Sheketoff Profile in the O
Jeff Alworth
Look who ended up on the front page of this morning's Oregonian: Chuck Sheketoff. The profile, by Oregonian political reporter Jeff Mapes, is rich with info. It details Chuck's personal background and his long battle for economic justice at the Oregon Center for Public Policy. And mostly, it seems timed to highlight his (and OCPP's) crusade to pass Measures 66 and 67--a lot of which he's been writing about here at BlueOregon.
Critics say Sheketoff isn't sensitive to the real concerns businesses face. The car dealer -- who wanted to stay out of the limelight after tangling with Sheketoff -- noted that the charitable donation is an important part of the company's marketing strategy, not just an easily jettisoned expense.
But even with business and Republican legislators opposed, Sheketoff helped persuade Democratic legislative leaders to focus their tax hikes -- $733 million worth -- on businesses and upper-income taxpayers.
If voters buy the taxes at the Jan. 26 special election, it will be a huge victory for Sheketoff and his Silverton-based nonprofit, which has churned out numerous reports, studies and columns over the past decade complaining that Oregon tax policy benefits the well-heeled at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.
For those of you who have been enjoying Chuck's posts here for years, I encourage you to go have a look at the whole piece. Good stuff.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Nov 30, '09
I don't always agree Chuck's often selective presentation/interpretation of the 'facts that matter (most to him)' and resulting conclusions here but enjoyed reading the profile in The Oregonian - helps to put a human face on his perspectives. While I doubt I'll now be any less likely to (respectfully) disagree - sounds like Chuck should be able to understand how another person can often seem to have a contrary view.
So Chuck, from one contrarian to another - I salute you!...
Nov 30, '09
It's always nice seeing a child of privilege giving back to the less fortunate, even if I disagree with the methods.
Nov 30, '09
I have a problem with finding out that he has such a vested interest, after earlier posts were in the style of "I happpened to be thinking"...
I like his positions. But that's what you've thrown up as an issue, here. I took that as his position because of the standard little "of course Chuck speaks only for himself..."
Add to that, direct criticism, from the likes of myself, about "why so cheerleader and not a little more objective", which could have succinctly been answered, "because I am", but, instead were completely ignored, as though a troll were harassing him.
Would you have posted this, if the O hadn't done a story? Is this a preemptive strike against blowback? Sometimes I think I'm the only progressive that, given a little power, wouldn't automatically start acting like Fidel bleeding Castro. There. You were pretty pissy in our last exchange, so I figured I'd give you something legitimate to be pissy about, this time. And here I was just counting down the days to the "Airing of Grievances".
(Full disclosure: I don't contribute to non-profits with full-time, paid, staff positions).
1:12 p.m.
Nov 30, '09
Z, I'm not sure I follow your objections, but to this:
Would you have posted this, if the O hadn't done a story? Is this a preemptive strike against blowback?
No and no. Safe to say that whenever a regular contributor makes the front page of the paper, I (or someone else) will consider it post-worthy. I guess I don't see what the issue is with Chuck and his association with OCPP. This isn't like Kari's relationship to clients. Chuck founded and directs the OCPP, so of course their positions are congruent. I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise.
As for the pissiness, sorry. I think it may be trying to comment on a cell phone. I cut my comments down to very terse stuff, and people are interpreting it as anger. I'll try to comment more on the computer, where I'll be less tech-inhibited.
Nov 30, '09
Thus spoke Zarathustra . . .
. . . And no one understood what the hell he was saying.
Nov 30, '09
I guess I can understand Maves need to inform us that Chuck is 5' 7" and bearded, but I am wholly at a loss to understand the function of this sentence: "He grew up in a Jewish home where his parents schooled him on the value of charity." I don't recall Maves or other Oregonian writers calling out their subjects race/religion when discussing economic or political issues. Does anyone know, from an O article, Karen Minnis' or Bill Sizemore's religion? How would the story have been different if Maves had said, "He grew up in a home where his parents schooled him on the value of charity". Or even, "He grew up in a religious home where his parents schooled him on the value of charity". Maybe I'm just reading too much into this reference. To me it's like watching a movie and noticing that a director has inserted a superfluous feature, like an extra pair of gloves, to draw your attention. What is with that designation in that sentence?
Nov 30, '09
Hooray for Chuck S. You sir are a genuine working class hero. Thanks for all you do.
Nov 30, '09
Jimbo, Perhaps it's Mapes' jadded-reporter shorthand that has you baffled.
The disclosure that Chuck is bearded and Jewish means that in fact he's a Communist who hates America.
Mapes' portrayal of Chuck as somewhat short and "schooled on value of charity" actually means that Chuck's quixotic zeal for economic justice is just an act to pick up women -- ala gadfly Michael Moore who's bearded and Roman Catholic.
Does that help?
1:39 a.m.
Dec 1, '09
I have a problem with finding out that he has such a vested interest, after earlier posts were in the style of "I happpened to be thinking"...
Huh? Just about every one of Chuck's posts closes with his organization's logo and a note about what they do.
Nonsense.
Dec 1, '09
No harm, no foul, Jeff. That's the ticket. That's why I'm so long winded. Don't want to be misunderstood. Speaking of which...
Posted by: Lucas | Nov 30, 2009 1:48:45 PM
Thus spoke Zarathustra . . .
. . . And no one understood what the hell he was saying.
Well, duh, why do you think I use that? Pardon me if you're a Zoroastrian, but I think that's pretty much the condition in which Nietzsche frames Zarathustra, no? If you ARE a Zoroastrian, I mean no disrespect. Zarathustra never understands what people are reacting to because it's never about what he was saying. Might think about adding something that's actually about the topic... Untergang indeed. Where's my unterganga?
Kari, I was just wrong. I can understand how that threw you a curve (chortle). I was sure I saw otherwise, but, checking all 230 of his posts, he's never said that. Makes for interesting rereading, btw. Like I said, I like his positions, and if one considers motivation, we're on the same page. Loved looking at his first one again.
Guess I should have simply said, "good on ya, mate"!
<hr/>