Blue Oregon Blogs

Today’s revenue forecast shows that Oregon is in a revenue crisis, not a spending crisis. The Governor and legislators should address it with revenue solutions.

The forecast found that Oregon has $261 million less in the current biennium than the 2007 legislature thought would be available to spend. In the upcoming 2009-11 biennium, there will be $1 billion less than the 2007 legislature thought would be available.

Oregon is now $142 million in the red for this budget period, and based on data from the Budget and Management Division, next biennium Oregon will be short $1.1 billion in meeting the essential budget level.

Oregon should turn first to its reserves, but these reserves will not be adequate. The forecast indicated that reserves will total $734 million at the end of the current budget period in June 2009. Even if legislators could access all of the reserve funds — which they are restricted from doing — the state would still be far from having enough money to provide the services Oregonians demand and need.

The most effective policy for raising revenue in this recessionary context is get revenue from those with the greatest ability to pay — both wealthy individuals and large, profitable corporations. That’s where the money is.

A tax increase on very wealthy individuals, who are best able to ride out the economic storm, would tap money that would more likely be saved rather than spent.

The current budgetary predicament reveals the foolishness in letting Oregon’s kicker law send $1 billion back to taxpayers. A year ago, Oregon’s kicker sent $414 million of the billion dollars to the richest 5 percent of Oregon households — those with incomes of at least $181,000. Now that a recession has arrived, Oregon needs that kicker money back. A targeted tax increase can do that.

Another good option is to raise revenue from those profitable, large corporations, most of which are located out of state, who today escape paying their fair share of Oregon’s taxes. Earlier this year the Governor and the legislature let a foolish federal corporate tax cut masquerading as a stimulus measure go into effect. That measure cost Oregon $85 million this budget cycle.

Profitable corporations operating in Oregon now pay less than half of what they paid 30 years ago in corporate income taxes as a share of the economy. Oregon should put the income back in the corporate income tax on profits to get us out of this revenue mess.

It is important to note that yesterday the Oregon Department of Human Services released data (PDF) showing that more Oregonians are turning to state government for help as the economy has suffered. Requests for food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families with children under age 18 and Medicaid are up. Oregon needs revenues to help meet that those needs.

To avoid aggravating the recession, it’s important to maintain state spending on these and other key public services by raising revenues from those who can best afford to pay.

It's appropriate that today's forecast was presented to the House and Senate revenue committees, not the Joint Ways and Means Committee. The revenue committees write our tax laws and can explore smart revenue solutions to our revenue problem.

The suggestion of a tax increase undoubtedly will elicit howls from those who fail to acknowledge the important role that government plays in the economy. They will claim, contrary to reality, that a tax will "pull money out of the economy."

But the current economic crisis demands smart, practical solutions, not ideological sound bites. Slashing public sector spending would deal a serious body blow to the best economic actor still standing.

At 3:00 PM this afternoon the summary report of the general election in Jackson County delivered some exciting news to the hard working Democrats in Jackson County. Obama won by 47 votes!

Barack Obama 49,090 or 48.58%
John McCain 49,043 or 48.53%

Total voter turnout in Jackson County 85.17%

For comparison sake -- Bush won Jackson County by more than 8,000 votes in 2004.

Change all the maps on LiveOregon. Jackson County is BLUE!

Good work all and thank you!

I'll post all of this because it's short:

I'm also still wondering when the moonbats are going to start apologizing for swallowing, hook, line and sinker, the whole "trooper-gate" story? Of course they won't because the moonbats are motivated by hate and hate does not allow room for apologies. Let's just remind the moonbats that she was CLEARED of any wrong doing TWICE.

She has some work to do to make the top of the ticket. But 4 years is a REAL long time in politics. And I remember hearing Barack Obama speak at the Democratic convention when he was still a state senator and thinking...wow...this guy sound GOOD.

I have that same feeling about GOVERNOR Sarah Palin and she is wayyy better looking.

Of course look for the hate filled left to spend the next 4 years trying to mock her.

And under a picture of Gov Palin with her hair down (download the picture: the jpg is called "hairdown") is this hilarious quote:

The woman who called Obama a friend of terrorists, questioned the "American-ness" of over half the nation, and is credited with being a major reason for McCain's defeat is saying the Republicans won't be negative. Michelle Bachmann didn't get that message, going on Hannity to renew her attacks on Obama (and probably causing more than a few Minnesotans to wonder why the hell they believed she hadn't gone insane before they voted for her again). The GOP has nothing but negativity; hell, that's all they had when they were the majority party. They couldn't defeat Clinton on the issues, so they took him down on other things. They won't beat Obama on the issues, either, and he'll not give them the material they'd need to drag him through the gutter.

But they'll try.

Contrary to what Ted asserts, few of us will be giving Palin any thought, much less wasting energy mocking her. She represents a small and shrinking portion of a party that itself is growing obsolescent. By the time the 2011 campaign gets here, she may have a base of her own in the GOP, but to think she can pull an Obama? Did he crash and burn in 2004? I'm trying to remember if he came to public prominence by attacking people and destroying a presidential campaign.

Oh no, that's right. He spoke profoundly of a united country and of the shared aspirations of all Americans.

And he didn't need people to promote his candidacy because he was hot.

As the incoming Senate Democratic caucus gathered in Washington DC today, one of the first orders of business was the question of whether and how to punish Senator Joe Lieberman for his support of John McCain's presidential campaign and several incumbent GOP Senators.

First, the outcome: The caucus voted 42-13 to allow Lieberman to keep the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, while delivering a "mild rebuke" (NYT) by removing him from the Environment and Public Works Committee (and thus taking away a subcommittee chairmanship.)

Second, the confusion: Early in the day, based on an anonymous source, the Associated Press reported that Senator-elect Jeff Merkley had spoken out against Joe Lieberman. Later, they issued a correction - which was itself incorrect - which only added to the confusion. (With some more confusion added to the pile by Politico, which used an anonymous source to claim that Merkley spoke out in support of Lieberman.)

Third, the truth: The Senate Democrats have pledged to keep their individual votes secret - so that the secret ballot process will be respected. And that's a pledge that Merkley is honoring. Here's what Jeff Merkley had to say, in public and on the record. Decide for yourself.

From the O:

... Merkley said he told his colleagues of how hard he worked in 2000 for the Gore/Lieberman ticket and how Lieberman's behavior this year left some rank and file Demcrats feeling betrayed.

