How refreshing to see a lefty openly admit that the political ideology she's chosen seeks to "blow all to hell" the premise that greater economic choice and individual liberty are worthy public policy goals. And on Independence Day no less! Have you passed along your resume to the Oregonian, Carla? You're clearly the sort of writer who'd fit in well there.

I thought Mr. Troll's post was interesting.....

"when I actually brought in research that blows their premise all to hell"

How about a taste of that research here on BlueOregon?

Well Carla, I re-read your post twice. finally I caught the central planning piece. However, IF centralized planning is so gosh darn wonderful, why wouldn't any good investigative journalist be willing to take on the gig - regardless of political affiliation?

If centralized planning is the universal panacea some believe it to be, then this is a great opportunity to show the facts. If, as the Cascade Policy Institute beleives, there is waste, fraud and abuse, why wouldn't someone want that pointed out as well in order to help make centralized planning either better or abolished?

I know this is completely off-topic (though not off-title), but I think "Gimme Shelter" is the greatest rock song ever written.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

I know this is completely off-topic (though not off-title), but I think "Gimme Shelter" is the greatest rock song ever written.

I don't think it's the best - there is no best... - but it's pretty damn good. Merry Clayton's(?) vocals always send chills up my spine...

It's not so hard to figure out. Rich people are more likely to be greedier than the rest of us. Greed means never having enough. Since wealth is power, and the underlying reason for having wealth is to have power, rich people are more likely to use the power of their wealth to acquire more wealth. Also, as a general rule, the wealthier one gets, the more conservative one gets.

Or, as Bruce Springsteen put it, "Poor man wants to be rich, rich man wants to be king, and the king ain't satisfied until he rules everything."

All you conservative trolls, don't start in on how the rich are so generous by funding foundations. Any idiot knows that the primary purpose of foundations is to shelter wealth from taxes in perpetuity. Many foundations spend almost as much on advertising as they do on "good works". (Kind of like the drug companies.)

Carla,

This is an interesting piece that you write about, particularly in light of the fact that you have done three things in you article.

First, you have complained about how well funded the supposed "right-wingers" are, essentially indicating that your poor "left-wingers" are sorely underfunded. Please, are you kidding me on this?

Second, you have complained about the fact that Cascade Policy Institute is trying to hire a new staff member and then stated "I'm sorely tempted to apply for this job--just to see how shocked they'd be when I actually brought in research that blows their premise all to hell." I wonder two things: First; exactly what do you have against their premise and what they advocate for? After all, what exactly is wrong with "Individual liberty, personal responsibility and economic opportunity"? Have you really ever read, studied or thought about any of Cascades policy pieces or positions? Second; have you ever actually gone into Cascade's office and had a discussion with any of the staff members? You might be quite shocked at what you find. There really are no hairy monsters, ax-murderers or corporate troll's lurking in any of the corners. No, what you will find is a very open, dynamic and diverse group of staff members who are more than willing to have an open, civil discussion with anyone on a wide variety of topics. So when you have all that data that will "blow their premise all to hell" put together, go in and have a chat with them. I am sure both sides will gain from the open dialogue.

Lastly, you complain how; "annoying to me that the right can always seem to find cash for things like this, while many great lefty writers are scrambling to scrape out a living wage." Well, unfortunately, the money does not just come falling out of the sky on demand. It takes a lot of hard work, numerous hours and a great amount of commitment to get any type of funding, for anything. Every business, for-profit or non-profit, knows this. So, if you know of some magical money trough please, let the rest of us in on it. I am sure that if the lefty writers are really that great that they should not be having that hard of a time finding work. By the way, exactly how much does a “living wage” pay?

So please, next Independence Day, take a moment and stop complaining and instead spend some time really thinking about how incredible this country you live in is and how important it is to have a limited, well run government - not an ever increasing one. Think about what it might be like for those who live in countries such as Zimbabwe, Venezuela, North Korea or Cuba who have little, to no liberty, freedom or opportunity and have governments which control virtually every aspect of their lives, leaving many nearly destitute and fearing for their lives. Perhaps see a movie, such as “The Singing Revolution”. Once you have done all that, then ask yourself, do I want to move in the direction upon which this county was founded, namely those polices promoting more liberty, more freedom, more opportunity and a limited, non-invasive government - or do I want to move in the opposite direction?

