa.nospam.net> wrote:

> > Self interested voters had nothing to do with Measure 5 and the others.
> > It was our worthless politicians, Democrats and Republicans. For years
> > they've known that Prop Taxes were too high and people were getting fed
> > up with them. They could have fixed the problem or at least made an

> It's the influx of furriners that created the property tax problem.
> Just like you, they seemed to have no idea that politicians had
> nothing to do with property taxes. Every property tax levied in
> Oregon was approved by majority vote, often at elections with less
> than 20% voter turnout.

Measure 5 was passed precisely because property taxes were
increasing, without bound, and it required no voter approval
whatsoever. Prior to Measure 5 local taxing units could
increase rates by 6% year to year, without voter approval.
And that increase was quite apart from the increase a
homeowner would see based on the increase in the assessed
value of the property alone, again without voter approval
(which I would hope is obvious). What the politicians could
have done was reduce the tax rates to offset the increase in
assessment valuations, and still maintained level or
reasonable increases in tax receipts, but they did not. They
instead treated the rising valuations as a windfall and wild
free-for-all at the taxpayers' expense. They built up layers
of bloated local governments, filled the PERS coffers, greatly
expanded PERS coverage to new groups of public employees, and
on and on. "Foreigners" certainly did not create the
"property tax problem," which is itself a government expansion
problem.

> People get the kind of government they deserve. In this case, they
> deserved exactly what they voted themselves. They voted the power
> into somebody else's pocket and turned the whole mess over to
> politicians. It's probably better there. The voters demonstrated
> that they couldn't handle it.

The voters did just the opposite. The mechanisms now in place
force the politicians to go to the voters more frequently (and
after Measure 5, but prior to Measure 50, at lower thresholds
on tax increases). That's precisely why the political
establishment didn't like any of Measures 5, 47, or 50. They
gave politicians less of a free rein, not more.

> -- Larry

I did learn a couple of things in your two recent posts. US
citizens coming into the State are "foreigners", and former
Governor Atiyeh is to be referred to as "a little Lebanese rug
merchant."

- Tim

Joyce Reynolds-Ward

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:09:51 -0800, "Julian Marek" <jma...@cdsnet.net>
wrote:

>Oregon never had economic Problems that we could not have fixed on our own!

Yow, we've got a real loser on a tirade here.

Uh--you know it really, really isn't a good idea to marry your first
cousin, fella. Even tho mom and dad might have done so....

jrw

Joyce Reynolds-Ward

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:36:48 -0800, Tom Huppi
<thu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

snip

>You seem quite satisfied with the state of school choice as it
>stands. That's great! I personally don't much care for the idea
>of indoctrinating children in their formative years with strange,

>ancient supernatural beliefs, but I see it as the price to pay
>for freedom of choice. I do think it is desirable to have an

>independent oversight body that at the very least does what they
>can to reduce the incidence of child molestation in these

>schools. These kids handing bibles to my kids 20 years from now
>is tolerable. Them molesting my kids 20 years from now is not.

Don't confuse Catholics with Gideons. There's a far, far world of
difference between Protestant fanatics and your run-of-the-mill
parochial school.

And I haven't heard of any child molestation in this particular
school, or seen any evidence to suggest such a thing.

Might I suggest you examine your own prejudices in this matter before
you start attacking others by implying their choices in childrens'
schools leads to a higher likelihood of child molestation? If such
were the case, I'd be very, very concerned about sending my kid to
public school. After all, we have a 6th grade public schoolteacher
getting pregnant by one of her students. And there's been several
incidences of child molestation by public school teachers of
late--including folks who are dealing child pornography over the
Internet.

Funny thing, that. It's not parochial school teachers, or teachers at
independent schools being prosecuted and publicized. But a lot of
public schoolteachers. So if you're gonna use that particular aspect
of life as an argument against parochial school, it just blew up in
your face (I can just see it now, you'll try to insist it gets covered
up--but things like this just plain don't get covered up these days,
they get publicized. Public or private.).

Also a funny thing that those who don't profess a faith consider
themselves superior to those who do--but they can be just as
prejudiced as those they attack for being prejudiced.

Frankly, I personally don't care for my kid getting indoctrinated in
whatever particular feel-good philosophy is in vogue in the ed schools
at the moment. I like a few more behavior standards than I see coming
out of the public schools.

But then again, I'm not real fond of Bible-thumpers either. Or
atheists (although I can tolerate the non-proseltyzing sorts just
fine, thank you very much, occasional jabs can fly both directions as
long as both belief systems are respected--and I pretty much feel
atheism is as much a leap of faith as rubbing pretty mud in your navel
and worshipping Wangdoodle McGrew).

jrw

Bob Tiernan

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Eric Salmassy wrote:

> Because businesses received the *real* tax breaks. There's been
> a major shift in tax burden from business to personal taxpayers.

But Eric, don't you know that politicians, having been given
more powers over the economy (without them having to take
any classes in economics) have given these breaks to make
the business climate better, and thus are doing it for the
"good of the whole". Yup, another one of those "the whole
of society is more important than the individuals" schemes
that has backfired! (though many of us see right through these
from day one.)

Tom Huppi

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Tom Huppi wrote:
>
> [on private schools]
>

> > I do think it is desirable to have an independent oversight body
> > that at the very least does what they can to reduce the incidence
> > of child molestation in these schools.
>

> Like having 13year old girls lift their dresses and drop
> their panties so a police officer with a rubber glove
> can "look" for stolen CD's. WOOPS! That was a
> government skool, wasn't it?

Well gee Bob, don't keep us in suspense! What happened to the
guy (who apparently was discovered due to some form of
oversight?) Did he have to say 20,000 Hail Marys and get sent
off to ba a police officer in another town to after being
"re-trained"?

