It's the Mercury's Endorsement Guide!

Feeling Strong? Feeling Lucky? Swing that Ballot and Win a Prize! Step Right Up... and Vote!

Comments

1
This was what my ballot looks like, so thanks for making me feel better about it!
2
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.
3
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?
4
Still voting yes on 92, but the rest add up.
5
No Congressional endorsements?
6
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?
7
still voting no on the metro amendment
8
YES ON 89?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!! REALLY?!


I'M CALLING IT: THE MERCURY IS FIRMLY IN THE POCKET OF "BIG VAGINA"
9
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.
10
I love the Portland Mercury. It's Portland as Fuck.
11
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!
12
on 92,

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.
13
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.

Bravo, assholes!
14
if being a hippie means we like real water and not letting some corporation who manufactures flouride to trick us into thinking we need it then i'll be a hippie and u and all those national bloggers go back to where you came from where water tastes like shit by the way. drinking that flouride shit probably is way worse than what we drink here.

sorry your so scared of farmers you cannot even stand up for your self. we don't need you here.
15
"real water"
"some corporation"
"trick us"
"drinking that flouride [sic, but sic to your whole post] shit PROBABLY is way worse"
"your [sic, see what I mean?] so scared of farmers"

When PCC lets out, can you elaborate?

"we don't need you here." Yes you do. I have a job and pay property taxes. Adult men who can't reason or spell need me badly, I help pay for their social services.
16
But hey, who am I to tell a city of Kirk Camerons to consider the scientific evidence? Keep it weird, y'all!
17
Ohh so sorry was busy studying quantum mechanics and electrodynamics to worry about grammar. don't talk to me about science. In fact lets talk about standards of reporting in the media- don't REAL papers try to maintain their legitimacy by remaining unbiased and though they may have an agenda they at least cite other sources rather than just saying "hey this is our opinion and we're the ones who write a half serious local paper so our opinion should have credit".

so as for "scientific facts" let me tell you what i "know" about science; we only know what we observe. something becomes a law when we cannot disprove it but can observe it without fail. theories (not laws) shift year to year and even in physics from decade to decade. when your talking biology its probably more frequent, and when we're talking health they shift from week to week. Don't take my word for it let me drop a quote I just read studying for my pol sci course;

"In fact, half or more of cancer experts believed that the media distorted the dangers of particular carcinogens.....It got worse ratings on naturally occurring chemicals in food and food additives, nuclear plants, pollution, pesticides, household chemicals, and dietary choices"- Mass Media and American Politics, Graber and Dunaway, pg 1631

The entire chapter was on how corporations promote scientific studies but scientists themselves are rarely willing to be quoted because they know there is much they don't know.

nobody needs your social services go now.
18
"See, the science we possess on GMOs indicates they're almost certainly safe to eat." That seems like a pretty big statement to just slip in there. The scientific community, you know, the experts, are divided but the Mercury apparently has it all figured out. PBS polled a group of scientists who know way more than me, you or the Mercury. Check it out:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/viewpoints…
19
No on 92??
Tell the truth: You guys just pick one of Willamette Week's endorsements and say the opposite. Because you guys are independent thinkers and all.
20
Re 92: "But this campaign . . . is quite clearly a bid to get food companies to abandon GMOs, a backdoor attempt at altering our agricultural landscape."

The reason you make this statement is that you realize when people see what they are eating, they will make decisions on that information. Which means they won't buy certain foods that they don't want to eat. Please explain to me why this is bad?
21
I'd like to apologize to the mercury; I appreciate your open platform allowing people to have a voice, and in turn you should have yours. I was heated in my statements towards you. I do however feel it is somewhat of a curve ball the way this article is published right before voting occurs.
22
Oh, my sweet Euphonius: I'll have you know we posted that one *before* they did. And then we found yesterday that they agreed with us.
23
I'm generally disappointed by our local newspapers inability to see the real issue of the GMO labeling measure.

Given that the general citizens voice in big, national and global issues is usually unheard, we as people must remember that we vote with our dollars on the daily. GMO corporations, like it or not, are some of the most powerful international political influencers on the planet. There are entire countries in the world whose governments are primarily influenced by GMO corporations. The majority of our food is produced by a few conglomerates who have hundreds of different names and brands.

Labeling GMOs allows us to know who we are voting for when we go to the grocery store. Wether or not GMOs are good for us is not the whole issue. Yes, maybe that isn't the stated purpose of the bill at hand, but we only get to vote on things on an infrequent basis.
Don't be scared of big changes. This seems like a modest difference.