While we as a people, over our history, have not always been perfect, I think perhaps the system set up by our Founding Fathers under which we live our lives is about as close to perfect as you may ever get.

Happy Independence Day!

In response to Mike Austin: It's not so hard to figure out. Rich people are more likely to be greedier than the rest of us. Greed means never having enough. Since wealth is power, and the underlying reason for having wealth is to have power, rich people are more likely to use the power of their wealth to acquire more wealth. Also, as a general rule, the wealthier one gets, the more conservative one gets.

Good lord man, where did you ever come up with such a ridiculous notion?

Yes, it's great to have a 'limited, well run government', as long as your own neck isn't headed for the chopping block that seems necessary to achieve that kind of vaguely described government. It's something how those CPI fellows do such a bang-up job of sounding so reasonable, making their case as they do, using beautiful sounding constitutional metaphors.

Usually though, 'limited, well run government' from their mouths translates as, republicans got theirs while poor people take it in the shorts every time that form of government's economy takes a hit, so that republicans can keep theirs.

Maybe I'm just ill informed....are right wings and republicans different? Are there poor people that believe in the right wing/republican way? Maybe the CPI folks might drop by the soup line at the Blanchet House and find an aspiring investigative journalist to fulfill their needs. Propaganda journalist might be a more accurate description of what the job is likely to be.

The next person who talks about individual liberty and personal responsibility, I'd like to hear about the challenging jobs you have had. Have you ever had a job which paid less than $10 per hour? Have you ever had a medical or dental situation where you weighed cost vs. benefit because without insurance it might be tough to pay the bill? Have you ever worked in an "unsung" occupation which is physically and/or emotionally challenging: construction or other skilled trades, lower level medical work like CNA, child care (responsible for a group of children under the age of 5, or for school age children with an age range of grades K-5), retail or other sales position--esp. the kind which requires standing for an entire shift?

As someone who has worked in at least 2 of those occupations, been subjected to the "don't come in tomorrow" corporate restructuring, worked temp jobs, I can tell you there are lots of people (esp. in retail) with the attitude "those people who preach should work my job for a week and see if their attitude is still so high and mighty".

To Patrick:

Good lord man, where did you ever come up with such a ridiculous notion?

From observing damn near every conservative I've ever known in my life. "Greed is good" is the mantra for conservatives and they've been quite open about it for several decades now. Why do you think conservatives support all those "think-tanks"? To advance their bloody agenda, of course! What planet are you living on?

L.T. I can answer yes to all of your questions and happen to be someone who strongly believes in individual liberty and personal responsibilty.

Now how would we describe the success of central planning in Oregon? What criteria are we going to use?
Everyone has a house they can afford?

BTW in the early 1900s housing consumed about 25% of the family budget. Today it is around 35% and highest on the two coast. Let's please identify what success means.

TLG

Libertarian, what do you mean by "central planning"? That Measure 49 was a disaster because we should all be thrilled if a commercial enterprise is built next to our house?

You did not answer the question about people in unsung occupations knowing more about personal responsibility than people in think tanks. Price of housing is not an answer to my question--you want an ideological debate.

Why would someone who works in retail, or child care, or some other such occupation vote Libertarian--because of the price of housing? Or is that too real-world for you?

Carla, don't kid yourself. Like Kari and the rest of the BO headliners, you're not smart enough, nor principled enough to be a first-rate investigative journalist. Anytime I read BO I always hope and pray that average folks who happen by will have the good sense to recognize that BO doesn't even come close to representing genuine progressive Democratic Party values. Readers should remember that BO is a side project of a propaganda firm that is no more honorable, nor anymore a source of high quality commentary, than the propaganda firms on the right.

Commenter What a hoot, speaking of those that are smart enough, principled enough to be a first-rate investigative journalist, what about you? Are you smart enough to be a first-rate investigative journalist, or even the kind of 'investigative journalist' brainwasher propagandist CPI is looking for?

Gee, I never really thought of BO as necessarily being a source of high quality commentary, not that some of that doesn't seem to appear here occasionally. I just thought it was a kind of forum where almost anyone, including marginally articulate and marginally knowledgeable people like myself can say something stinks if they sincerely think it does. Isn't such a service to the community at least somewhat honorable and at least a little better than propaganda?