--
Tom
http://www.abode.com/t/zFAAA.html

Tom Huppi

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:36:48 -0800, Tom Huppi
> <thu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >You seem quite satisfied with the state of school choice as it
> >stands. That's great! I personally don't much care for the idea
> >of indoctrinating children in their formative years with strange,
> >ancient supernatural beliefs, but I see it as the price to pay

> >for freedom of choice. I do think it is desirable to have an

> >independent oversight body that at the very least does what they
> >can to reduce the incidence of child molestation in these

> >schools. These kids handing bibles to my kids 20 years from now
> >is tolerable. Them molesting my kids 20 years from now is not.
>
> Don't confuse Catholics with Gideons. There's a far, far world of
> difference between Protestant fanatics and your run-of-the-mill
> parochial school.

I promise to look up the term "parochial" in my dictionary if you
will kindly describe your "litmus test" for deciding which
religious sects are qualified to operate schools with no
oversight.

> And I haven't heard of any child molestation in this particular
> school, or seen any evidence to suggest such a thing.

Glad to hear it!

> Might I suggest you examine your own prejudices in this matter before
> you start attacking others by implying their choices in childrens'
> schools leads to a higher likelihood of child molestation?

Sure you might. I would suggest to you that it makes sense that
the clergy is something of a safe haven for those who's sexual
desires are at variance with the norm. Evidence abounds in
popular myth if not if fact. Frankly I have kept my distance
form those folks (the clergy) and am hence, not much of an
expert.

> If such
> were the case, I'd be very, very concerned about sending my kid to
> public school. After all, we have a 6th grade public schoolteacher
> getting pregnant by one of her students. And there's been several
> incidences of child molestation by public school teachers of
> late--including folks who are dealing child pornography over the
> Internet.

Yes, but public schools are just that. Public. Should troubles
such as these become problematic, means of dealing with them are
relatively easy to employ.

> Funny thing, that. It's not parochial school teachers, or teachers at
> independent schools being prosecuted and publicized. But a lot of
> public schoolteachers. So if you're gonna use that particular aspect
> of life as an argument against parochial school, it just blew up in
> your face (I can just see it now, you'll try to insist it gets covered
> up--but things like this just plain don't get covered up these days,
> they get publicized. Public or private.).

Huh. I confess to have not been paying much attention to the
news lately, but over the past decade or so, it seems that I have
heard substantially more about such problems occurring in
religious schools and especially Catholic churches. Particularly
when one considers the ratio of public schools to private
religious ones. Of course too, in a small rural community close
to mine, a religious school had similar problems as well.
Happily the it resulted in the school dissolving but
unfortunately the kids were academically well behind their peers
in the public school.

> Also a funny thing that those who don't profess a faith consider
> themselves superior to those who do--but they can be just as
> prejudiced as those they attack for being prejudiced.

To quote Homer Simpson..."It's funny 'cause it's true."

> Frankly, I personally don't care for my kid getting indoctrinated in
> whatever particular feel-good philosophy is in vogue in the ed schools
> at the moment.

Oh, you mean like the crap they tried to feed me concerning it
being morally questionable to give the Indians blankets infected
with smallpox?

> I like a few more behavior standards than I see coming
> out of the public schools.

Me too!

> But then again, I'm not real fond of Bible-thumpers either. Or
> atheists (although I can tolerate the non-proseltyzing sorts just
> fine, thank you very much, occasional jabs can fly both directions as
> long as both belief systems are respected--and I pretty much feel
> atheism is as much a leap of faith as rubbing pretty mud in your navel
> and worshipping Wangdoodle McGrew).

I just looked up Parochial. (I dug the 2nd def of "parochialism"
in Merriam ;-) I thought it had something to do with Catholic
but I guess not. At any rate, I was going to mention that I am
developing a degree of respect for Catholics that I never thought
possible. At least the regional daisies (or whatever they are
called.) They seem to be thinking about social policies with a
surprising level of rationality. I still find the "belief
system" ludicrous, but I am not able to ignore some of the
healthy things that the organization is responsible for.

--
Tom
http://www.abode.com/t/zFAAA.html

Tom Huppi

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Tom Huppi wrote:

<snip>

> And a progressive improvement, apparently, was the Prussian
> model (copied in America) that indoctrinates kiddies with
> lessons on being "good citizens" (i.e. obedient to authority)

So you would be happy to have schools where children are graded
on, say "submissivness"? That was one of the items graded by a
school mentioned in another post of mine...the one were there was
molestation occurring. Parenthetically, there were also no
charges filed. It is truly alarming to me the kinds of
indiscretions that can be "forgiven."

> who will respect law and order (i.e. accept draft notices
> so they can kill people they don't know) and think of the
> whole instead of the individual first (i.e. pay taxes and
> keep your mouth shut). On the other hand, PC people
> look at a Third World school with even stranger and more
> ancient and supernatural beliefs and they say "Wow! Look
> at that multiculturalism!"
>

> > but I see it as the price to pay
> > for freedom of choice.
>

> Thanks for the tolerance, but who's "paying" this price?
> Certainly *you're* not.

That's quite astute of you to notice ;-) Indeed, I have no
children and precious little income. Both are by design rather
than by accident and both are subject to change.

--
Tom
http://www.abode.com/t/zFAAA.html

Patrick Dows

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

You as a Californian have no right to tell anyone from (born and Raised) in
Oregon not to be active in the State's Future.

Julian Marek

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

I apologize for not quoting other readers, some of the messages are just to
long. Where do you stand on this issue?

>Hi Julian
>Your posts (plural) are singularly reminiscent of a typical chat
>bot that I saw the one time I tried IRC. Both in terms of
>frequency, and intelligence.

Nope it's not a Chat bot, I am actuall typing this information.

>Drugs seem to be a common, if not exclusive theme of yours. Just
>curious...is there a compelling reason to think that you know
>anything about them? i.e., any hands on experience or anything
>like that?