And when it is said that the law will hurt small farmers I don't believe it. Most "farmers" these days are huge industrialized operations.
Did you know that the majority of recipients of federal farm subsidies are located in Manhattan? Last time I checked, there wasn't a ton of farms in Manhattan.
24
“The Mercury” never fails to disappoint me. Of course they came out strongly in favor of water fluoridation for the city of Portland, and humiliated anyone who thought science dictated literally a ton of evidence supporting its harmful effects. Furthermore, it ignored our own Oregon legislature which made it mandatory to present a clear warning on water bills in fluoridated districts to warn of using tap water for infant formula (because of fluoridation’s proven negative effect on the developing infant brain).

Now, they come along and state, The science we have shows that there is NO negative effects from ingesting GMO food. Well, uh, what science is that? Obviously, it is only the science handpicked and spoon-fed to them by the powerful Monsanto lobbyists who are spending tens of millions to defeat this measure in Oregon, just like they did in California and Washington.

This is it folks. The big sweep is there for the taking. The entire west coast and its multibillion dollar farming business is on the line. The Mercury goes on to say that yes on 92 will virtually bring GMO farming to a halt, and gosh golly, we need GMO farming. They never say why. Of course, nothing can be further removed from the truth. Corn, Canola (WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A gmo FOOD FROM THE GET GO) AND SOY WILL STILL BE GROWN USING gmo SEED FOR LIVESTOCK FEED, OILS, SUGAR, FUEL AND ON AND ON, FILLING INDUSTRIAL, LIVESTOCK and human needs.

They write their endorsement in this aw shucks, butter wouldn't melt in our mouths style, because THEY are the purveyors of the simple truth. It’s a tone for idiots who need not look or think any deeper than what The Mercury has to say as gospel. How convenient.

Truth is, it is highly likely they were paid quite handsomely to endorse the no side, and were told what arguments to push...in their own inimitable style of Caveman Chic, of course. It is a fact that Healthy Kids, or whatever the euphemistic title was for the poison-our-water campaign gave heavily to the Mercury, Willamette Week, The Oregonian, et. al.

They all came down in favor of water fluoridation, regurgitating (pun intended) the talking points of the lobbyists for the chem-industrial giants who stand to profit from dumping aluminum fluoride, or flourosilic acid into our water supply.

Well, it's time to tell them they cannot buy our vote. We do not believe their lies or their damn lies. We want to know what we eat! as is our right. We believe the mountain of science that has shown the ingestion of gmo foods leads to cancer! We do not believe the lies about skyrocketing costs, when the best studies show the cost to consumers will be minimal, at best. And the biggest cost would simply be that manufacturers would have to use non GMO ingredients, because no one would want to buy their GMO products anymore . Or, fearing the truth be told, they will simply abandon their GMO products in this proud state all together. This is mostly for snack, frozen, and prepared types of foods.

If you don't eat a lot of commercial chips and frozen pizza, then your food bill is only going to rise a few dollars per year, as the extra pennies are added on for labeling. Does your favorite cereal, milk, cheese, canola oil, chips, ice cream, and on and on, contain GMO ingredients?

Don’t you want to know? Isn’t it your right to know what is in your food? Do you really want “The Mercury” to tell you want is good for you? Do you really want the behemoth, Monsanto, to tell you what is good for you, and to trust they would never, ever give you bad advice about the safety of foods raised from their seed ? (built to withstand an onslaught of carcinogenic pesticides that boggles the mind).

Are you really that trusting of a person?
25
Yes on 92! Label GMO's! I am a farmer and I work with other farmers across our nation. Many of my colleagues have been put out of business or sued by monsanto. These chemical companies think they can own our seeds, seeds that we have been planting for generations. It just wrong! It seems you city folk have become disconnected with the land and where your food comes from. It's a sad day for the people of the United States when we can't even grow real food and you don't know what's in your food. The reality is that farmers are suffering from GMO chemical company bullying. I hope the people in our great state of Oregon make the right choice and label our foods! Thanks Nate (Conventional Oregon Farmer).
26
"(GMOs are)..almost certainly safe." Almost? Could be, except for the several studies done around the world that have determined GMOs to cause a variety of health problems in laboratory animal tests. Except for the fact that the toxic weed killer in Round-up, that is genetically implanted in GMO seeds, has been discovered in the fetus's blood of pregnant women. Except for the fact that Russia just banned all GMO products for ten years, until it's safe ingestion can be determined through further studies over the long term. You could say that it might be safe, or it might NOT! Why shouldn't people like me have the right to know and be able to chose if I am going to eat a food with Round-up implanted in it? Do the profits of the Big Ag. and the Chemical giants have more importance than the people's right to know what they're feeding their children? The well trusted and consumer advocate, Consumer Reports, has determined that Measure 92 will NOT raise the cost of our groceries. It has not done so in the 64 other countries that have implemented GMO labeling laws. And 6 other states have already passed laws requiring the phasing in of GMO labeling just like measure 92 will. Oregon will not be the only State requiring the labeling of GMOs, and many others have similar laws under consideration. This is about individual rights! This law is not going to, or trying to, eliminate anything, just inform. However, if eventually it turned out that enough consumers did chose to not ingest this engineered food, so much so to the degree that they did end up going out of business, wouldn't that just be the eventual consequence of supply and demand, and what is usually referred to as the "Will of the people"? So it looks to me like the Mercury is more interested in supporting Big Chemical companies like Monsanto and the giant Grocery Manufactures Association, over the rights of Oregonian citizens. That is too bad. I am believing Consumer Reports over Monsanto and voting yes on 92.
27
(because of fluoridation’s proven negative effect on the developing infant brain)