Not to worry about the CPI's search for an 'investigative journalist'. I'm sure they'll be able to find someone willing to discover the great 'central planning' boondoggle that's slowing down the dream of every American having a personal car and their own freeway to drive it on, not to mention hiding the locations of crude oil deposits that will last forever.

Speaking of "central planning", I'd check out California ballot measures 98 and 99. Remember that US Supreme Court decision that it is OK for the government to take your house if they want the property for a shopping center or some other commercial development? Measures 98 and 99 are a reaction to that.

Just who in that story is involved in "central planning"--or is a US Supreme Court decision different?

Then again to my original question, magnified by Chris Lowe, What exactly would "centralized planning as defined by the CPI look like? To my understanding, the only thing that might pass as such would be the land use laws and regulations out of Salem. But perhaps that doesn't even pass muster.

Again, what better way to expose the myth postulated by CPI than take on the gig? Either "centralized planning" is there and rampant, or it is not. If it is, AND there are fraud, waste and abuse that can be rectified (not unlike the prison food purchasing scandal) then why not?

I hit enter too soon. Also, if there are these problems as supposed by the CPI, are they endemic to the supposed centralized planning system or, rather are they individual acts of capriciousness?

Also, while a great song with wonderful vocals, there are plenty of other great songs from that era. Warren Zevon's, "The Envoy" comes to mind.

Well ws, I think your view that "I just thought it was a kind of forum where almost anyone, including marginally articulate and marginally knowledgeable people like myself can say something stinks if they sincerely think it does." is one I think should be the case. And it would be if the BO headliners actually confined themselves to that kind of idle chatter.

However, you must have missed that in fact that most of the BO posts that start threads claim to be "blue" but are in fact advocacy pieces for candidates and positions that do a disservice to progressives and the public because they misrepresent progressive Democratic Party values as just a muddled, inconsistent mess of whatever that relatively comfortable, self-indulgent faction of folks of which they are examples think they should be on any particular day.

Beyond that if all you want to do is say you think "something stinks", why should anyone care if you're just in it for the "look at me" ego strokes rather than credibly defending why you think it stinks? Finally, ws, get one thing straight - I wasn't the one using the hook in a typical BO thread-starter.

(LT)"Libertarian, what do you mean by 'central planning'?"

I didn't write the original piece and I don't know what was meant. However, I would guess it has to do with the land use laws of the state.

(LT)"That Measure 49 was a disaster because we should all be thrilled if a commercial enterprise is built next to our house?"

Well LT it all depends. Some place have exactley that and it works fine. Saves traveling all the way across town sometime. Lots of other benefits as well

(LT)"You did not answer the question about people in unsung occupations knowing more about personal responsibility than people in think tanks."

Pardon me, but I don't see where you asked that question.

(LT)"Price of housing is not an answer to my question--you want an ideological debate."

Housing prices could be an indicator of the success, or failure of the state land use laws.

(LT)Why would someone who works in retail, or child care, or some other such occupation vote Libertarian--because of the price of housing? Or is that too real-world for you?"

Well LT if government controls run up the price of housing then that might be a reason. That's real world to me. If you like paying more for housing because of government regulations that's fine with me. Just don't make others do so.

"Of course they're not looking for an investigative journalist. They're looking for a writer who'll dig up stuff that will back up their premise."

So what? I am sure a think-tank like OCPP would do the same thing. Present one side of the story and conveniently ignore some of the facts.

With all of these groups, it's buyer beware.

The ONLY factor in the price of housing is whether there is zoning? "That's real world to me. If you like paying more for housing because of government regulations that's fine with me. Just don't make others do so."

I have lived where the city council took action before anyone in the city limits cut down a tree (because that was what the voters wanted in that small town--trees were much of what made it a unique small town with tourism a major industry), places with strict zoning, places with little or no zoning.

I am a supporter of Hector Macpherson's original SB 100, a proud supporter of Measure 49, an opponent of groups like OIA. If that makes me an advocate of "centralized planning" so be it. But other than Libertarians, how many people would label me that way?

I'm lost here. Is Carla's premise that all non-prof foundations and institutes are merely tax shelters for the obsenely wealthy with nefarious motives? Is that what Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet are doing? Granted I'd rather see more of their 'good works' being performed here on U.S. soil....but apparently they see a bigger picture than even I view. Should we be worried that they are maneuvering to rule the world? I've had dealings as a vendor with various government entities....I know there is waste and abuse, but I never witnessed fraud.

