Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 24, 2016)
Page 4A OPINION East Oregonian Wednesday, February 24, 2016 Founded October 16, 1875 KATHRYN B. BROWN DANIEL WATTENBURGER Publisher Managing Editor JENNINE PERKINSON TIM TRAINOR Advertising Director Opinion Page Editor OUR VIEW Oregon should raise smoking age to 21 Some in Washington state are evidence suggests young people are trying to raise the legal smoking age less likely to take up smoking. At from 18 to 21, a step that should be the same time, 18- to 20-year-olds adopted by Oregon and throughout currently are major sources of illegal the nation. tobacco for younger teens. It will be a challenge to get all Butting up against the obvious the pieces in place bene¿ts of raising during the remainder tobacco age is Keeping young the of Washington’s the crass estimate short legislative that Washington people off session this winter. miss out on tobacco is one would A bill to increase $10.4 million in the tobacco taxes in its current of the kindest possession age has cycle and $21.9 steps legislators million in the passed a House committee, but 2017-19 budget can take. the Everett Herald period. reported this A few legislators 7uesday that the overall legislation also cite the unfairness of restricting has run into opposition based tobacco use for an age group that on concerns about tax revenue serves in the military. 7his is about and fairness. 7he age increase like saying they shouldn’t have to is supported by 65 percent of wear motorcycle helmets or fasten Washington residents, according to their seatbelts. Keeping young polling, and has a strong advocate people off tobacco is one of the in state Attorney *eneral Bob kindest steps legislators can take, Ferguson. irrespective of whether they are in Desire for the change is driven the armed services. by modern awareness that teenage So far, only Hawaii has enacted tobacco addictions are dif¿cult to this smart and benevolent 21 tobacco kick and lead to lifetimes of adverse age. Oregon, Washington and the health consequences. rest of the nation should all get on By the time they reach age 21, board. Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board of Publisher Kathryn Brown, Managing Editor Daniel Wattenburger, and Opinion Page Editor Tim Trainor. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the East Oregonian. OTHER VIEW State, local government acquires risk along with land 7 The (Eugene) Register-Guard hirty-plus years after the “Sagebrush 5ebellion” ¿zzled out, there’s been a renewed push to turn control of federal land in the West — where the bulk of it lies — over to the states. In 2012, Arizona *ov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, vetoed a proposal to transfer 25 million acres of federal land there — including parks and historic sites — over to the state, citing concerns about constitutionality. 7hat same year, Arizona voters turned down a similar ballot measure by a two-thirds majority. But last year, federal lands legislation was introduced again. Brewer’s successor, Doug Ducey, also vetoed two land-transfer bills proposed by his fellow Republicans. One bill would have authorized the state to sue the federal government, which owns about 40 percent of the land in Arizona, if it declined to hand over the land. Ducey did sign another bill, however, to set up a committee to look into the possibilities of forcing a transfer of federal lands. 7he Nevada Legislature passed a resolution last year telling the federal government to turn over tens of millions of acres to the state. And Nevada *OP Congressman Mark Amodei is backing federal legislation to that effect. 7he Utah Legislature, which passed a bill in 2012 requiring transfer of federal land, has hired an attorney and is considering suing the federal government. And in Oregon, state Rep. Carl Wilson, R-*rants Pass, introduced a bill last year that would have set up a task force to look at transferring federal land to state control. About 52 percent of the land in Oregon, or more than 32 million acres, is owned by the federal government. About half of the federally owned land is on national forests. Wilson’s bill didn’t make it out of committee, but among those testifying in favor of it were representatives of Clackamas County; the Oregon Citizens Lobby, a conservative activist group; the Association of Oregon Counties; and the American Lands Council, a nonpro¿t group backed by Americans for Prosperity, a think tank supported by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. 7estifying against HB 3240 were representatives of 7rout Unlimited, the Sierra Club and Oregon Wild. 7he driving force behind this renewed interest in turning federal lands over to states boils down to one word: Money. It’s what’s on the land or under it — timber, oil, gas and minerals — that the transfer supporters are interested in. It’s understandable that some states and counties — particularly those that are cash-strapped and still recovering from the recession — would eye those resources with longing. But there’s a very real question about whether the costs of a land transfer would outweigh the bene¿ts, and whether there is in fact a pot of gold at the end of that particular rainbow. 7he most in-depth analysis so far of the pros and cons of transferring federal land is a 784-page analysis done in Utah by three public universities. 7he report is an indicator of how complex this issue is and why taking over federal land isn’t an automatic ticket to peace and prosperity. 7he conclusion of the report, which took 18 months to complete, was that the state would take on a large ¿nancial burden if it assumed control of federal lands — about $245 million a year, including hefty bills for ¿re control and suppression. It also would lose federal revenues, including lease payments and payrolls, and there likely would be a signi¿cant impact on the state’s tourism industry. 7here were further costs that weren’t as easy to quantify, the report noted, such as quality of life, which can factor into individuals’ and businesses’ decisions about where to locate. In the end, the report said, Utah could come out on the positive side of the ledger, but only if certain conditions were met. 7hese ifs were major ones, including ¿nding a way to survive the initial years following the transfer, when outgo would exceed income; production and prices of oil and gas remaining stable and high; and the federal government being willing to continue forking over 100 percent of the royalties from oil and gas wells. 