No, two people from when I was in High School died from overdoses. I one of
them was my best friend. He knew that I didn't like drugs so he hid his pot
habbit from me.

Julian Marek

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

>Uh--you know it really, really isn't a good idea to marry your first
>cousin, fella. Even tho mom and dad might have done so....

That was a very rude comment. Take your insults somewhere else.

Ron Leavens

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

Sealing off our borders and not allowing Californians into the state
isn't NEARLY enough! One of our biggest problems here in Oregon is
all the excellent high school athletes who go to college in California
and make their Pac-10 sports teams better than ours. This isn't right,
because these kids have taken advantage of our public school systems to
become top-notch athletes and then turn around and take their talents
to UCLA and USC and Stanford and Cal, and help them beat our teams.
Totally unacceptable. So, not only do we have to seal off the border
to keep Californians out of Oregon, but we have to seal it off in the
other direction and prohibit our high school graduates, especially the
best athletes, from going to college out-of-state, especially
California. If our legislature would get right on this, I guarantee
you will see UofO and OSU kicking Huskie/Cougar butt, big-time and
regularly, in all areas of collegiate sport!

RL

Joyce Reynolds-Ward

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 09:25:32 -0800, "Patrick Dows" <do...@medford.net>
wrote:

>You as a Californian have no right to tell anyone from (born and Raised) in
>Oregon not to be active in the State's Future.

Hey, brain-dead robot.

I've probably got more roots in this state than you do, yayhoo.

For the record, I'm fifth-generation Oregonian, with relatives who
first came to Oregon in the 1840s with the Applegate family.

Now if you can beat that, speak up.

Otherwise, shut up and crawl back into your hole until you get some
enlightenment, fool.

Californian, phooey. Obviously you haven't been reading for
comprehension.

jrw

Joyce Reynolds-Ward

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 01:02:01 -0800, Tom Huppi
<thu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

snip

>I promise to look up the term "parochial" in my dictionary if you

>will kindly describe your "litmus test" for deciding which
>religious sects are qualified to operate schools with no
>oversight.

If you investigate, you'll find that in many cases there is formal
oversight of some sort or another. Catholic schools are under the
supervision of the Archdiocese of Portland, with their own diocesan
superintendent. They are also accredited with the Archdiocese and the
state of Oregon. If you want to define that as "no oversight", then,
shrug--can't do much for you.

snip

>Sure you might. I would suggest to you that it makes sense that
>the clergy is something of a safe haven for those who's sexual
>desires are at variance with the norm. Evidence abounds in
>popular myth if not if fact. Frankly I have kept my distance
>form those folks (the clergy) and am hence, not much of an
>expert.

Not had much personal encounter with such things myself, although
stories abound (and what encounters of this sort I've had have been
with Protestant clergy, not Catholic). My question is whether an
objective examination would find such tendencies to exist in a greater
distribution than would be found in the population at large.

>> If such
>> were the case, I'd be very, very concerned about sending my kid to
>> public school. After all, we have a 6th grade public schoolteacher
>> getting pregnant by one of her students. And there's been several
>> incidences of child molestation by public school teachers of
>> late--including folks who are dealing child pornography over the
>> Internet.

>Yes, but public schools are just that. Public. Should troubles
>such as these become problematic, means of dealing with them are
>relatively easy to employ.

Uh--such matters are usually prosecuted whether the schools involved
are public or private. Such matters are also publicized in the media
as well. You can't hide a criminal proceeding, and given the current
stereotypes, I'd think the media would go to town on a private school
case.

snip

>Huh. I confess to have not been paying much attention to the
>news lately, but over the past decade or so, it seems that I have
>heard substantially more about such problems occurring in
>religious schools and especially Catholic churches.

Then wake up and look around you. Currently there's a 6th grade
public school teacher in Washington convicted of raping a student and
having his child. Allegedly, she's pregnant with his second child.

There was an incident in Gresham recently. An incident in Vancouver.
All involving public schools.

Many of the cases you're referring to are older ones, with adults now
coming after those who molested them as children.

snip

>> Also a funny thing that those who don't profess a faith consider
>> themselves superior to those who do--but they can be just as
>> prejudiced as those they attack for being prejudiced.

>To quote Homer Simpson..."It's funny 'cause it's true."

Blindness goes both ways, and you don't see your own blindness and
closed-mindedness.

>> Frankly, I personally don't care for my kid getting indoctrinated in
>> whatever particular feel-good philosophy is in vogue in the ed schools
>> at the moment.

>Oh, you mean like the crap they tried to feed me concerning it
>being morally questionable to give the Indians blankets infected
>with smallpox?

That's history, not philosophy, bub, and they teach that particular
piece o' history in my son's Catholic school as well.

snip

>> But then again, I'm not real fond of Bible-thumpers either. Or
>> atheists (although I can tolerate the non-proseltyzing sorts just
>> fine, thank you very much, occasional jabs can fly both directions as
>> long as both belief systems are respected--and I pretty much feel
>> atheism is as much a leap of faith as rubbing pretty mud in your navel
>> and worshipping Wangdoodle McGrew).

>I just looked up Parochial. (I dug the 2nd def of "parochialism"
>in Merriam ;-) I thought it had something to do with Catholic
>but I guess not. At any rate, I was going to mention that I am
>developing a degree of respect for Catholics that I never thought
>possible. At least the regional daisies (or whatever they are
>called.) They seem to be thinking about social policies with a
>surprising level of rationality. I still find the "belief
>system" ludicrous, but I am not able to ignore some of the
>healthy things that the organization is responsible for.

Try reading the book of Jeremiah in the Old Testament, followed by
Isiaiah (sp, not good), Micah and Hosea. You'll find these Old
Testament prophets condemn injustice, starving the widows and orphans,
the greed of the rich and so forth, and cite environmental devastation
as a consequence of following greed and injustice rather than the will
of God. That's the basis of the healthy things the organization is
responsible for.