I guess if any particular state agency's laundry is clean, they have no need to worry about an investigation. At least that's the line of thought that is behind the stripping of citizens' Constitutional rights....why should that not apply to civil servants? Maybe Sympathy for the Devil is a more appropriate Stones reference....if we can figure out who the Devil is.

And to Kurt Chapman re Land Use Planning: No one seems to be paying a lot of attention to this group but we have the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning so hard at work on our behalf. The just released some "Essential Reading", if you've got a week or so to dig through it for the meat. I guessing that although they've got another 18 mo. out of a three year program to finalize their recommendations, Oregon citizens will be surprised by this in 2009. I just wonder, who are the "stakeholders" they address in their June presentation?

http://oregonbiglook.org/documents

The entire website is worth a look.

It is really interesting how unperceived class struggle is in the US. It is not very difficult to understand how certain policies support the interests of rich folks: less progressive income tax brackets, lower inheritance taxes, low rates on capital gains tax, limits on consumer damage suits, privatization of social security, corporate welfare, reduced social spending, and limits on labor organizing all serve the interests of wealthy people who are willing to spend money to further their interests by supporting such policies. It is simple. It is documentable. It is why organizations like Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute and others are so influential. Comparatively, left leaning institutions are quite thinly funded. The right likes to swipe at liberal Hollywood stars, but they are relatively few and not nearly as wealthy as the big boys who fund the right and see it as a financial investment aimed at turning a profit in the form of lower taxes, less regulation of their businesses, etc.

JK: Hi, Carla! Just what do you dislike about:

1. individual liberty?
2. economic opportunity?
3. and personal responsibility?

Does this mean you want to continue the failed war on drugs?

Why do you appear to object to exposing:

1. government waste?
2. fraud?
3. abuse?

Do you want to cover up any “ failures of central planning in Oregon” if they exist?

Thanks JK

"Unless of course "so what" is your goal in an effort to keep the rightwing propaganda in the domain while keeping the left out. Point taken, under those circumstances."

Uh, re-read it. I don;t believe I said that. I am saying any thing put out as a "fact" by a group with an agenda, either right- or left-, needs to be look at with jaundiced eyes and consideration of the source.

The only counter to disinformation from non-disionterested sources is going ot be more disinformation. I teally don't think right- or left- sources present info with out a bias.

"Can you name any source of information that can't be demonstrated by someone to have a bias?"

Sure, gravity accelerates mass at 32ft/sec**2 and I paid $xxxxx in Orego income tax while my friend in Washington paid $0 in state income tax in 2007.

"The counter to disinformation is correct information--sourced out appropriately."

Uh, OK, I am stupid what does that statement mean - Especially the term "appropriately"?

Actually Steve, an object falls due to the force of gravity at the speed of 9.8 meters/sec squared; a far more accurate representation of the facts.

:-)

Actually Steve, an object falls due to the force of gravity at the speed of 9.8 meters/sec squared; a far more accurate representation of the facts.

Last time I checked 9.8m = 32ft approximately.

"using sources/research that employ the widely accepted scientific methodology"

Since when has a political-based dialogue used a widely-accepted methodology? Again, we go back to the source of the "facts"

Chris Lowe: Central planning is a term which means something. We don't have it in Oregon. JK: We do for land use. By state dictate all land is zoned for certain uses. That makes it hard to accommodate changes such as 1. the local farmers, in their farm stores, that cannot bring in additional merchandise to supplement that which they grow. 2. our industrial land in Portland is all used up - we have no place to locate big employers. 3. The shortage of buildable land has driven up home prices. (With buildable land close to 60,000 per acre, it is hard to build a home that sells for $150k). As usual the low income gets screwed by the progressives.

Thanks JK

Billy? What's that? Why is JK now signing himself as 'Billy'? Whatever.

The kind of 'central planning' billy/JK mentions Oregon having is nothing like the kind of central planning right wing obsessive-compulsives try to breed paranoia over, the kind of central planning Chris Lowe mentions in his 12:43am post.

In terms of planning, what Oregon and western society has, is a remedial form of management employed to counter ill effects that can occur in a societal environment upholding freedom as one of its highest priorities.

Billy? What's that? Why is JK now signing himself as 'Billy'? Whatever.

I quote from the bottom of this page: Our blog host, TypePad, is experiencing trouble with an overactive spam filter.

Thanks JK

<hr/>