Oh, shut up, asshole. As if every baby from a major city is developmentally disabled.

Dumb fuck
28
You are for Legalizing Marijuana but against GMO Labeling??????.....hope you get to try a nice GMO spleefer! By the way, I hope you got paid well for that no on 92 ad on your site :(....Stop the Stupidity....Yes on 92
29
No on 92? Wow. Looks like your advertisers have bought and paid for you. Those 64 Countries around the world who require GMO labeling must be paranoid freaks, right. Looks like I'll be picking up all the Mercury rags I see … I'll never read one again, but they make great kindling for the wood stove.
30
Dear Mercury Mummy and Daddy,
Thank you for trying to save our widdle minds from too much information about GMOs in food. You said that bad Measure 92 was made by people who don't like GMOs. We couldn't have figured that out. It's bad to have complete information about food. Right? Me go shopping now.

Tom Niemann
31
In 1982 Novartis (now Syngenta) gave $25 million to UC Berkeley's Plant and Microbial Biology Department, launching industry funding takeover of GMO research and self-interested control of the “scientific” story ever since. GMO scientists now work simultaneously for their universities and the industry, which would obviously not fund studies that could threaten their entire business model. Industry-funded research has predictably avoided lifetime studies of animals and direct studies of human subjects, without which long-term safety cannot be assessed.

Monsanto gained FDA approval of its “Roundup-ready” corn with a 90-day rat study - equivalent to a human age of about 10, hardly long enough to detect long-term toxicity or carcinogenicity which has been discovered in a handful of independent studies. Alarmed by industry misrepresentations of scientific findings, 297 scientists of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility state that GMO safety remains unproven. That's good enough for me, and I want to know where the glyphosate and 2,4D poison-saturated items reside on the market shelf.

I won't even start on topsoil destruction, deforestation, carbon-intensive technology and food distribution, patenting of seeds, contracts prohibiting seed saving that require increasing chemicals sold by the seed companies, pollen drift and lawsuits against farmers for patent infringement, ecosystem destruction, claims of solving world hunger that have proven completely false, and the sinister agenda voiced decades ago by Henry Kissinger: when you control the oil, you control countries; when you control the food, you control the people.
32
Yes on Measure 90.

Will it weaken parties? Yes. Is that bad? Meh.

Will I, as an unaffiliated voter, appreciate being able to vote for the more moderate candidate and throw a monkey wrench into the system where most districts have been gerrymandered by the two party system into little fiefdoms that ensure the party bosses get to dictate who we get to elect? Yes. Yes, I will.
33
Reading a lot of these comments reminds me why we couldn't help out poor kids teeth with flouridation.
I still say this town needs a science tax instead of an arts tax.
34
Professor Frankieb has spoken.
35
The Mercury wants you to smoke GMO grass washed in fluoridated water. Fuck them.
36
I find it hilarious that anybody thinks the Mercury exists as anything other than a weekly publication of dick and fart jokes conveniently bundled with local entertainment listings.

The only reason to ever pick up a Willamette Weak is to read Dr. Know, look at the hilariously racist fashion picture collage thing, skim the local news blurbs and then recycle or put back on the stack. Takes about 5 minutes.
37
The only people who agree with you on measure 92 are the big out-of-state corporations pouring money into your sorry ass rag and the paid shills who work for them. Stop accepting the payola or find an honest job.
38
Oregon Ballot Measures: 86- Yes, 87- Yes, 88- No, 89- No, 90- No, 91- Yes, 92- NO! 26-159 Yes, 26-160 Yes
39
Very disappointed to know that the Mercury has accepted money to encourage people to vote against their own best interest. The GMO labeling measure isn't perfect. This is the same on many laws. We have to start somewhere and work on it to make the law more perfect.
The Mercury says that people already have the right to choose by buying Organic and Non-GMO products. Yes, if you can afford it. But if GMOs continue to be planted, there will soon be no Organic options, even for the more fortunate of us. Have you heard of cross pollination contamination? GMO crops far outnumber the organic crops. It's only a matter of time before that organic farm gets a pollen drift from a GMO crop. And that's it, another one bites the dust!
If we label GMOs it will bring about consumer awareness. This is one reason the big food corporations are fighting it. If the people know what in it many will stop buying it.