For that matter, go to the New Testament and the Sermon on the Mount.
That's the foundation of the Church's call for social
justice--although, unfortunately, we don't live up to it as we should.
The belief system is the basis for the healthy things we do. If you
reject the belief system, you reject the foundation for the things you
admire. They're all tied up together--and the bad stuff,
unfortunately, is due to our own human imperfections. But that's
enough. This is or.politics, not alt.christnet or
soc.religion.christian.

jrw
>
>--
>Tom
>http://www.abode.com/t/zFAAA.html

Joyce Reynolds-Ward

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 09:36:50 -0800, "Julian Marek" <jma...@cdsnet.net>
wrote:

snip

>That was a very rude comment. Take your insults somewhere else.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You're insulting people yourself, bub. Take a look in the mirror
before you accuse people of being rude.

jrw

Tom Huppi

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 01:02:01 -0800, Tom Huppi
> <thu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >I promise to look up the term "parochial" in my dictionary if you
> >will kindly describe your "litmus test" for deciding which
> >religious sects are qualified to operate schools with no
> >oversight.
>
> If you investigate, you'll find that in many cases there is formal
> oversight of some sort or another. Catholic schools are under the
> supervision of the Archdiocese of Portland, with their own diocesan
> superintendent. They are also accredited with the Archdiocese and the
> state of Oregon. If you want to define that as "no oversight", then,
> shrug--can't do much for you.

That's a little like the fox guarding the hen house, but for the
sake of argument, let's assume that this system works in the case
of the Catholic schools. (FWIW, I suspect that it would in this
case at this time.) You still have not put any effort into
explaining how a judgment is made as to which religious
organizations are qualified to operate totally independently. I
might add that in a long ago snipped text (and elsewhere), you
yourself seem to draw a distinction.

<snip>

> Uh--such matters are usually prosecuted whether the schools involved
> are public or private. Such matters are also publicized in the media
> as well. You can't hide a criminal proceeding, and given the current
> stereotypes, I'd think the media would go to town on a private school
> case.

Happily, the media tends to "goes to town" an stories such as
this no matter where they occur. I tend to feel that a small
organization operating independently has a much greater chance of
sweeping indiscretions under the carpet. Especially in a rural
community. I have seen it happen, BTW.

<snip - stories>

> >> Also a funny thing that those who don't profess a faith consider
> >> themselves superior to those who do--but they can be just as
> >> prejudiced as those they attack for being prejudiced.
>
> >To quote Homer Simpson..."It's funny 'cause it's true."
>
> Blindness goes both ways, and you don't see your own blindness and
> closed-mindedness.

Cmon! what kind of a confession of guilt do you want :-) At the
risk of perpetuating some truly circular semantics, I will submit
that I personally make something of an effort to see my
blindness. When I feel like it anyway.

> >> Frankly, I personally don't care for my kid getting indoctrinated in
> >> whatever particular feel-good philosophy is in vogue in the ed schools
> >> at the moment.
>
> >Oh, you mean like the crap they tried to feed me concerning it
> >being morally questionable to give the Indians blankets infected
> >with smallpox?
>
> That's history, not philosophy, bub, and they teach that particular
> piece o' history in my son's Catholic school as well.

That it happened is history; the morality of it is philosophy.
That it became part of the curriculum was shocking and
objectionably to the generation before mine I understand. I'm a
little to old for "Heather has two Mommies", but it would not
surprise me in the least to find 20 years from now that it is
pretty acceptable to help kids understand the world with
curriculum of this nature. Even in the Catholic parochial
schools :-)

<snip - mainly some suggested religious reading material.>

Thanks. Later

--
Tom
http://www.abode.com/t/zFAAA.html

Tom Huppi

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

Julian Marek wrote:
>
> I apologize for not quoting other readers, some of the messages are just to
> long. Where do you stand on this issue?

Where do I stand? I think it is important to do ones best to
clip relevent portions of the point to which one wishes to
respond. In other words, do as much as possible to present the
other guy's point of view in a fair manner. To your credit, I
see that you are now doing this.

> >Hi Julian
> >Your posts (plural) are singularly reminiscent of a typical chat
> >bot that I saw the one time I tried IRC. Both in terms of
> >frequency, and intelligence.
>
> Nope it's not a Chat bot, I am actuall typing this information.

"Information" is a fairly generous term in this case ;-)

> >Drugs seem to be a common, if not exclusive theme of yours. Just
> >curious...is there a compelling reason to think that you know
> >anything about them? i.e., any hands on experience or anything
> >like that?
>
> No, two people from when I was in High School died from overdoses. I one of
> them was my best friend. He knew that I didn't like drugs so he hid his pot
> habbit from me.

Oh...you mean where do I stand on the drug issue :-) In a
nutshell, I think it a direct replacement for the cold war. Just
another means of duping Joe Public into putting money in the
pockets of the "protectors."

Frankly I think that there is a certain base number of persons
who are going to abuse drugs and that it is not swayed very much
by the illegality of doing so. If this is the case, then we
(that is, the taxpayers Bob :-) are pissing away a truly amazing
amount of money and locking up pawns in the "war" with very
little by way of benefit. IMHO, we could get a much bigger bang
for a much smaller buck by treating folks who develop a drug
problem, and punishing the hell out of those who supply drugs to
kids. I also have some serious problems reconciling laws against
casual drug use with the concept of freedom.

Mainly though, I think that the last person to pay attention to
on the subject would be one who has no hands on experience. Most
of the people who I know and have some respect for have at some
time experimented with certain illegal drugs, and most no longer
have any interest in them.

