VOTE NO ON 92!!! These consequence-free, I-vote-from-and-live-in-my parents-basement-anti-science folks have no idea what they are recommending. Tons of money will be spent with little result.
But then again, you dumb fucks are afraid of fluoride, too. So this one is probably in the bag and every national blog is already starting their articles about the paranoid hippies of Portland.
No duh it's an attempt to change our agricultural landscape. If you go to Italy you'll taste difference in the most basic things like a sandwich. They eat dessert with every meal and never get fat like we do over here. Just because proponents of 92 eat GMO's means nothing; it's all we have to eat over here.
The goal is REAL food at REAL prices. To let corporations convince you to have both is not possible is the only misleading thing about this issue.
We're not all complacent, we're not all nullified and brainwashed and may resent a monopolized food market where we have no choices. The idea of settling for things marked "non GMO" as an alternative is unrealistic. You and I know non-GMO farmers will be put at a disadvantage by the mere fact that we live in a capitalistic society where people have things called bills. To get by in the short run they will buy the cheaper GMO's.
Does that indicate we prefer GMO's? No, it indicates we have been forced to choose between affordability and health so some mass producing corporation can put small farmers out of business and get rich off of our health.
Let me speak in corny metaphors for a second; I know one thing for sure, If we don't press it we'll always see that mountain at the top of which things are as they could be while we sit on our obese asses being fed overpriced plastic.
Yes there will be farmers who take a hit along the way. Yes there will be people who take a hit with higher grocery bills along the way. Key words ALONG THE WAY. It is a path, a goal, an endeavor. To reach that mountain one needs to put in some work and make sacrifices and take risks. One needs to start a war before they can win a battle.
You probably think your doing people a favor by saying "there is a better way" but I ask you to consider how long have we been waiting for something better and how plausible is it that it will come to us in a more convenient and perfect form? An imperfect start is better than no start.
Same can be said for the sharing economy. The idea of capitalizing off of sharing with each other is seemingly contradictory to the idea of sharing, but it is an effective start to a change. If you want to produce a change in capitalistic society you must meet them at their level.
ps- obviously your readers don't agree with you on this one. you and WW.
I believe that you are dead wrong on your recommendation to vote NO on 92 - GMO Labeling. You are against it because the backers are arguing they want to allow people to have an INFORMED choice about their food? But that they are REALLY against GMOs and not saying so?
"Dishonest?" REALLY?? And do you think that the $4 MILLION PLUS that the corporations are pouring into this campaign are HONEST in THEIR ADVERTISING and transparent in their MOTIVATION, so you recommend essentially voting FOR MONSTANTO and Pepsi and ...???
Yes indeed, it is possible that "consumers" (also known as "people") will actually see how successful the agri-chem folks have been at spreading their science projects into the US food supply. While if they went shopping in Britain or France or even Australia, they would see a far different grocery than in the good ole USA where these mega-corps with their combined war chest have successfully fought EVERY state's attempt at labeling.
Of course these controllers of our food supply are nervous about labeling. They know that if people KNOW and have a CHOICE they will choose non-gmo over gmo and that will stop their little hegemonic gravy train.
You argue that there are more direct ways to address this than labeling. OF COURSE there are. It's called LEGISLATION. Look whose legislation is getting through Congress. Look who the USDA< FDA
WAKE UP MERCURY - THE MORE DIRECT ROUTE IS BLOCKED AND THE BRIDGES ARE BURNED!
That is why the corps are scared to death of SIMPLE labeling that will allow people to be INFORMED.
Folks, please vote YES on 92!
I love the Portland Mercury. It's Portland as Fuck.
This all sounds pretty reasonable, Dirkis, except that you blew it on 92. Maybe you needed *just* a few more voices on the editorial board. Two people don't really make a board...in fact they barely make a stick.
YES ON 89?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!! REALLY?!
I'M CALLING IT: THE MERCURY IS FIRMLY IN THE POCKET OF "BIG VAGINA"
still voting no on the metro amendment
Despite being opposed to top two measure 90, you're only talking about the top two candidates in the major races. Really? Neither of the two candidates you supported are going to lose. You could throw a bone to a few progressives.
And where are you on the entire rest of the ballot? No comments on eye patch dude?
No Congressional endorsements?
Still voting yes on 92, but the rest add up.
In the torrent of government expanding measure's and career, establishment democrats the Mercury is endorsing this year, I love how you guy's suddenly become hard-line market libertarians in regards to measure 92, the one with the most corporate money thrown at it in Oregon's history. Of course, seeing as how former biotech VP's and lobbyists have found themselves into every nook and cranny of the government's "regulatory" agencies (Linda Fisher, Michael Taylor, Clarence Thomas, Tom Vilsack, ect), maybe not?
The real truth about the metro measure is that Metro would never compel density because it would be too controverial and might completely unravel regional government. This measure just takes away an argument from the tin foil hat crowd.
This was what my ballot looks like, so thanks for making me feel better about it!
