VIEWPOINTS
Saturday, April 9, 2022
East Oregonian
A5
DICK
HUGHES
OTHER VIEWS
Oregon’s
economic crystal
ball is coming soon
T
he Oregon Legislature this year
came close to allowing self-serve
gasoline. Perhaps it’s also time to
repeal the state law that each city intersec-
tion in Oregon have at least one coffee shop.
OK, that’s the extent of my April Fools’
jokes. On further reflection, however, mari-
juana dispensaries appear to have over-
taken coffee dispensaries in Salem. Maybe I
should have used pot shops in the mock law.
Now, back to real-life politics. You might
have noticed recently that your friendly
neighborhood legislative candidates have
been announcing campaign events to
attract support and discuss issues. As part
of election season, here are two Capitol
issues worthy of discussion: state revenues
and legislative technology.
Money: How much
and where to spend
Legislative candidates make plenty of
promises about what they’ll do if elected,
from bolstering state police to enhancing
environmental regulation. Where, in real
life, will the money actually come from?
(Of course, legislators also must get a
majority of their colleagues and the gover-
nor to support their ideas.)
Circle the date of May 18 — the day
after the primary election — on your
crystal ball. That’s when state economists
will release their next forecast of how the
Oregon economy and state revenues are
faring. The quarterly forecasts, along with
any tax changes created by a new Legis-
lature, are the foundations on which the
governor and lawmakers build the state’s
two-year budget.
The Democrat-controlled 2022 Legis-
lature embraced the economists’ previous
predictions of rising revenues and spent
heavily, particularly on one-time items.
However, budgets tend to expand regardless
of which party holds power. What differs
is where and how they would spend the
money.
When Salem Republican Gene Derfler
was Senate majority leader and then Senate
president 20 years ago, he was frustrated by
such spending and asked the local newspa-
per editorial board to help rein in his GOP
colleagues.
Democratic House Speaker Dan
Rayfield, of Corvallis, noted this year that
Republican lawmakers had an overabun-
dance of ideas for spending on rural proj-
ects. “You’d think that Republicans would
be under budget. But, boy, they came in
way over budget,” he said in February.
Meanwhile, inflation is hitting govern-
ment as it is businesses, nonprofits and
consumers. Wildfire season and associated
costs remain unpredictable. So too is the
pandemic, though it’s easing — at least for
now. And as always, state government faces
assorted lawsuits, some potentially with
hefty price tags.
Long-term indicators suggest budget
belt-tightening in the future. Legislators
this year added to budget reserves. Should
they have done more?
Technology: Help or hindrance
Senate Majority Leader Rob Wagner,
D-Lake Oswego, was a legislative aide
in the 1990s. He worked for a representa-
tive who told staff to respond only to paper
letters, not emails. Times certainly have
changed, Wagner said, and legislative staffs
are much better now.
Technology has partially evened the
participation gap between Portland-Sa-
lem-Eugene and the rest of Oregon. With
legislative hearings held by video confer-
ence and phone, Oregonians can participate
from anywhere. They no longer must drive
to Salem, wait to hear whether their name
is called to testify and, if not, drive back on
another day or else give up.
People can respond almost instantly as
developments unfold.
But the blessing of technology also is a
curse. Video meetings are sterile, lacking
the visual cues to how lawmakers and the
audience are reacting. Internet or phone
connections fail, especially in rural areas
with unreliable service. There seems to be
even less engagement between people testi-
fying and committee members than in face-
to-face meetings.
Anyone can fire off an email to a legis-
lator or committee with less time — and
thought — than required for an old-fash-
ioned typed or handwritten letter. There is
little buffer.
For controversial legislation, written
testimony accumulates at such a rate that
one wonders whether much of it ever is read
by legislators.
Within the Capitol, technology too often
is talked about as good or bad. It is neither.
The issue is how it is employed — and
whether it’s overpromised and underdeliv-
ered.
The continuing question for legislators,
individually and collectively, is how tech-
nology can expand accessibility, transpar-
ency and interaction while not replacing
face-to-face contact and traditional cordial
communication.
———
Dick Hughes has been covering the
Oregon political scene since 1976.
Ketchup for breakfast
J.D.