"I expressed these sentiments because I felt that citizens who work in a grass-roots capacity should share their voice and my voice on this," he said.

Merkley stopped just short of saying Lieberman should be stripped of his committee chairmanship. But he suggested that chairmen are party of a party's leadership and should be held to higher standards.

"Folks who are priviledged to serve as a chair are part of the leadership of this team and much is expected of them," he said.

From PolitickerOR:

From a later, entirely different AP story:

"Serving as a committee chairman is a privilege, not an entitlement and I expressed those views during today's meeting," Merkley said. "Beyond that, I hope we can move forward as a caucus to do the work we were elected to do."

From the Huffington Post:

Sources familiar with today's meeting say that Merkley was one of the few Senators to speak out critically about Lieberman's campaign antics. Both Senators from Vermont -- Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders -- also expressed criticism of the Connecticut independent.

And some analysis, from OpenLeft's Matt Stoller:

Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, and Patrick Leahy is a long-standing lion of the Senate. Jeff Merkley is a newly elected Senator, and his very first action is standing up for progressive principles, while trying to maintain a pledge of secrecy he made to the caucus.

I'm very proud of Jeff Merkley today. He did the right thing by speaking out, and while I don't know all the details of what happened, it's important to recognize it when someone tries to open up a legislative body as hidden as the Senate to the public. Was this perfect? No. But it is very very hard as a freshman with almost no standing in the Senate to stand up to both a President-elect and a Senate Democratic caucus whose traditional posture is a supine allegiance to the executive branch the conservative DC chattering class. Merkley did it anyway.

This is what Better Democrats do.

Because it was a secret ballot in the Democratic Caucus of the United State Senate today we may never know which 13 Dems voted against allowing Senator Joe Lieberman (I. Conn.) to hold onto a couple of key chairmanships in the next Senate session. The vote behind closed doors to let Senator Lieberman off easy was 42-13.

Do you think we can assume that Senator-elect Jeff Merkley was in a forgiving mood?

From The Huffington Post:

"He did speak at the meeting," said Julie Edwards, Merkley's communications director. "He is someone who cheered for Joe Lieberman in 2000 and Lieberman's words and actions this year were profoundly hurtful to him... The committee chairmanship is a privilege and not a entitlement and Senator-elect Merkley believes that being a member of the leadership comes with certain responsibilities. But at this point he does look forward to putting this behind us."

The one Senator who we know voted to punish Lieberman for his full-throated support of John McCain was Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. That's because he said so afterwards. Who were the other 12?

Here are a couple of points to ponder:

It was the next President who urged his former Senate colleagues not to banish Lieberman. Is this the way they would have handled such a blatant betrayal in Chicago? Doubtful. But Obama's playing softball, not hardball these days.

Can we assume from the lack of consequences for Lieberman that those 43 Democratic Senators never really considered his support of McCain as consequential? No harm, no foul?

Is there an end game here that we can only guess at? I think the next President may want to keep his friends close....but his enemies closer.

What does Lieberman now owe the next President? His gratitude to Obama for calling off the dogs could become obvious soon. And if Obama had not publicly interceded, if he had left Lieberman "twisting in the wind", how might that have hurt the delicate balance in the Senate?

Does the new Administration and the Democratic caucus need Lieberman more than he needs them?

Would John McCain have been this magnanimous in victory had there been a Republican Senator (Chuck Hagel, let's say) who had spoken at the Democratic convention and called him erratic and unfit to serve?

I suspect Lieberman's apostasy will soon be forgotten. Sure, Senator-elect Merkley was "hurt" by what Lieberman did. He'll get over it. And as the war winds down most people will forget why Lieberman bolted.

And by this time next year President Obama will look pretty good for having looked the other way.

I got an email this morning from Liz Baxter of the Archimedes Movement encouraging members to spread the word.  For those unfamiliar with the Archimedes Movement, this is the grassroots organization spearheaded by ex-governor Dr. John Kitzhaber to address the growing health care crisis.

I look back on how Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Darlene Hooley and other Democratic leaders fought against the Republican sound machine in order to preserve Social Security.  Rep. Earl Blumenauer followed up with a personalized effort to raise awareness about the Iraq war.  Each of these three cases have something in common.  They have made use of the "house party" model of discussion and grassroots organization.

Is this model strong enough to cause significant progress?  It raises a fair amount of money and some awareness.  This model has potential, but it lacks evolutionary continuity.  What do I mean?  For starters, we are engaged in these discussions largely because Republicans have presented the issue.  (1) We need a system that allows progressives to initiate the conversation.  (2) We need to be able to build upon the conversation without losing important ideas.  (3) We need a way to gather support in the community and bring increasing numbers of people into the conversation.  (4) Finally, we need a mechanism to structure the ideas into agreed-upon policy and ship it off to policy makers for incorporation.

In terms of #1, blogs are a good way to initiate the conversation.  With #2, however, blogs break down because ideas just funnel through each week and don't get captured and highlighted when really, really good.  The email I got this morning was an effort to address #3.  Onward Oregon has a pretty good website to address #4 above.  They also have a "dialog" section to develop conversations.

Oregon is an awesome state and it has awesome potential.  But the progressive community seems scattered and unstructured.  I don't believe we have to continue as such.  We don't have to be tied at the hip, but it would be nice to have higher levels of cohesion.

It seems that a web format that allows people to structure ideas would help the progressive community.  In my mind, I see something like Wikipedia.  With Wikipedia, anyone can start a topic and then others can expand upon it.  If there are errors, then those get highlighted.  On the political front, this might not be so easy.  Some sort of voting mechanism can ensure new ideas affect the main shell only when they gain support among enough people.  In reality, developing a conversation about how to provide digital solutions to the grassroots community is an example of why we need this type of digital solution.  Right?

As a digital solution adds more capability in terms of #1-4 above, it's potential to make an impact will  increase quadratically.  I could see the Archimedes Movement benefitting from more web tools. Ultimately, digital solutions, good discussions and the willingness to work together will evolve the grassroots community.  Unless people have better ideas . . .    

The Associated Press is reporting that Democrat Mark Begich has defeated Ted Stevens for the U.S. Senate:

Stevens' ouster on his 85th birthday marks an abrupt realignment in Alaska politics and will alter the power structure in the Senate, where he has served since the days of the Johnson administration while holding seats on some of the most influential committees in Congress.

