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.