--
Tom
http://www.abode.com/t/zFAAA.html

gatt

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

Stephanie Spanhel wrote:
> > >
> > > College is a choice. _Your_ education was _your_ choice. Why do you >want to make others pay for your choices?
>
> > I paid my way through college, thank you.
> Not if you went to a state supported school.

The only scholarship I received was because my grandfather--my adoptive
father--was a disabled ex prisoner of war and because I had earned the
grades in high school. Other than that, I paid my way through college.

> > But my point remains. They
> > cut as much from the elementary and high schools. I suppose you're
> > going to say next that that it was the kids' choice not to be able > > >to take, say, music classes or ride school buses?

> Nope, kids should be able to do all that, if their parent[s] or >another person with money voluntarily pays for it.

That is one of the most appalling things I've ever heard. So, when I
was in the first or second grade living with my mom, who was only 23,
you're saying that if she couldn't have afforded to send me to
school--or if she had just decided not to--that I should not have had an
education. If that's the case, she should have just had an abortion.

My grandparents adopted me and live in the second highest property tax
zone in the state and one of the highest in the nation. They paid my
way in taxes alone, and they continue to pay even though they have no
children in the school system.

> You act like you have a right to a state supported education, not >because your parents or you have paid upteen dollars in taxes, but >because the public owes you. I'm the public, and I'm saying I owe you >nothing, and I'm sick and tired of your hired thugs stealing from me >and giving to you.

My hired thugs? What an asshole! You don't think I pay taxes too?
Jesus...I hope you never expect social security because even though I'm
paying for it I don't. You will probably use it all first.

Come up for air. A hired thug is what comes into your house, breaks
your arms and legs and leaves you to bleed to death while they take your
possessions. Taxes are what we pay to live here and education is what
keeps us from being a third-world nation. If you don't like it, leave.

> Ya see, the first I'd have a modicum of respect for -- because it >would have meant that even though you did use the system you understand >tha the system is corrupt, and that you don't have a right to steal to >pay for your hobbies [such as college].

We should be granted police protection, shouldn't have to pay for roads,
worry about the environment, take care of the elderly or pay for
firefighting and other civil services. But you know what? The majority
of this country voted for it.

College taught me to use computers. From there I got a job helping
clueless internet users with browser software and the usenet working
with the people who MADE the internet possible. You know what? You're
using it for free--except for what you pay a private company--so get
off. Now my job is tracking down and elimating internet mail and news
harrassers which I am very, very good at. Don't bother to thank me.

My hobbies might be smoking pot, crack, shooting assault rifles, burning
flags, burning crosses, torturing minorities and women and driving
through your lawn. If college and working with internet software so
you could vent your bizarre opinions and assertions about my beliefs on
the internet turned out to be my hobby, you better count yourself lucky.

> Freedom is not a sometimes thing.

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

Stephanie...
I apologize for the "asshole" comment. T'was out of line.

Chris

Bob Tiernan

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Tom Huppi wrote:

> Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:

> > On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 01:02:01 -0800, Tom Huppi

> > > I promise to look up the term "parochial" in my dictionary
> > > if you will kindly describe your "litmus test" for deciding
> > > which religious sects are qualified to operate
> > > schools with no oversight.

> > If you investigate, you'll find that in many cases there is formal
> > oversight of some sort or another. Catholic schools are under the
> > supervision of the Archdiocese of Portland, with their own diocesan
> > superintendent. They are also accredited with the Archdiocese and the
> > state of Oregon. If you want to define that as "no oversight", then,
> > shrug--can't do much for you.

> ........You still have not put any effort into explaining

> how a judgment is made as to which religious organizations
> are qualified to operate totally independently.

Why should she? Who's gonna decide this? Politicians?
Name a *government* that is qualified to "operate totally
independantly".

So what if there are Catholic schools that many parents
decide to choose to send their kids to. If you distrust
them on this matter (and distrust the parents as well),
then I guess it must also bother you that the government
cannot shut the Catholic Church down to begin with. The
First Amendment, in particular, was written with people
like you in mind.

John Flanery

unread,

Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98

to

On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Julian Marek wrote:

> No, two people from when I was in High School died from overdoses. I one of
> them was my best friend. He knew that I didn't like drugs so he hid his pot
> habbit from me.

Sorry about your friend; you need to know that people cannot overdose on
pot. If your friend died of an overdose it was from a different drug.

Robert Mashlan

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

"Julian Marek" <jma...@cdsnet.net> wrote:

>No, two people from when I was in High School died from overdoses. I one of
>them was my best friend. He knew that I didn't like drugs so he hid his pot
>habbit from me.

Are you trying to say that he overdosed from pot? He may of overdosed
from other drugs that are much more dangerous than pot, including
alcohol, but it's impossible to overdose on pot. It's estimated that
you need to smoke a bale of it in a short period of time for it to
kill you.

gatt

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

Julian Marek wrote:
>
> That is right! California should deal with it's own problems before moving
> to Oregon. There Drug and Mexican Problem is causing them to move to
> Oregon.

Whoa there. The Mexican problem. Reminds me of that little problem
they have in Mississippi that all those guys in white sheets keep going
on about. They must be real smart. Isn't that why they call them Grand
Wizards?

gatt

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

Julian Marek wrote:
>
> That is right! California should deal with it's own problems before >moving to Oregon. There Drug and Mexican Problem is causing them to >move to Oregon. They are bringing there problems with them because >***THEY*** are part of the Problem!

Hey, Jones. A quick traceroute comparison between you and Mr. Dows
reveals the SAME SOURCE. (Prodigy, even.) Imagine that! Holy double
identity, Batman!

Are you using different names or are you just schizophrenic? They have
drugs to help fight that, you know.

=Chris

Larry Caldwell

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

In article <351365ce...@news.aracnet.com>,
jrw*********@********aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) wrote:

> Uh--you know it really, really isn't a good idea to marry your first
> cousin, fella. Even tho mom and dad might have done so....

Joyce! Do you mean to tell me that incest results in the birth of a
Troll?

I always wondered where they came from.

-- Larry

Robert_Barton

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

Right, I think if it had been a male teacher or administrator who had
overseen the searches the outcome would have been a bit different.

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Tom Huppi wrote:

> Bob Tiernan wrote:

> > Tom Huppi wrote:

> > [on private schools]

> > > I do think it is desirable to have an independent oversight body
> > > that at the very least does what they can to reduce the incidence
> > > of child molestation in these schools.

> > Like having 13year old girls lift their dresses and drop

> > their panties so a police officer with a rubber glove
> > can "look" for stolen CD's. WOOPS! That was a
> > government skool, wasn't it?

> Well gee Bob, don't keep us in suspense! What happened to the
> guy (who apparently was discovered due to some form of
> oversight?)

I said nothing about the rubber-glove wearer's gender.
And, you call this good oversight? The damage was
done, the girls were not allowed to call home, too.

Tom Huppi

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Tom Huppi wrote:
>
> > Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> > > Tom Huppi wrote:
>
> > > [on private schools]
>
> > > > I do think it is desirable to have an independent oversight body
> > > > that at the very least does what they can to reduce the incidence
> > > > of child molestation in these schools.
>
> > > Like having 13year old girls lift their dresses and drop
> > > their panties so a police officer with a rubber glove
> > > can "look" for stolen CD's. WOOPS! That was a
> > > government skool, wasn't it?
>
> > Well gee Bob, don't keep us in suspense! What happened to the
> > guy (who apparently was discovered due to some form of
> > oversight?)
>
> I said nothing about the rubber-glove wearer's gender.

OK, so the male gender has been cut to the quick by my
stereotyping of the typical sexual predator. Oops!

> And, you call this good oversight?

Lets not confuse supervision with oversight. The latter being a
means of eradicating a large percentage of the problem with a
small percentage of the resources. You're kind of a proponent of
efficiency, eh Bob? So it was a <gasp> woman who is responsible
for this terrible travesty, it's heinousness unseen since the
fall of the Third Reich? To me, that speaks highly for the level
of "oversight", but then, I've got those damn stereotypes to
struggle with.

> The damage was
> done, the girls were not allowed to call home, too.

Oh, the horror. Hey! the gym teacher saw my cock one time. Come
to think of it, the nurse inspected it with *her* gloved hands.
BigFukinDeal.

--
Tom
http://www.abode.com/t/zFAAA.html

Tom Huppi

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 17:54:25 GMT, lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell)
> wrote:
>
> snip

>
> >Joyce! Do you mean to tell me that incest results in the birth of a
> >Troll?
>
> >I always wondered where they came from.
>

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

In or.politics gatt <ga...@europa.com> wrote:
> Stephanie Spanhel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > College is a choice. _Your_ education was _your_ choice. Why do you >want to make others pay for your choices?
> >
> > > I paid my way through college, thank you.
> > Not if you went to a state supported school.

> The only scholarship I received was because my grandfather--my adoptive
> father--was a disabled ex prisoner of war and because I had earned the
> grades in high school. Other than that, I paid my way through college.

Good for you on the scholarship -- even if it was a legacy thing [I'm not
clear]. But don't delude yourself, tuition at state supported schools is
subsidized, you did not bear the entire cost of your education.

> > > But my point remains. They
> > > cut as much from the elementary and high schools. I suppose you're
> > > going to say next that that it was the kids' choice not to be able > > >to take, say, music classes or ride school buses?

> > Nope, kids should be able to do all that, if their parent[s] or >another person with money voluntarily pays for it.

> That is one of the most appalling things I've ever heard. So, when I
> was in the first or second grade living with my mom, who was only 23,
> you're saying that if she couldn't have afforded to send me to
> school--or if she had just decided not to--that I should not have had an
> education. If that's the case, she should have just had an abortion.

I'm saying that if she couldn't have afforded to send you, or found
someone[s] else willing to afford to send you, or found some kind of
private scholarship to send you, or defrayed the cost in another way
[loan, partial tuition waiver for working for the school on weekends,
etc.], then she should not have relied on an armed thug [tax collector] to
pay for your education. You may think your education was so important as
to merit stealing from another -- I don't.

> My grandparents adopted me and live in the second highest property tax
> zone in the state and one of the highest in the nation. They paid my
> way in taxes alone, and they continue to pay even though they have no
> children in the school system.

That's corrupt. Dontcha think?

> > You act like you have a right to a state supported education, not >because your parents or you have paid upteen dollars in taxes, but >because the public owes you. I'm the public, and I'm saying I owe you >nothing, and I'm sick and tired of your hire

d thugs stealing from me >and giving to you.

> My hired thugs? What an asshole! You don't think I pay taxes too?
> Jesus...I hope you never expect social security because even though I'm
> paying for it I don't. You will probably use it all first.

Sure, you pay way too many taxes, some 15-20% of which go to running
government at various levels [e.g. slightly more than 20% of Metro's
budget goes to salaries, benefits, etc.]. I don't say that it's OK
because you pay taxes, too, I say it's corrupt that you are compelled to
pay at the point of a gun. Government should not be in the education
business! If you want to donate your money/time to a school, more power
to you. I just want the forced "donations" to stop.

Social security? I'm probably younger than you, and expect to pay much
and see none. Of course, I don't want to pay, and don't want to collect,
because I don't think the government should be in the banking business ...

> Come up for air. A hired thug is what comes into your house, breaks
> your arms and legs and leaves you to bleed to death while they take your
> possessions. Taxes are what we pay to live here and education is what
> keeps us from being a third-world nation. If you don't like it, leave.

I'll remember to say that to you when education goes private.

> > Ya see, the first I'd have a modicum of respect for -- because it >would have meant that even though you did use the system you understand >tha the system is corrupt, and that you don't have a right to steal to >pay for your hobbies [such as college].

> We should be granted police protection, shouldn't have to pay for roads,
> worry about the environment, take care of the elderly or pay for
> firefighting and other civil services. But you know what? The majority
> of this country voted for it.

Your first sentence doesn't parse ... Missing a 'not', or an extra 'not',
in there?

When did this country vote for any of those things? People may have voted
for the people who pushed these things through, do you really think that's
voting for something? I don't.

> College taught me to use computers. From there I got a job helping
> clueless internet users with browser software and the usenet working
> with the people who MADE the internet possible. You know what? You're
> using it for free--except for what you pay a private company--so get
> off. Now my job is tracking down and elimating internet mail and news
> harrassers which I am very, very good at. Don't bother to thank me.

It _IS_ free -- and if the powers that be want to charge [and can find out
how to] for their service, I'd be happy to pay.

"Don't bother to thank me" -- getting a bit emotional, eh?

> My hobbies might be smoking pot, crack, shooting assault rifles, burning
> flags, burning crosses, torturing minorities and women and driving
> through your lawn. If college and working with internet software so
> you could vent your bizarre opinions and assertions about my beliefs on
> the internet turned out to be my hobby, you better count yourself lucky.

So call me when you get arrested for your bizarre hobbies, and I'll defend
your lame rear ???

What's your point? That the world's a better place when people are more
educated? I'll agree with that. That making the world a better place by
making people more educated is justification for stealing? I won't agree
with that. Stealing is wrong, period. Because 50%+1 say it's OK to steal
from so and so [and maybe even take some from themselves along the way]
does not make stealing less wrong. Analogy: 50%+1 used to say black
people are property. They were all wrong when they were the majority, and
the minority that retain[ed/s] that view were still wrong. Black people
did not suddenly become people because 50%+1 said they were people!

-Steph
--
"Politicians ARE interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue.
Fleas are interested in dogs." -- P J O'Rourke st...@aracnet.com

Stephanie Spanhel

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

In or.politics Robert_Barton <Robert...@nesbbx.rain.com> wrote:
> In <351461...@europa.com>, gatt <ga...@europa.com> writes:

> > Tom Huppi wrote:
> > >
> > > Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Like having 13year old girls lift their dresses and drop
> > > > their panties so a police officer with a rubber glove
> > > > can "look" for stolen CD's. WOOPS! That was a
> > > > government skool, wasn't it?
> > >
> > > Well gee Bob, don't keep us in suspense! What happened to the
> > > guy (who apparently was discovered due to some form of
> > > oversight?)
> >

> > Actually, it was a female police officer if I remember right. Just goes
> > to show you can't trust women. (That's parody, folks, of the logic
> > being slung around here.)

> Right, I think if it had been a male teacher or administrator who had
> overseen the searches the outcome would have been a bit different.

Sure! Afterall, there's no such thing as same-sex sexual harassment ...

"Sheesh!"

Jonathan W. Ingram

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

Julian Marek wrote:
>
> Oregon never had economic Problems that we could not have fixed on our own!
> You Californians didn't help us you over populated the Portland Metro Area
> and now we are login Farm Land because there must be some where for you drug
> users to live. Did you know that the Price of a U-HAUL truck from LA to
> Portland is an Economic instrument? You would be very impressed what would
> happen if you said that in a Public place! You would probably be SHOT! Take
> you attitude and FLUSH it. Sell you home and move back to California! We
> don't want drug pushers like you in Oregon!

Are you trying to prove why Portland Oregon was named after Portland
Maine or something?

Why not just start calling the people from California "Flatlandahs" and
have your storekeepers rip-off customers with California plates on their
cars?

"Ayeah, them flatlandahs from Califoaniah ovah populated oua Poatland
and brought theia cocaine heya to ruin ahr kids"

Robert Plamondon

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

In article <3515d8fb...@news.mindspring.com> dfu...@mindspring.com writes:
>One thing I've noticed since the Californian Invasion, is that
>driving, esp on the highways has changed enormously.

Well, of course it has. The influx of Californians started over
a century ago.

-- Robert
--
Robert Plamondon * Technical and Marketing Writer
36475 Norton Creek Road * Blodgett * Oregon * 97326
mailto:rob...@plamondon.com * (541) 453-5841 * Fax: (541) 453-4139

Michael H. Wilson

unread,

Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98

to Stephanie Spanhel

This quote is by Ted Rall, cartoonist, writer and former
admissions assistant at an Ivy League school in the NY Times.
" If you have nothing better to do, squander your parents' money
on college tuition. But college is a scam. All it trains you to do is
work for somebody until you croak... Don't do anything that leads to
becoming a corporate drone."
Back in the late sixties I heard a politician criticize a group of
anti-draft protestors. He was making the point that the government had
paid for their education, now it was time for them to repay the
government.
The point simply is, that if you don't want the government to do
bad things to you, don't demand that it do good things for you.
Michael Wilson

OPEN MARKETS, OPEN MINDS
Support Open Markets, End Tri-Met's Monopoly

Larry Caldwell

unread,

Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98

to

In article <6f5qms$4p5$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,

drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R. Larson) wrote:

> It sounds just like Oregon was when I was there last summer. Too many
> cars, too many careless drivers intent on wringing that last 5 min. out of
> their drive from Salem to Portland. Things were much better 15 years ago
> when there were only half as many cars on the road.

You shoulda took me up on my invitation to come visit, Derek. South of
Eugene the traffic thins right out and you're back to the good old open
road I-5 like it was 30 years ago. The only thing that slows you down
is how many speeding tickets you want to pay for.

Once I get south of Goshen I just set the cruise control, and can drive
for hours without touching the brake. Thanksgiving and Christmas get a
little thick, but other than that it's a fine drive.

Oh yeah, there's plenty of cheap land and housing left in Oregon too.
It's just that people all want to cluster in the metro area. Sheep.

-- Larry

Larry Caldwell

unread,

Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98

to

In article <3516aadf...@news.teleport.com>,

jin...@spam.less.teleport.com (Jonathan W. Ingram) wrote:

> Whoa there again. Being from Mississippi, I have to regretfully admit
> that the Ku Klux Klan is still there. But the Klan is nowhere near as
> active in Mississippi as it is in Florida, Georgia, and Indiana. In
> Georgia and Indiana, there are entire counties where there are no
> African-American residents and where African-Americans won't even
> *drive through* at night. That statement isn't true in Mississippi
> though.

On a cultural note, the Klan was real big in Oregon up until WWII. We
had a big influx of displaced southerners after the Civil War. They were
driven off the land by carpetbaggers, so they came west. It was illegal
for colored people to live in Oregon both before and after the Civil War.

In fact, in the 1870's, the O & C Railroad was built by Chinese coolies
that couldn't legally live here. After the railroad was done with them,
they loaded all the Chinese on ships and sent them back to China. Lots
of the young ones had been born here, so they forcibly deported US
Citizens because they didn't like their skin color.

The legacy of the Chinese is the Himalaya blackberry that forms so many
Oregon thickets. Up until the Chinese imported them, the only native
Oregon blackberries were the black raspberry and the small, low-growing
and very tart wild blackberry.

Most Oregon communities had sundown laws until WWII, when the influx of
black workers in the shipyards finally broke the barrier. Roger Wong
was a WWII veteran and US Citizen who was not allowed to own property
within the city limits of McMinnville in the 1950's. He started the
Oriental Gardens restaurant just outside of town. When the city annexed
his land, he sold out and moved to Corvallis rather than live in
Mac.

So you can see where the wierdo gets his ideas. Tolerance and diversity
are not a traditional part of Oregon culture. I grew up here, and the
cultural revolution of the 1960's broke up a lot of bigotry. I imagine
there weren't many places in the USA that deserved it more. There
have always been hate monger gutter slime in Oregon. I went to high
school with them every day, and sat in classes and had to listen to
their hate propaganda for years.

If you're starting to realize I didn't have a happy childhood in Oregon,
you're right. I like it a lot better now than I did 40 years ago.

-- Larry

Chris Gattman

unread,

Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98

to

Michael H. Wilson wrote:
>
> This quote is by Ted Rall, cartoonist, writer and former
> admissions assistant at an Ivy League school in the NY Times.
> " If you have nothing better to do, squander your parents' money
> on college tuition. But college is a scam. All it trains you to do is
> work for somebody until you croak... Don't do anything that leads to
> becoming a corporate drone."

Rall is obviously a success at what he does regardless of whether he
chose to do it, but I'm wondering why he said that.

College can teach you to be a corporate robot if you let it. It can
also teach you to think for yourself and follow your own trail.
Ultimately, you're either going to live in the wilderness somewhere, go
to college and end up working for one company or another at least until
you start your own, or you're not going to college and you'll more than
likely end up doing the same thing.

I work in high tech with a lot of self-taught people that didn't go to
college. Some of them know a lot more about their job than I do mine.
I just get paid more.

It seems to me that most people who lament about what a waste college is
overlook the fact that education is something you do for yourself, not
something that people just do to you. It's like these people expected
to pay a bunch of money and get handed an education and a piece of
paper. Sadly, that's the way it works for the majority. If you forget
for a moment that you go to college not only to learn, but to learn to
think, you might find yourself making flippant and thoughtless comments
like the cartoonist above.

Bob Tiernan

unread,

Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98

to

Gatt wrote:

> Bob Tiernan wrote:

> > Gatt wrote:

> > > ...to have a prosperous economy, we'll need
> > > educated workers.

> > This country was making a quick and healthy transition
> > into an industrial powerhouse in the late 19th century
> > without the so-called "education" system known to us
> > now.

> Well, gee whiz, Bob. Cotton was major American industry
> before that without the so-called "education" system just
> 40 years before that.

What this has to do with I know not what.

> But, you know, Stonewall Jackson believed in educating the
> black slaves so that they could read the Bible. (He was
> nearly arrested for it;...

Well, score one for the Christians, I guess. Besides,
those laws that criminalized teaching slaves to read -
those were passed by government, of course. And it
doesn't matter (as Bill is sure to say, again) that
such public support for these laws is skewed because
blacks could not vote (which is not entirely correct,
even in the ante bellum South). Suppose they were?
In Bill's world, if the population of each Southern
state was about 51% white to 49% black, and the 51%
voted to keep blacks illiterate, that would be *fair*
because it was a fair vote, and it was, after all,
what that "society" was choosing regarding how it
wanted to be. That's Bill's world, and that's why I
don't like it. The moment I'd step in and advocate
an amendment prohibiting such restrictions on reading,
Bill would say "You're taking society's right to
choose away". Come on, Bill - please!

Now, suppose the richest plantation owner wanted to
teach his slaves how to read. He'd be punished, I'm
sure. So this law was also aimed at the plantation owners
as well. If you don't see it that way, find the laws
and show me where exemptions for the plantation owners
are included.

> not bad for a future Confederate
> war hero.)

Hmmmm...Ulysses S. Grant owned a slave (even during the
war) - not bad for a Union hero. Your point is?

> I guess he could have been wrong.

About what?

> Maybe we need an ignorant, servile working class to
> support an ignorant elite.

I don't see where this addresses anything. Let's see,
we don't have government grocery store chains, so I
guess that means people are starving. We don't have
government-run video rental places in lieu of private
ones, so I guess no movies are being rented anywhere.
We don't have a national airline, so I guess nobody
is flying to anywhere. Come on, Gatt, don't
jerk us a round with this drivel about uneducated
children.