The crotchety octogenarian built like a birch sapling likes to encourage comparisons with the Incredible Hulk, but he occupies an outsized place in Alaska history. His involvement in politics dates to the days before Alaska statehood, and he is esteemed for his ability to secure billions of dollars in federal aid for transportation and military projects. The Anchorage airport bears his name; in Alaska, it's simply "Uncle Ted."

Tuesday's tally of just over 24,000 absentee and other ballots gave Begich 146,286, or 47.56 percent, to 143,912, or 46.76 percent, for Stevens.

A recount is possible.

"He symbolizes Alaska's legitimacy, that Alaska is a player on the national stage as much as anybody else," University of Alaska Anchorage history professor Steve Haycox said.

Stevens' loss was another slap for Republicans in a year that has seen the party lose control of the White House, as well as seats in the House and Senate. It also moves Democrats one step closer to the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters in the Senate. Democrats now hold 58 seats, when two independents who align with Democrats are included, with undecided races in Minnesota and Georgia where two Republicans are trying to hang onto their seats.

Things brings the number of Senate seats picked up by Democrats to 7.

Discuss.

The bailout talk is front and center this week but I haven't seen much of anything about attaching useful taxpayer demands beyond the old and simplistic CAFE argument that is being recycled once again by hopeful Paleo-Libs who are apparently ready to get rolled once again for the umpteenth time by Dr. Detroit. Every time we try to impose anything on 'em, they pitch a fit and in the process offer up gems like the Vega, Pinto, or the repurposed V-8 gas to diesel conversion that GM offered in the 80s-- An engine so bad that few cars or trucks ever got beyond 60,000 miles before the heads blew right off the engines. Another regular stratagem employed is to offer a car so ugly, poorly built and underpowered that it would allow them to go back to gummint and piously protest "See? People just don't want these vehicles, Yada Yada." Meanwhile the Asians and Europeans were eating their collective Detroit lunches on tech, tolerance, fit and finish, and overall dependability.

There are all kinds of consumers in the auto world. Contractors that actually need pickups to haul stuff for their work join The Fearful and insecure who opt for the Giant SUV for the perception of safety and the Command Position seating. The Aging Hippies that used to drive VWs go with the Subaru wagon and the younger Hipsters might favor the Box-on-Wheels statement of the Element. The Arrested Adolescents (My Tribe) go for the acceleration. Und so Weiter........

Anyhow, Toyota already has the prototype of what GM should become, with a few mods. Ifn they want my money they should be required to offer a Plug in Hybrid for every single platform that they market. This tech is mature and is already being offered on class six and class seven delivery trucks by Kenworth using diesel engines over Lithium Ion batteries. We should also demand a minimum acceleration for passenger vehicles of 0-60 in not more than 11 seconds, which I think is the slowest safe speed for merging from off ramps, and passing Bert and Irma as they travel up the hill in their monster RV with the Cadillac Cimmaron in tow on Hwy 26 at 25  m.p.h.

Eventually, every single vehicle that sports an internal combustion engine and a set of brakes should be equipped with this tech, and as storage systems continue to evolve, we should be looking toward practical all electric vehicles that have the requisite range, speed, and acceleration to run on the existing road system.                                                       

Note #1: Nickle Metal Hydride batteries come standard in most current Hybrids, but disposal is a bitch. Lithium Ion batteries are more efficient and mostly harmless at the End if Life, but are currently pretty expensive to manufacture, so maybe a couple of billion toward development for these guys too.

Note #2: A really smart friend in the energy biz points out that batteries are replaced in Hybrids when they drop to 70% to 80% efficiency but are still potentially useful. All of these recycled batteries could be repurposed to store wind and solar energy; currently a major drawback to alternative energy production anywhere that hydro is not readily available as a storage device.   

We learned yesterday that Oregon's unemployment rate spiked in October to 7.3%. 

Oregon's total nonfarm payroll employment dropped from 1,725,000 in September to 1,710,900 in October, seasonally adjusted. The largest monthly drop since February 1981 represented 0.8 percent of Oregon's employment, compared with 1.4 percent in 1981 when the work force was smaller.

Since October 2007, the number of unemployed people in Oregon has jumped by 40,458 to 134,096. The state's unemployment rate has risen by 1.9 percentage points this year.

You know what happens when unemployment rises, right?  Income tax revenues decrease.  This is one of those times when, you know, it might be great to have a little cash socked away.  (Actually, we do have a little...very little). As it happens, it was almost exactly one year ago that Oregonians received a check from the state kicking back 1.1 billion dollars. Our budget is about to see a massive hole blown through it, one that wouldn't be nearly so big if we hadn't siphoned off that billion dollars a year ago.  In January, Treasurer Randall Edwards wrote an editorial presciently making this point ("And last month, just before Christmas, we sent out a record $1.1 billion kicker even as signs of a recession were on the horizon."). 

A couple days ago, Kari asked how we might build a "bigger, stronger, smarter, and more effective progressive movement" in Oregon.  I would like to suggest that no progressive legislation that depends on funding--none--can come out of Salem until we get rid of or radically reform the kicker (non-budgetary issues like repealing Measure 36 are another matter). 

Even if we do that, our budget depends on two revenue streams--income and property taxes--and one of these is highly volatile.  The combination of an unreliable funding structure and the sheer craziness of the kicker create a system that will continue to oscillate between times of boom and bust.  If we don't tame this beast, forget about progressive legislation.  The first priority of everyone serious about progressive change in Oregon should be to press our legislature to finally roll up their collective sleeves and tackle this problem.

Editor's note: The following comment was posted by "Admiral Naismith" on another thread. Rather than leave it buried, we bring it to your attention here. The map that follows is NOT a perfect population-adjusted map, but merely an illustration of Naismith's comment for ease-of-discussion.

If the existing 2nd District is too Republican to win, then we should take a good look at the redistricting map and make it more competitive.

Step 1. Make a whole new District 2 centered on the Oregon coast, and shaped like a bracket, encompassing the counties of Clatsop, Columbia, Tillamook, Lincoln, Coos, Curry, Josephine and Jackson. Probably Yamhill and Polk as well, and just enough of coastal Lane and Douglas to connect it. The coast and Ashland lean blue. If it turns out we need more blue voters, some of the Portland metro area can be added or Yamhill county taken out.

Step 2. Start the new 3rd district way out in Wallowa county at the Northeastern corner, and add all the small counties along the Washington border, heading into East Multnomah and Portland. Geographically, this will absorb Pendleton, and the Columbia gorge, which is a swing area anyhow. The 3rd will still be the bluest district around, but it will take away some Republicans.

Step 3. Redraw the 1st district so that it still has West Portland (or all of it not included in the new 2nd) and all of Washington county. Then dribble it down I-5 to take in as many purple-to-red suburbs from Clackamas/Marion as we can afford. If we have to, we can go to east Portland, but I don’t think we will. Washington county is emerging as a blue bastion in its own right.

Step 4. Redraw the 4th District to spread east from Douglas county to Klamath Falls and all of the sprawling, barely populated counties in the east, but leaving Deschutes and Jefferson counties alone. That’s a lot of territory, but very few people. To compensate for the new Republicans, keep Eugene and add all of Benton County (Corvallis)

Step 5. The new 5th is what’s left over, which is Bend and a big swath of unpopulated mountain range; the Salem area, most of Clackamas County (also bluing, but behind Washington County), and the part of South Central Portland that was taken out of the 3rd to make room for the Eastern counties.

You have now split up the 2nd district into four parts and diluted the Republican part of the state accordingly. The current incumbent is from Hood River, which would be in the new 3rd. All five districts now have a Democratic lean, but none are absolutely safe should a Republican wave year happen. I say it’s worth it to have the default be five Democratic districts, instead of four mostly safe seats and one where we can barely compete at all.

Editor's note: And a follow-up from Admiral Naismith:

If we get a 6th district, I'd consider an all-coast new district. Maybe. We'd have to think about whether it would be possible, by carving up logger country and the big unpopulated east, to get six Democratic districts, or whether it would be better to make one hideously right-wing district and five blue ones. Ashland, Bend and the Gorge are either keystones of a new blue inland district, or they're wasted on a district that will never be won. Let's discuss which it is.

Update: Admiral Naismith describes both his five-district concept and a six-district concept in greater detail. On the jump...

I wish I could just draw the map...but I'll just describe it more succinctly instead of starting by drawing the borders:

District 1: West Multnomah, Washington, west Clackamas, north Marion; dribbling down I-5 toward Salem like HD25. Still Wu's. (Base: Portland, Outer Salem)

District 2 (NEW): Clatsop, Columbia, Tillamook, Lincoln, Polk, Yamhill, coastal Lane and Douglas, Coos, Curry, Josephine, Jackson. Should be 52% Dem or so. Add voters from west Douglas to make it more red, or from west Multnomah to make it more blue. (Base: Jackson County, North Bend, outer Portland metro)

District 3: Wallowa, Umatilla, Union, morrow, Gilliam, Sherman, Wasco, Hood River, East Multnomah. (Base: Portland, Pendleton)

District 4: Benton, non-coastal Lane and Douglas, Klamath, Lake, Harney, Malheur, Baker, Grant, Wheeler, Crook. (Base: Eugene, Corvallis, K-Falls)

District 5: Deschutes, Jefferson, Linn, west Marion, west Clackamas, central Portland. (Base: Portland, Salem, Bend)

OK, now say we have SIX districts, and they all must be equal in population. Here I've divided the districts so that each has the population of TEN State House districts, as they exist now (it's not perfect, since some house districts have changed population, but it can be tweaked). Note that each of the six districts is made up of more districts with Democratic state reps than districts with GOP state reps.

District 1 (east valley): HD 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34.

District 2 (coast): HD 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 31, 32, 33

District 3 (Portland east): HD 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 52, 57, 58, half of 46 and 59

District 4 (Eugene south and east): HD 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 55, 56, 60

District 5 (Corvallis, Salem, Central Valley): HD 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 35, 37, 38, half of 18 and 40

District 6 (Bend, East Valley): HD 36, 39, 41, 42, 48, 51, 53, 54, half of 18, 40, 46 and 59)

As I got on the #19 bus to come home yesterday afternoon, a new mom was folding up her stroller while her mom, a new grandmother, held the baby. When I say “new,” I mean the baby could not have been more than a week or two old. The original noob. The sight of this threesome was particularly poignant to me at that moment. Only minutes earlier, I had delivered my baby to his grandmother’s care. But there were a few differences.

My baby, my younger son, is 19; and, on Friday, he had completed basic training at the Coast Guard Training Center, Cape May, NJ. I flew out Thursday so I could be there for the ceremony (and I spent most of the ceremony wondering where the hell he was; I did not realize he was playing trumpet in the band!). We then spent the weekend in Baltimore and Washington, DC, discovering an amazing pizza joint and seeing some of the nation’s iconic monuments — and, we think, that was Dick Cheney leaving the White House in the small motorcade.

In three days, Jesse reports for duty to the USCGC Midgett in Seattle. Then, in mid-January, the Midgett heads up to Alaska to patrol the dangerous winter seas, not for those nasty Russians a certain governor has been keeping her eagle eye on but for hapless fishermen trying to make a living while surviving the ocean that provides that living. This is no childish endeavor; this is man’s work (and, of course, in the Coast Guard, woman’s work). Coast Guard basic training is eight weeks of hard work and ugly monotony; he made it out with flying colors and has no personal doubts about his ability to perform as a member of Midgett’s crew.

I don’t either: I know he’ll do great. Nor do I have doubts about the abilities of my first baby, my older son who will be going to Iraq next year. I don’t like that Alex is an excellent soldier or that he has no qualms (that I know of) about doing that "duty." But he is proving himself to be a man, a grown-up, an adult who has made his own choices and is now living them out. Had I known my baby would grow up to make this choice, you know for damn sure I would have done a lot of things much differently over the years. But that’s the problem: We have no idea where our babies are going to go. They just go, and while we do our best to prepare and guide them, they are the ones who make the choices and live their lives.

Two weeks ago, a new generation of voters stepped up for the first time and they helped changed the world. Both of my sons were among them, both voting for the very first time for president. And like me, who voted for that office for the tenth time, they cast their vote for Barack Obama. (I got one thing right in their upbringing.) Most of the new voters, young adults aged 22 and younger, voting in their first presidential election, cast that same vote — and they did so in greater proportions than for many years. These new voters (and some of their elders, of various ages) are no longer babes; they have become grown-up citizens.