Sunday's DOONESBURY comic strip shows Garry Trudeau to be on same wave length as the working and wanna be working grunts in the expanding minimum wage class we now call THE WORKING POOR: Read it and have it accompany the MERCURY cover story you mail and otherwise send to our fellow campesinos: http://doonesbury.slate.com/strip/archive/…
Only way to make it count is to send it to the one-party Democratic candidates whose policies during these Blue State years of domination look startlingly like the Red state
know-nothing years: Only 4 other states in U.S. spend less on their college students than Oregon tax payers. Corporate tax breaks & subsidies among the highest in the union, with flat job growth to show for it. Oregon remains a WORK AT WILL state that becomes a dumping ground for multi-national corporations that want to leave states that actually have laws protecting their work force from termination without cause and without notice. This also creates permanent instability in the job market that has bad effects on business climate, although that is harder to measure than the savings that come from letting go of older workers who've earned seniority benefits and hiring the desperate college-debt burdened young workers at lower cost to the employer.
Like the French say in their charming language: "Those who don't do politics, get done!"
If there is a mandate to double the starting wage in my business, here is a likely scenario. Those starting jobs are now more desirable. From the larger pile of applications on my desk, I will choose the candidates who have experience in my industry and are worth that higher wage. It is unlikely that I would hire a high school kid or other low skilled worker. Those folks, unfortunately, have been priced out of the market.
Municipalities considering higher starting wages should look carefully at the economic consequences of doing so. It is quite possible that the folks they are trying to help will have fewer chances to enter or even to remain in the job market.
This will only lead people to work for less than minimum wage under the table, or black market labor. When governments make it illegal or infeasible for people to make arrangements on their own terms, they do it anyway, out of view. While the black market is free from government coercion, it's also illegal, making it unlikely for an employee to seek justice from the government concerning a breach of contract. This is the governments job: to protect people from getting screwed over based on what individuals have agreed to with each other, not based on an number that a politician thinks is just for his subjects, I mean constituents.
I can understand a $12.50 minimum wage in Oregon, $13.50 in CA, $15+ in NYC. But $15 does seem like a lot starting in a entry level type job, especially somewhere like here. There are teachers making $19 an hr in Beaverton, OR. Does a Mc Donald's worker really need $15 an hr to survive with some dignity?
Now, maybe there could be adjustments in pay based on need and age. I am unsure what would be a fair means of doing this, but it might open more opportunity for teens needing jobs PT in high school. Say, living at home as a dependent, wages starting at $10.00 an hr? Once you are not a dependent, the wage is increased to $12.50 an hr. Seems reasonable to me. There is generally less living expenses while living with your guardians. Now, would that mean better paid entry level workers ending up not receiving jobs due to young kids being the competition? Not sure? I know plenty of folks that needed to take a $10 an hr job that might have been seen as a high school job back in the day. They HAD to.
There is so much inequities out there. Where does it all end? I wish for free continued education, health care, and a minimum income paid to keep people afloat. If these health and education entitlements were in effect then there would be less need for $15 an hr wages, $12.50 would be within reason.
Just removing the cost of dealing with benefits for businesses seems like a way to allow an increase in wages. I don't see why an employer has a bit of business in my ability to see a Doctor. It is actually semi creepy IMHO. Slavery like. Single Payer is common in most developed countries because it just makes sense. Health Care should not at al be about profits, it is only about the people.
In the end, if we just made sure there was a subsidy for all, there could be less need for social programs and more room for folks to go back to school (that would be an option due to the high tuition being removed) and stimulate the economy by having more spending power. Less stress from not being in fear they cannot even see a physician if they get sick, or if they did.. it would mean debt that cannot be paid back.
Guys this is basic. I understand compassion and wanting to help others. But let's actually think this through:
* IT IS A ZERO SUM GAME !
* The money has to come from somewhere. Only the federal government gets to "create" new money.
* Will the business owners take it out of their profit? Not likely. They will try to pass it on.
* Will consumers want to pay it? That is a value judgment for every individual consumer.
* If consumers don't want to pay it, the business owner must cut costs some other way. This includes cutting staff.
* If the cost is successfully passed on to consumers, then wealth is being redistributed from the lower and middle-class (assumption here that they are the primary consumers) to the lower class.
* Will this redistribute money from the wealthy to the lower class? Answer: Not much.
* Will it in effect be a tax on every one else? Answer: Yes.
So what we have here is a compassionate but misguided attempt to help the poor that does little to change the real systemic/structural issues our country has with economic inequality. What we need are changes to our tax system (how about taxing capital gains and carried interest the same as regular income, for example) and regulation of executive compensation.
Colin - far from a single issue candidate: http://calebforcouncil.com/issues/.
Per achieving a living wage in Portland, there are a few ways of doing it without raising the minimum wage as mentioned in the article. You can use tax policy to achieve the same result as raising the minimum wage. It's actually probably better because can enact a progressive tax on higher earning employers to subsidize lower earning small businesses that might otherwise have a hard time adjusting at first. Despite the focus on $15/hr, it's only one of the issues that needs to be addressed to keep a Portland that people can afford to work and live in.
Any study cited from UC Berkeley-give me a break, you guys in Portland are so far up California's rear end.Like the state has something to boast about. Truth be known,it's Bush's fault.
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |