Gossip is fun. So is anonymously dishing on public figures. Which is why we like to read the Willamette Week Legislator review.
Of course the perspective from lobbyists and staffers from opposing parties should always be taken with a grain of salt. We’ll never know if these are honest opinions, or payback, or bolstering allies. Most likely a combination of all three. But it always seems like you can garner some tidbits of the way lobbyists see the Political landscape.
I was particularly caught by this review of Rep. Chris Harker, D-Washington County: Continue reading
From The National Journal:
In a (recent) book, “The End of Big: How the Internet Makes David the New Goliath,” author Nicco Mele argues that (public) cynicism is not only warranted, it’s the inevitable result of social and political changes wrought by what he calls “radical connectivity.”
That is, our ability to send vast amounts of data instantly, constantly and globally—breathtaking new tools that “empower the individual at the expense of existing institutions and ancient social structures.” These include government, businesses, entertainment, military, schools, media, religion, and other big institutions designed to protect and sustain people like Whitmire.
Radical Connectivity is the term being used for the new way we act, interact, cooperate,
and communicate, using emerging technology and processes. Continue reading
Admirers of McCall’s legacy — which includes the Beach Bill, state land-use planning and the nation’s first bottle-deposit law — have launched an effort to qualify a ballot measure naming his March 22nd birthday as Tom McCall Day in Oregon.
Full Jeff Mapes article.
- These continuing trends may be the best argument yet for Open Primaries, Instant Voter Runoff, and other Democracy Reforms. As the two major parties continue to shrink, more and more voters are becoming disenfranchised by the statutes protecting the two parties.-
Complete statistics here:
Overall registrations dropped this month alone by 1.4%. Giving up all the increases, and then some, since December, 2012. The major parties took the biggest hit. And the Democrats again took a bigger loss than the Republicans, both in total voters and in percentages.
Of the 31,088 reduction in voters last month, 12,356, or 40% of those came from the Democratic roster. Republicans lost a total of 7,983 registrants, making up 26% of the total losses.
The NAV’s also lost greater than their proportional share, dropping 9,067 registrants for a loss of 1.82%.
The Independent Party lost 752 voters, for a drop of 0.78%, beating the overall loss of total registered voters, and being the only major block of voters that has increased in the last six months. Continue reading
Today, Gov. Kitzhaber unveiled his outline of a County rescue plan, allowing him to use Oregon National Guard and impose, with the consent of the County Commission, income taxes on county residents. Why he also requires all other State residents to match the local taxes, I’m not sure.
Here’s another proposal. It wouldn’t cost the rest of Oregon taxpayers anything, and would give a majority of southwestern county residents what they seem to want. The counties wouldn’t be required to agree of course, but they could be given the choice. I suspect they could legalize their new main cash crop and tax it and possibly pay for all their services.
They say that hard cases make bad laws. And this is one of those hard cases.
In 2009, Defendant King was arrested on a serious assault charge. As part of the booking process a Buccal sample was taken.A Buccal sample is basically a Q-Tip swab of his inner cheek that collects DNA. That DNA was put into the nationwide DNA database, and it matched the DNA from a 2003 rape. Defendant King was ultimately convicted of that rape. King appealed his conviction, alleging that the Buccal sample was an illegal search.
This week the US Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that it is constitutional for law enforcement agencies to take DNA samples when they arrest someone for a “serious crime”. A vigorous dissent was read from the bench by Justice Scalia. Reading a dissent from the bench is reserved for instances where a dissenting judge feels particularly strongly that the majority got it wrong. Continue reading