SMITH
FROM THE HEADWATERS
OF DRY CREEK
t an Idaho conference a few years
back, a woman asked me who had
most influenced my writing. I had
no idea, but I said it was probably Edgar
Rice Burroughs, inventor of “Tarzan,”
because he could make a reader believe
that a child could be raised by apes and
never grow a beard as an adult. Since then
I have given some thought to her question
and realized that Joe “the Birdman” Gould
influenced my way of life, if not my writ-
ing.
Joe Gould was born in Norwood, Massa-
chusetts, in 1890 and graduated from
Harvard with the Class of 1911. Of his
college experience Joe said, “I did not want
to go. It had been my plan to stay home
and sit in a rocking chair and brood. I was
an undistinguished student.” Upon receiv-
ing his bachelor’s degree, when asked by
his mother what were his intentions, Joe
replied, “I intend to stroll and ponder.”
Stroll and ponder he did. The only
socially recognized job that Joe Gould
ever held, in 72 years of life, was during
the winter of 1915 when he worked under a
grant from the Carnegie Institution measur-
ing the heads of 1,500 Chippewas and
Mandans in North Dakota. When asked
why he was measuring heads, Joe replied,
“The whole matter is a deep, scientific
secret.” Of the Indians he said, “They are
the only true aristocrats I’ve ever known.
Nothing in God’s world ever surprises
them. They ought to run the country, and
we ought to be put on the reservations.”
When Joe ran out of funding for his
head-measuring project he strolled into
New York City and lived there the rest of
A
his life. In 1917 he began his life’s work,
a literary work, which he called “An Oral
History of Our Time.” Of this project he
said, “Since that fateful morning, the oral
history has been my rope and scaffold, my
bed and my board, my wife and my floozy,
my wound and the salt on it, my whiskey
and my aspirin, and my rock and my salva-
tion. It is the only thing that matters a damn
to me. All else is dross.”
By 1943, Joe claimed the history was 11
times as long as the Bible. It was composed
entirely of conversations overheard, of
interviews, (his opening question of anyone
was always, “Did you ever have a painful
operation or disease?”) and of stories he
gleaned from the back alleys and barrooms
of Manhattan. “I have fully covered what
might be termed the intellectual under-
world of my time.” All of this was written,
margin-to-margin, both sides of the page,
in thousands of little spiral-bound nickel
notebooks, the sort that fit in a shirt pocket.
Joe didn’t believe in typewriters. “William
Shakespeare didn’t sit around pecking
on a dirty, damned, ninety-five-dollar
doohickey, and Joe Gould doesn’t either.”
Joe panhandled for his food and drink,
and for the notebooks and the pencils that
were the building blocks of his art. He
didn’t want money for himself. He said,
“I’m the foremost authority in the United
States on the subject of doing without. I live
on air, self-esteem, cigarette butts, cowboy
coffee, fried-egg sandwiches and ketchup.”
Joe has been gone since the early 1960’s,
but there are still stories running around
the East Village about how the counter-
men at the diners in that end of New York
City would hide the ketchup when they saw
Joe coming down the street because it was
his practice to order a fried-egg sandwich,
eat it, then dump a bottle of ketchup on his
plate and eat that with a spoon. Joe said. “I
don’t particularly like the stuff, but I make
it a practice to eat all I can get. Ketchup
is the only grub I know of that is free of
charge.”
The manuscript of the “Oral History”
has vanished. There are some schol-
ars who maintain that it never existed. I
believe it did and that it lives on a shelf in
some academic tomb. In his pocket, in a
ratty envelope, Joe always carried a will,
bequeathing two thirds of the manuscript to
the Harvard Library, and the other third to
the Smithsonian Institution.
Here are a couple of quotes that we can
attribute to Joe Gould, excerpted from
pieces of the “Oral History” that were
published between 1932 and 1962:
“Nearly everyone is perplexed by the
human instinct to either lord it over other
people or bow down to them. In the eyes of
the Infinite, all pride is dust and ashes.”
“When I had all the sunlight that filtered
through Western mountain peaks I had
moods when I wanted the gloomy coolness
of libraries. When I was gorging myself
to repletion with facts sufficiently useless
to be interesting I would all of a sudden be
seized with an intense longing to be again
on horseback speeding into the sunset when
the ice was breaking up in the Missouri
river.”