7he report is a warning that taking over the federal land is going to be a risky business, one that was going to require sacri¿ces and that might not pay off in the end. 7here are lessons here for Oregon and other Western states with signi¿cant amounts of federally owned land. Oregon will no doubt be faced with more proposals in the future to take control of public lands, with the goal of monetizing them. But as the Utah study showed, this isn’t a case of opening taps and letting the money Àow. 7here are very real costs and concerns about the effect of this latter-day version of the Sagebrush Rebellion. It’s not a quick and easy way to economic security, nor is it an assured route to prosperity. The report is a warning that taking over federal land is going to be risky business. OTHER VIEWS 7hree views of marriage 7 were one tree and not two.” wo years ago the Northwestern In “7he *ood Marriage,” Judith University psychologist Eli Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee Finkel had an article in The New concluded that 15 percent of couples York Times describing how marriage is maintain lifelong romantic marriages. polari]ing: 7he best marriages today 7he third lens is the moral lens. In are better than the best marriages of this lens a marriage doesn’t exist just generations ago; the worst marriages to exist or even just for procreation. It now are worse; overall, the average exists to serve some higher purpose, marriage is weaker than the average David marriage in days of yore. Expectations Brooks whether it is seeking *od’s kingdom for the religious or in service to some about marriage have risen, Finkel Comment joint cause or humanity-enhancing wrote. People now want marriage project for the secular. to satisfy their ¿nancial, emotional In “7he Meaning of Marriage,” 7im and spiritual needs. But while some people Keller argued that marriage introduces you spend a lot of one-on-one time working on to yourself; you realize their marriage, and reap the you’re not as noble and bene¿ts, most people spend easy to live with as you less time, and things slowly thought when alone. In decay. many marriages there’s an 7he way we talk about unspoken agreement not to marriage is polarizing, too. talk about what you don’t If you read the popular admire in the other, because literature, there are three the truth from a loved one different but not mutually can be so painful. But in a exclusive lenses through good marriage you identify which to think about your own sel¿shness and marriage decisions. see it as the fundamental Most of the popular problem. You treat it more advice books adopt a seriously than your spouse’s psychological lens. 7hese sel¿shness. books start with the premise 7he everyday tasks of that getting married is a marriage are opportunities daunting prospect. Forty-¿ve to cultivate a more selÀess percent of marriages end love. Every day there’s in divorce; 10 percent of a chance to inspire and couples separate but do not encourage your partner to become his or her divorce. best self. In this lens, marriage isn’t about two 7he psychologists want you to think individuals trying to satisfy their own needs; analytically as well as romantically about it’s a partnership of mutual self-giving for the whom to marry. Pay attention to traits. As 7y purpose of moral growth and to make their 7ashiro wrote in “7he Science of Happily corner of the world a little better. Ever After,” you want to marry someone who It’s probably best to use all three lenses scores high in “agreeableness,” someone who when entering into or living in a marriage. has a high concern for social harmony, who But there are differences among them. is good at empathy, who is nice. You want to 7he psychological lens emphasizes that avoid people who score high in neuroticism people don’t change much over a lifetime. — who are emotionally unstable or prone to Especially after age 30, people may get a anger. little more conscientious and agreeable, but Don’t think negative traits will change improvements are modest. over time, 7ashiro wrote, because they are In the romantic view, the heart is constant across a lifetime. Don’t focus on irrelevant factors, like looks. Don’t ¿lter out or transformed by love, at any age. In the moral view, spiritual transformation — over a rationalize away negative information about a lifetime, not just over two passionate years — partner or relationship. is the whole point. People have great power 7he second lens is the romantic lens. to go against their own natures and uplift their 7his is the dominant lens in movie and song. spouses, by showing a willingness to change, More than people in many other countries, by supporting their journey from an old Americans want to marry the person they are crippled self to a new more beautiful self. passionately in love with. 7he three lenses are operating at different 7heir logic is that you need a few years levels: personality, emotions, the level of the of passionate love to fuse you together so virtues and the vices. 7he ¿rst two lenses are you’ll stay together when times get hard. It’s very common in our culture — in bookstores, a process beautifully described by a character songs and in movies. But the moral lens, in Louis de Bernières’ novel “Corelli’s with its view of marriage as a binding moral Mandolin”: “Love itself is what is left over when being project, is less common. Maybe that’s one of in love has burned away, and this is both an art the reasons the quality of the average marriage is in decline. and fortunate accident. Your mother and I had Ŷ it. We had roots that grew toward each other David Brooks became a New York Times underground, and when all the pretty blossoms had fallen from our branches we found that we Op-Ed columnist in 2003. The everyday tasks of marriage are opportunities to cultivate a more selless love. There’s a chance to inspire and encourage your partner. YOUR VIEWS Pendleton needs new ideas, renewed civic engagement Politics as usual in Pendleton as council replaces Jane Hill We are in the midst of new opportunities to make a difference in our future. We have four seats open on the city council. We will also have a new mayor. We have visited some tough decisions that have divided this city. I believe it’s time to rally our efforts and be proactive to make a difference. Apathy is a disease that only provides a stagnant mindset and is a key ingredient for living in the past. I’m asking for folks to get involved, to put your name in the hat and help ¿nd solutions. 7he talent that is in the wings can only be discovered when you get involved. We do have the privilege to shape our future. Let’s move forward! Jane Hill warned the council that trying to push through a gas tax on such short notice doomed it to failure, and in retrospect many voters would now rather have had the gas tax than the utility tax. So it was with great interest that I read the East Oregonian article on the selection process for Jane’s replacement. Evidently, if you are good friends with the current council members and a longtime government employee, that’s the preferred selection criteria, and takes a page from “Politics As Usual 101.” With the exception of the brief “executive session” to discuss their vote, transparency was pretty evident in the unanimous outcome of the council’s vote and the message crystal clear: no change in sight. Paul Chalmers At-large council member/candidate Pendleton Rick Rohde Pendleton LETTERS POLICY The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual services and products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Submitted letters must be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published. Send letters to Managing Editor Daniel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 or email editor@eastoregonian.com.