But no grown-up is ever fully — grown-up. Young adults may have made grown-up choices and are living lives of intense responsibility and meaning, but almost all of them still have huge amounts to learn. In time, they’ll look back and confess to being amazed at how young they were in 2008. Yes, they helped put Obama in the White House, and they completed their educations and served their country and worked their tails off and took it all seriously while having as much fun as possible — they tried to be mature and adult but, in so many ways, they still have a lot o growing-up to do.

Not that we dare tell them that. But if we, those of us who have more years, more scars and tears, more hard-earned lessons, more of the joys and pains our no-longer-babies are going to be gaining in the coming years; if we expect that their vote on November 4th means that democracy is saved and we have a new generation of political participation and enlightenment in front of us — well, no, sorry. That’s not the way it works.

Change is never anything more than a new beginning growing from the place something else has culminated. The amazing results of November 4, including the votes of so many young people, signalled, I think, the end of a period of overwhelming cynicism and despair; people really did vote for hope. The election of Barack Obama, which everyday grows more amazing in retrospect (at least to me), was, literally and symbolically, an opening of the doors of democracy. Right now, there is a party in the streets — outside the doors.

We have to get folks inside. It’s not nearly as much fun in there. It requires learning, and paying attention, and communicating with “politicians,” and all kinds of things not nearly as mind-blowing or fun-fun-fun as electing the first African-American president. But it’s what the grown-ups do, and our new voters — of whatever age — have to be shown that if they truly are no longer babies in our polity, they really do need to behave like grown-ups.

But we cannot tell them that. As any parent or teacher knows (or ought to know, harumph), what we tell kids matters about a zillion times less than what we show them. Those of us who consider ourselves political adults have to model the behavior we hope to see from our young people. We have to stay focused and involved, and, for gawdsake, we have to make the whole thing fun. Few people are going to hang around to be drearied out of politics, including this old-timer.

That little baby I saw on the bus yesterday will be voting for president in about 2028. What can we hope he or she will see in the political world by then? Will we have slid back into the old politics by failing to help our own babies grow into responsible citizens? Or will we have the kind of democracy progressives (and even many conservatves) dream of because we led the way with our own participation, excitement and energy?

Doing politics as part of everyday life has not been something most people have found enjoyable or even worthwhile. Let’s change that. Let’s discover how to make being involved and responsible doable, meaningful and a part of a well-rounded life. Otherwise our babies will grow up into a world they’ll want no part of politically, and we’ve seen how badly that goes: Too many babies never grow up at all.

• Now that Kurt Schrader is headed to Congress, his State Senate seat will be left vacant. Per state law, Democratic precinct committee people will nominate 3-5 Democrats - and the Clackamas County Commission will select a new State Senator. So far, according to PolitickerOR, just one candidate is expressing interest -- Toby Forsberg, who ran for the House and appears to have very narrowly lost to Republican Bill Kennemer.

• Over at the O, Jeff Mapes notices that Senator Ron Wyden may be on tap to be the new chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Apparently, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is moving over to the Commerce Committee. Next in line is Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), but - says Mapes - she may not want the job, if she's planning a run for Governor of California in 2010.

  From the Intelligence Committee, Wyden's taken a number of public and strong stands against abuses committed by the Bush Adminstration: Here, here, here, here, and here.

• Of course, Wyden may not want the job either - especially if he looks to have a tough re-election race in 2010. Over at The Next Right (a site that wants to be the right-wing answer to Daily Kos), they're talking about recruiting strong candidates to take on Senate Democratic incumbents. Patrick Ruffini, former internet director for Bush/Cheney and a co-founder of The Next Right, suggests three possible candidates to run against Wyden: Kevin Mannix, Greg Walden, and... Gordon Smith.

  What do you think? Will Gordon Smith get back into the ring for another pummeling? Somehow I doubt it. But stranger things have happened.

• There sure does seem to be a lot of whining from Smith's allies. Over the weekend, Smith's long-time state director, Kerry Tymchuk, published a swan song in the Oregonian. It was the typical sort of "it's been great, thanks for the opportunity" stuff. But he couldn't resist taking one last swipe at Portland.
  It is worth noting that I have found rural Oregonians to be more understanding of the urban lifestyle than urban residents are of the rural lifestyle. Not one rural official or resident ever urged Sen. Smith to shut down the high-tech industry, TriMet, Oregon Health & Science University or other institutions important to Portland's success. On the flip side, however, the senator was urged by many Portlanders to support policies that would essentially shut down the forests, farms and fisheries so critical to our fragile rural economy.

  And then, this long whine:

  Consider that during the presidential campaigns of 2004 and 2008, Oregon Democrats hosted hugely successful public rallies in Portland for candidates John Kerry and Barack Obama -- rallies staged without any fear of protest or disruption. No such public events could be held in Portland for Republican candidates George W. Bush or John McCain. Why? Because of the near certainty that massive demonstrations would shut down the city. Here's hoping for a 2012 presidential campaign where both the Democrat and Republican candidates can visit Portland without fear of being shouted down.

  Tymchuk's a decent enough guy, and despite his lofty rhetoric about being above partisanship, it's clear from this paragraph that he's utterly blinded by his own partisanship. Listen up, Kerry: George W. Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, torture in violation of international law and basic human morality, not to mention launching a war on false pretenses. There are plenty of Republicans that could host a big public event in Portland, maybe even John McCain. But there's a reason why Portlanders are so outraged about George W. Bush.

• One last note for the hacks in the audience: When Senator-elect Jeff Merkley takes office, Jon Isaacs will serve as his state director. Isaacs was Merkley's campaign manager throughout the Senate race - and in 2004 and 2006 was the executive director of Future Pac, the Oregon House Democrats campaign effort. In early 2007, Isaacs was a contributor here at BlueOregon. No word yet on who will be Senator Merkley's chief of staff.

Jim Oleske's new book, Yeah, Right: 'This Economy is Strong' and Other Tall Tales has picked up a strongly positive review from Daily Kos executive editor Susan Gardner. Oleske is a former chief of staff for the Oregon Senate Democratic caucus -- and has contributed two guest columns to BlueOregon, the most recent about the economic mess we're in.

From SusanG's review (my bolds):

No matter how close recent history is, the conservatives featured in these pages would like to bury their past statements and move on with their new! improved! solutions--but reminding Americans of their past horrifically wrong pronouncements should advance the cause of shutting them out of reasonable discourse about the direction of the country for years to come. Pick up Yeah, Right and use it. You just know you'll have the one annoying cousin at the Thanksgiving table who will start in on how the problem with the economy is that it's over-regulated and we pay too much in taxes. Oleske's provided the ammo to fight back ... dirty, quick and easy.

She's right. I've got a copy right here and it's a delightful, snarky read. But I hadn't thought of the idea of packing it along to Thanksgiving... better yet, how about making it a gift for that annoying Limbaugh-listening cousin?

Learn more and pick up the book at YeahRightBook.com.

I'm loving these big-think posts that we're seeing at BlueOregon. Jeff's recent posts about the future of liberalism nationally - and Carla's post about the future of the Oregon GOP - are fantastic.

But I'd like to encourage some thinking and some conversation as well about the future of liberalism in Oregon. If it is true, as big-shot GOP strategist Dan Lavey says, that the GOP is dead in Oregon -- "broke and leaderless and with more ideology than ideas" -- then what does that mean for Democrats here in Oregon?

A couple nights ago, I was IM'ing with a friend living overseas - she had worked in Democratic politics in Oregon and in DC, planned a brief trip overseas after Dubya got elected, and fell in love and stayed.

When I noted for her that Democrats in Oregon now control both U.S. Senate seats, every statewide office, 4 of 5 congressional seats, and have consitutional supermajorities in both houses in the Legislature, she said, "Oh shit. What kind of trouble will they get into now?"

Which is an interesting question. Some others:

Without a viable opposition, and with big supermajorities, will Oregon Democrats factionalize on ideological or issue lines? Will they be able to govern smartly, or will they overreach and/or bungle things?

Better questions: How can Oregon Democrats make sure they don't screw it up? Are there things that they must do to cement these majorities? Things they must not do?

Surely, some of the answers lie in the way we govern - but just as surely, some of the answers lie in our politics. How can we make sure that the hundreds of thousands of Oregonians who signed up with the Barack Obama campaign turn their attention now to building a bigger, stronger, smarter, and more effective progressive movement here in Oregon?

Talk to me, folks. What do you think?

The exercise of "what happened?" following the massive GOP blood-letting on Election Day is not just an interesting thing to watch, but vastly important. While I'm a pretty hard-core progressive/liberal, I don't see how its in our national (or state) best interest to have such a weak Republican opposition. We need a healthy and strong debate on the large array of issues we face.

I suspect that our Republican brethren are still reeling from the losses. It's got to sting. And it's not like we can't understand what that feels like.

Hopefully that reeling will end soon and they'll get serious about the fundamental changes in their party. So far, there appears to be a lot of finger-pointing. And while that can be entertaining to watch (if you're me), its not terribly constructive. Or as Frank Rich says:
In defeat, the party’s thinking remains unchanged. Its leaders once again believe they can bamboozle the public into thinking they’re the “party of Lincoln” by pushing forward a few minority front men or women. The reason why they are promoting Palin and the recently elected Indian-American governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, as the party’s “future” is not just that they are hard-line social conservatives; they are also the only prominent Republican officeholders under 50 who are not white men. The G.O.P. will have to dip down to a former one-term lieutenant governor of Maryland, Michael Steele, to put a black public face on its national committee.

Such window dressing aside, there remains only one Republican idea for reaching out to minority voters: Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, recommends pandering to socially conservative blacks and Hispanics with yet more hyperventilation about same-sex marriage. Weird though it may be, gays were the sole minority group that actually voted slightly more Republican this year (though still going Democratic by 70 to 27 percent). Pitting blacks and Latinos against them could open up a whole new bloody front in the G.O.P. civil war.

The only other widespread post-election conservative ideas are Bush 2000 retreads (market-based health care and education reform). Jindal offers generic gab about how the party must offer Americans “real solutions” and “substance,” but he has yet to offer a real solution to his own state’s gaping $1 billion budget shortfall. Indeed, the only two “new” ideas that the G.O.P. is pushing in defeat are those they condemn when practiced by Democrats: celebrity and identity politics. Palin’s manic post-election publicity tour, which may yet propel her and “the first dude” to “Dancing With the Stars,” is almost a parody of the McCain ad likening Obama to Paris and Britney. Anyone who says so is promptly called out for sexism by the P.C. police of the newly “feminist” G.O.P.

At the risk of being so reviled, let me point out that in the marathon of Palin interviews last week, the single most revealing exchange had nothing to do with her wardrobe or the “jerks” (as she called them) around McCain. It came instead when Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked for some substance by inviting her to suggest “one or two ideas” that Republicans might have to offer. “Well, a lot of Republican governors have really good ideas for our nation,” she responded, without specifying anything except that “it’s all about free enterprise and respecting equality.” Well, yes, but surely there’s some actual new initiative worth mentioning, Blitzer followed up. “Gah!” replied the G.O.P.’s future. “Nothing specific right now!”

The good news for Democrats is a post-election Gallup poll finding that while only 45 percent of Americans want to see Palin have a national political future (and 52 percent of Americans do not), 76 percent of Republicans say bring her on. The bad news for Democrats is that these are the exact circumstances that can make Obama cocky and Democrats sloppy. The worse news for the country is that at a time of genuine national peril we actually do need an opposition party that is not brain-dead.

That last sentence by Rich is especially compelling:

At the national level, the GOP seems completely adrift. From blaming John McCain, Bush and Ted (Kennedy) Stevens to the time-honored just making shit up about the problems we face. Again, perhaps this is simply just a reaction to the ass-whupping they took on November 4, But the heads-in-the-sand mentality is disturbing.

In Oregon, there are a few sparks of life from the right--so perhaps not all hope is lost.

Last Sunday, former GOP Labor Commissioner (and BlueO commenter) Jack Roberts offered an op-ed encouraging the Oregon Republicans to broaden their base. While there are some pieces to Roberts' tome I could nitpick, the nut is essentially correct, in my view:

Jack's ideas have (of course) been met with resistance. And some voices are just MIA on the topic. Unfortunately for the GOP of Oregon, that will continue to lead to incidents like this (via Randy at Ridenbaugh Press):

With him he had his Iowa birth certificate and a current U.S. passport.

But that wasn’t enough.

DMV staff refused to accept his birth certificate, the same one he’s had for 66 years.

Issued by Woodbury County in Sioux City, Iowa, Bohm’s birth certificate had the embossed seal the DMV requires, a certification of authenticity from a city, county, state or federal government. The color was worn off the seal, but he could still feel it with his fingers.