Very little of Joe’s personal thoughts
survived to be written down. His moni-
ker, Professor Sea Gull, was given to him
because he claimed to have translated the
entire works of Longfellow into the sea gull
language, which he recited daily, “so the
birds will have an equal chance to investi-
gate human folly.” If you listen closely, you
can still hear sea gulls quoting Longfellow.
Joe wrote one poem in English and it
expresses the essence of the writer’s quest.
I have attempted to live my life by its tenets.
“In the summer I am a nudist, in the
winter I am a Buddhist.”
———
J.D. Smith is an accomplished writer and
jack-of-all-trades. He lives in Athena.
Legislation offers chance to enjoy diverse wildlife
DANIELLE MOSER
MIKE TOTEY
OTHER VIEWS
ildlife conservation efforts across
the United States are at a criti-
cal point. More than one-third of
American species are at-risk of extinction
and in need of proactive recovery.
The Oregon Conservation Strategy,
developed with the best available science,
identifies 294 at-risk Oregon species and
provides recommendations on how best
to meet each species’ needs. However,
Oregon’s Department of Fish and Wildlife is
woefully underfunded to adequately imple-
ment the Conservation Strategy.
A 2015 task force created by the Oregon
Legislature found that to fulfill its statutory
mission, ODFW is in need of nearly $50
million per year in additional revenue. As
a changing climate continues to place pres-
sure on Oregon’s habitats and wildlife, now
more than ever, investments in conservation
must rise to meet the need.
Fortunately, on April 7, the United
States Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, of which Oregon Sen.
Jeff Merkley is a member, moved forward
legislation that will greatly assist in meet-
ing ODFW’s funding need. The Recovering
America’s Wildlife Act is a bipartisan bill
W
that would allocate $1.3 billion per year to
state fish and wildlife agencies and Native
American tribes, providing Oregon with
nearly $25 million per year to implement the
work identified in the Oregon Conservation
Strategy.
If the legislation passes, funding will go
towards proactive conservation programs,
aiding wildlife populations before they
become threatened or endangered, while
also helping to recover those that already
are.
For decades, conservation efforts have
proven to be incredibly effective at restor-
ing species, some of which were once on the
brink of extinction. Today, we face a new
wildlife crisis; one in which the magnitude
of the solution must match the magnitude of
the challenge.
Mary Wahl, chair of the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Commission agrees: “Oregon has a
strong history of protecting and enhancing
fish, wildlife and the lands and waters that
support them. This new funding oppor-
tunity sets the stage for addressing key
conservation issues of the 21st century,
especially the impacts of the changing
climate and ocean on Oregon’s ecosystems.”
By prioritizing passage of the Recover-
ing America’s Wildlife Act, this Congress
will ensure that our fish, wildlife and
outdoor recreation traditions will endure for
the benefit of future generations.
Failure to fund these conservation efforts
will not only endanger Oregon’s at-risk
species, but also threaten the many Orego-
nians employed by the outdoor recreation
industry and the communities that rely on
them. Without healthy habitats and thriving
species, outdoor enthusiasts would not be
able to fuel this important industry. Addi-
tionally, by investing in proactive conserva-
tion, we can avoid putting more species on
the path toward extinction.
The Recovering America’s Wildlife
Act represents an historic opportunity to
simultaneously benefit wildlife, conserva-
tion, sportsmen and women, the economy
and taxpayers. The importance of this bill
cannot be overstated.
Curt Melcher, director of the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife says:
“From my perspective, passing this bill
would be the most significant moment
in fish and wildlife conservation in the
United States this century. The Recovering
America’s Wildlife Act would allow us to
fully implement the Oregon Conservation
Strategy and truly begin to address species
conservation proactively instead of the reac-
tive, emergency approach.”
After several years of being stalled in
Congress, this legislation is now closer
than ever to being a reality. We thank
Merkley for voting in favor of the legisla-
tion in committee and urge the rest of our
Congressional delegation to support this
high priority legislation and in doing so,
ensure present and future generations have
the opportunity to enjoy the diverse array of
fish and wildlife that call Oregon home.
———
Danielle Moser is the wildlife program
coordinator for Oregon Wild, and Mike Totey
is the conservation director for the Oregon
Hunters Association.