With all of the money spent to defeat this measure by saying it will cost so much, the opponents could have already paid for the labeling process.
I hope that the Oregon people are smarter than Washington and California. I know that at least a couple of counties are.
Labels are changed all the time on products and you never hear anything about it. Now all the sudden it's going to cost so much to label GMOs? Is it costing us so much to have a label for gluten free? What about for No Transfat? NO! These are scare tactics, plain and simple.

BOO ON YOU MERCURY!
40
OK that was kind of mean but I thought it was funny at the time. I was trying to make light of how worked up people get about other peoples' opinions.

If Steve pocketed a couple G's I at least hope he shared some of his blow with the hookers and didn't horde it all to himself though.
41
Your Dumbassed "NO" recommendation on 92, Wow....really surprised at this. Considering I usually think you guys are slightly smarter than my angry runt Bloodhound that bites me in the ass when I sit down next to him while he's asleep on my couch.....No...for measure 92 because you think it's "safe" to eat this shit???? National Institute of Health, and I fucking quote, "The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters."...
Sufficient studies haven't been done on this CRAP (meaning GMO-fucking-foods) to warrant it to be labeled as fucking "safe".
GM Education states: Peer-reviewed studies have found harmful effects on the health of laboratory and livestock animals fed GMOs. Effects include toxic and allergenic effects and altered nutritional value.
They say this stuff for shock value...
So for you guys I say eat Allllllllllllllllllllllllllll that crap you want...
For the rest of us that don't buy into that BS...VOTE FUCKING YES.
42
I thought of an alternate to "Top Two", that I call a "Shared Primary" (someone probably has already thought of this, but I haven't found anything on it). In this all candidates for a position are listed together, grouped by political party with a section for "Unaffiliated" (since Independent is actually a party) candidates. A registered voter, regardless of party, gets one vote from all the candidates. With this, each party still end with one candidate to put forward in the general (no mono-party general elections like we are seeing with Top Two), and smaller party or unaffiliated candidates get better visibility in the primary to help guide their course toward the General. Yes, this would probably mean more choice in the general with possible "spoilers" but I feel that is better than no choice. Thoughts?
43
"Safe" is used pretty loosely in terms of GMO's. Yes they're safe as in they won't immediately kill you, but let's not forget the long term effects these foods have had on us. Look in the poorest sections of any city and you're certain to see sick, obese people in wheel chairs on almost every block.

We have the unhealthiest diet and most exorbitant healthcare costs of any Western nation. All a direct result of the cheap and crappy food that's been forced on us. Especially those at the lower end of society who either can't afford healthier food or are too uninformed to make better choices. These people then become sick, but can't pay for care so the rest of us end of supplementing that cost.

We need people to make better choices, which in turn will force food producers to provide us with better food and therefore reduce the number of people entering hospitals without the money to pay for their care.

This is all long-term stuff, highly dependent on the choices of individuals, but I'm all for labeling GMO's and putting some fear into people so they at least think about making better choices.

For the Mercury to suggest that there are better ways to change America's problematic farming trends then I sure would like to hear them. And if Measure 92 aims to do just that then why the fuck not vote YES?
44
No on 92, are you mad , what is Monsanto paying you guys, please refrain from giving us advice on what u don't understand. You did the same on fluoride, your rag is dangerous and you don't deserve to be a part of what keeps Portland weird anymore. Shame on you, we need change in the food industry, so we can keep our children safe. Vote yes on 92.
45
David Anderson - the new poster child of why we need a science tax in this city.
46
As a serious science geek, a strong fluoridation supporter, and someone who willingly eats (and will continue to eat) GMOs, I'm voting YES on 92 for the only reason I even saw worth debating during the fluoride debacle: ethics.

You tell me I don't need to know what's in my food? Fuck you. Simple as that.

I would not begrudge the fluoride loons - who ARE on the wrong side of science, something which simply has not been as solidly proven with GMOs, which I'm more concerned about hurting the food web than I am about hurting me - a label on beverages which were made with fluoridated water. They can avoid the label and I can ignore (or select for) it.

As for the slippery slope argument, other than allergens (which are often still a 1 in 100 issue, if that), there *aren't* a lot of other things people give a shit about like GMOs, so no, you are not going to have all available packaging surfaces taken up with special interest labels in 10 years when, er, if 92 passes - give me a break.