Why? Because the new DMV identification requirements (spurred by the "illegal immigrant" stoking from Republicans) require even those who've been licensed drivers for decades to provide proof of citizenship or lawful presence in the U.S.

This is the kind of stuff that makes the electorate really pissed off. And who can blame them?

Please Oregon Republicans, be swift and serious about fixing your party. We might not agree with you on a lot of stuff, but we need you to be there to offer your side of the debate. And not this trumped up stuff. But sober reforms for government and for our state.

Wow, the biggest financial news story of my lifetime will probably be the bankruptcy of the Federal Reserve system.  What the hell is Ben Bernanke doing?  Can we get rid of these guys yet?

I already wanted to post something about the sheer stupidity of Fed actions over the last year, but this news story sums up the problem fairly well.

The Federal Reserve has been pretty much a self-sufficient entity that has brought in just enough money to cover administrative expenses.  Therefore, any substantial losses--say from bad loans--cannot be absorbed.  Back before the Great Depression, gold was used as collateral to protect against bad loans.  In order to deal with the massive bank failures that arose in large part from interest-only mortgages, the Federal Reserve went off the gold standard and began accepting US Treasuries as collateral in the 1930's.  With this type of system, the Fed could sell short-term Treasuries and recuperate losses without much problem.  Short-term Treasuries have low duration and thus have a low sensitivity to interest rate changes, and make for great collateral.  Perhaps even better than gold under current market conditions.

However, earlier this year the Fed introduced the Term Securities Lending Facility and the Primary Dealer Credit Facility.  They are allowing non-Treasuries as collateral and if you read the article above, the Federal Reserve has gone gangbusters in trading out Treasuries for riskier assets.  The Federal Reserve has little capacity to endure losses and a bailout will make the U.S. look extremely bad globally.   Yes, the Federal government can bail out the Federal Reserve just like it did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which weren't supposed to exist as government institutions, but the reputation of the American dollar and the American financial system sits with the Federal Reserve, not these other two.  A bailout will be tragic for America's reputation. 

Ben Bernanke was a Great Depression scholar and was probably chosen several years hence because even I could spot the problems back then.  Still, what the hell is this man doing?  Maybe people will trust me now when I say that the problems have only just begun and we really need to talk to our Oregon leadership about reigning in the Federal Reserve immediately, not when it's a day late and a dollar short.   

I certainly hope that the State of Oklahoma isn't looking for money for a swanky new federal highway anymore, because I'm getting pretty sick and tired of Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (R-Gasbag) blocking the Mt. Hood Wilderness legislation:

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., pledged to filibuster a massive lands bill that included about 125,000 acres of new wilderness on Mount Hood and along the Columbia River Gorge, in Idaho's Owyhee canyons and elsewhere in California, Colorado and New Mexico.

Coburn's filibuster could have forced the Senate to burn up to three days considering the bill. Senate leaders decided they didn't have those days to spare amid pressing legislation such as a rescue for the auto industry and extension of unemployment insurance benefits.

However, a top aide to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said that although the bill may have to wait until next year, it will pass.

"Sen. Coburn is delaying the inevitable," said Josh Kardon, Wyden's chief of staff. "The new Congress with the new president will pass the wilderness bill. It's just a matter of time."

If this were a bill to spend money to build some bomb to blow up God knows what, I somehow doubt Coburn would be such an ass about it. But it's to set aside wilderness area in Oregon to keep it safe from oil and gas development--so, that's just pork, according to Coburn.

So cut off all the federal spending for your own state, Tom. Then we'll talk about pork.

Update: 7:15PM: Jeff Merkley is the first Senator-Elect to use his list to fundraise for Jim Martin.

On election night, many thought that the filibuster-proof Democratic majority was dead. But it would seem we've got our own special Lazarus-thing going on in Georgia and Alaska. The reports of the 60 vote majority being dead are apparently greatly exaggerated.

The Georgia race between Democrat Jim Martin and Saxby Chambliss (R-still a douchebag) continues to steamroll toward its December 2 runoff. Chambliss' latest in a long line of idiotic chatter stems from a radio interview conducted yesterday. Chambliss told WGAU in Athens that we can "trust" the "folks in the financial community" with the big pile of bailout cash.

Cuz they did such a great job in the first place, right Saxby? Jeez.

The Alaska race between Democrat Mark Begich and Ted Stevens (R-still a convicted felon) is getting bluer by the day. The Anchorage Daily News reports that the vote tally now favors Begich:

That's not a good sign for Republican Sen. Ted Stevens as he seeks to overcome Begich's 814-vote lead when counting resumes today of just over 41,000 remaining ballots. A Daily News analysis, based on data provided by the state Division of Elections, shows that 56 percent of those ballots come from districts that favored Begich on Nov. 4.

This turn of events appears to even have Stevens' pollster on the ropes:

"I don't think Stevens can come back," Dittman said, noting that he thinks the remaining trove of uncounted ballots will help Begich "increase his lead."

Dittman also said that he doesn't believe Stevens will concede until every last vote is counted, even if Begich's lead continues to grow.

In this small caesura between the end of a campaign and the beginning of governing, let me bend your ear.  Some years ago, I started writing a novel.  I spent a year finishing a draft, a couple years editing it, and another year trying to get it published.  At the end of that year came a letter with these words: "Thank you so much for letting us consider The Puddle Variations, which we've read with much interest.  We're afraid, though, it's not quite what we're looking for..."  The fine editors at Milkweed Editions had drafted it, after running it pretty far through their editorial process--thanks but no thanks.

I had almost decided to do what most self-respecting failed novelists do and shove the manuscript into a box somewhere and forget about it. But then I came across an article in the New Yorker.  My failure to find publication is not an unusual fate for a first novel.  Many "debut novels" are actually debut publications--many first-time authors have one of those unpublished novels decomposing in a cardboard box in the basement.  This was not news.  But this was: books are bad business--a shocking 79% of those that do actually make it to publication fail to sell a 100 copies (!).  So then a bit of the old blogger DIY ethos emerged.

Thanks to technology, it's now possible to self-publish cheaply but professionally. Despite the embarrassment I feel for having to resort to this, I think it's worth it. Art exists as a communication. We don't paint or film or write just for the pleasure--and I use that word advisedly--it provides. We spend those hours because we have some idea we'd like to share with others.  Ultimately, my desire to see this novel to reach its potential as a communication was stronger than my embarrassment at having to self-publish.  And since I learned that most novels sell fewer than 100 copies, I thought, well, what the hell, it's an effort doomed to failure even in the best of circumstances.

I put the book out 11 1/2 months ago, and when the ticker hits twelve, the experiment will turn into a pumpkin.  We near the end.  So, in the manner of a carny pitch man, gravelly-voiced from too many Marlboros, I invite you to step right up ...

The Puddle Variations
Walking Man Press, 2007, 260 pages, $15.
ISBN: 978-0-6151-7184-5
Click to buy the novel

I'll include a description and excerpt below the jump, but I would, in all seriousness, love it if you picked up a copy.  An unread novel is a terrible thing.

And don't forget--they make great gifts!

About the Novel
From the back cover: What portion of a 16mm movie can be made for $1,000? Or, put another way, how does one turn a thousand dollars into a 30-minute short? This is the question confronting Charlie di Paulo, who has just received a seed grant from the Portland Film Institute to shoot his 16mm film. For a 26-year-old cab driver, a thousand dollars is a lot of cash, yet it won’t even cover the cost of his film stock.

Money isn’t Charlie’s only problem. His new girlfriend and his stepfather, Vic, are both convinced he should be pursuing his dream through more conventional means, and Vic has offered to pay for film school. For Charlie, whose 8mm short was good enough to win him the grant, education isn’t necessary—money is. As the book unfolds, he sets about trying to raise the money and mount the production, and along the way he receives support in various forms from the local doyenne of independent film, a cobbler, a philosophy student, and a bookie.

For BlueOregon readers, I'll add a little more.  It's set in the slightly distant Portland I discovered when I arrived here 20 years ago.  For those of you who remember Fryer's Quality Pies and the no-man's land of warehouses that we now call The Pearl (see excerpt below) this is that Portland. For those of you who never knew it, here's a not-quite-historical look.  There are no politics, but other things Portlandy, like movies, beer, and the Blazers, are covered.

Excerpt
When the Bowman Bakery was built on NW 12th, the owner, Hollis Bowman, had to clear the land of Douglas fir.  Built on a parcel west of what was then Portland, an early example of sprawl.  Years and fires and collapsed economies had changed the building and its ownership.  It grew and shrank and moved a block and grew again and, for the past six decades, sat and decayed.   Its second and third stories had been converted to cheap storage, the spaces now mostly filled with forgotten, moldering wares. 

But in the southeast corner of the basement was the hibernating building’s heart, a lively tavern that had been there since the move to 13th Avenue in 1896.  Compared to the fortunes of the building, the tavern’s were more stable.  Six owners in just under a century—and only two since 1960, when the name was changed to capture the “romance” of earlier years.  Under the current proprietorship (effective 1981), a single change: in 1990, the bar started pouring microbrews. 

It was the only life for blocks.  Now mired in a dead-end neighborhood by the freeway, separated by blocks of boarded, uninhabited buildings, a nook of the city abandoned even by the bums.

When they crossed Burnside at 12th, Janie studied the boarded Pella Building.  “Where is this place?”

“Not too far,” Carlos said.

“It’s cool,” Charlie said.  “You’ll like it.  Trust us.”

Janie looked out the window dubiously.  There were no cars, no stores, just silent, dark buildings.  But then, at the corner of 12th and Irving, three cars parked in a line and a neon sign in long, narrow letters. 

Charlie coasted along the edge of 12th, through empty parking places, until he was across the street from the bar.  “This remains weird, guys,” Janie observed, not neutrally.  “Those are the first cars we’ve seen since Burnside.”  Charlie and Carlos climbed out of the cab, but Janie sat and watched.  Outside, the streets were glossy under the streetlights.  A blond woman in a wool hat was standing outside the building, smoking.  Everything seemed to be in sharp focus.

Charlie stopped in the middle of the street and looked back at Janie.  She finally climbed out. 

Sounds seemed louder, clearer—a crack from the car door, snaps from heels, ricocheting off dead buildings.  The woman underneath the neon light smiled as they passed and Carlos tipped his hat.  The smoke from her cigarette looked like steam in the light.

Janie had the sense that she had walked onto a movie set.  The abandoned town, the smiling extra on a smoke break.  Even time felt artificial, as if beyond the set it might be noon—or midnight.  She wondered, if she reached out and scratched the brick wall of the building, would it make the hollow noise of papier-mâché? 

They descended six granite stairs, the top of which was flush with the sidewalk.  Charlie reached the door first and held it open, nodding as Carlos and Janie passed by.  Janie’s sense that this was all artificial began to drift away when she reached the cozy, smoky dark, but it did not vanish completely.  A row of windows ringed the south and east corner of the pub, and she could see the crystalline set outside.

But inside, the ambiance of the old bar started setting her mind at ease.  She could tell from the furniture that the place had not been updated for decades: although the wooden tables and leather booths had a certain historic charm, they were worn, unsentimental, and small.  Little blue lamps dotted the tables and at the north end of the room were two pool tables, unoccupied.

“You know, I think I’ll have a whisky sour with Janie.  Whatcha having, Charlie?”

“Yeah, make it three.”

Voters in California wrote discrimination into California's constitution by voting in favor of Proposition 8. In doing so, California voters dumped my gay sisters and brothers in a heap like a load of firewood dumped, never stacked, left water-logged, punky and green.

Our mailboxes, cars, woodpiles and gardens make public statements. 2008 will be remembered as our public statement; the year we liberated ourselves from white supremacy by voting in the first bi-racial person to become our 44th president. The presidential election felt like an inspiring sunrise after a long, painful storm with one discordant note.

The vote in California left my gay friends feeling powerless and alienated. Edmund White wrote it best "So the black ceiling has been broken and the glass ceiling has been cracked but the violet ceiling pressing down on gays is firmly in place." It feels awkward to celebrate when California's woodpile leans out of plumb, wavering, and sloppily stacked.

The Prop 8 vote reminded me of green wood, right off the stump, needing seasoning or aging before its burned. It's a point of pride in some parts of Oregon to have several cords of wood half-split, quarter-split and kindling stacked ready for winter. The shape and size of woodpiles are optional. Some are straight and square, some are a series of cubes, others are Shaker round. Some build build a low stack or high with big logs on top.

The winter of 2008 is upon us and the the urge to get the wood in runs deep. Maybe it will take a while longer for my gay friends to reach maximum parity. Until then, we'll have to get out our splitting wedges, a saw and a maul and get to stacking wood with our own hands.