Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Baker City herald. (Baker City, Or.) 1990-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 20, 2020)
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2020 Baker City, Oregon 4A Write a letter news@bakercityherald.com EDITORIAL Wolf worries It’s hardly surprising that some local ranchers are dissatisfi ed with Oregon’s wolf depredation compen- sation program. Statistics tell part of the tale. Since the state-funded program started in 2012, Baker County livestock owners have requested $269,000 in compensation for confi rmed or suspected animal losses or, in some cases, to employ nonlethal measures to deter wolves. The state has given Baker County $155,000 — 58% of the requested amount. Members of the county committee that reviews applications for compensation through the state program told county commissioners last week they’re frustrated with the program, which is administered through the Oregon Department of Agriculture. The state doesn’t fully compensate ranchers for the value of their animals, committee member Mike Colton said. The dollar fi gures above justify Colton’s complaint. And it’s worthwhile for county offi cials to lobby the Legislature to review the compensation program, which at times has received federal money to supple- ment the state’s contributions. But as Shella DelCurto, a Pine Valley rancher who received a $1,431 payment in 2018 after wolves killed one of her calves, told commissioners last week, the current program, whatever its faults, is the only one available. Baker County should continue to use the compen- sation program even as it seeks to improve it. — Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor OTHER VIEWS Editorial from The St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Law enforcers around the world are celebrating the rapidly expanding potential of facial recognition software to help them catch criminals faster and solve long-dormant cases. Such capabilities in the right hands could reap enormous public safety dividends. But in the wrong hands, an entirely new dimension in crime, extortion and mayhem could soon be unleashed. Before it’s too late, Americans need to think long and hard about the wisdom of venturing down this uncharted road. Few would argue against tools that help police capture dangerous criminals. It’s the law-abiding among us who need to worry about what comes next when this software expands to general public use. One of the most frightening technological advances is Clearview AI, a powerful facial recognition service cur- rently available to U.S. and Canadian law enforcers. The company’s software takes uploaded photos then scrapes the internet, including Facebook, for exact-match images. Its database now contains 3 billion photos and videos. But those aren’t just photos of criminals. They’re photos of children, grandmothers, families having fun at the beach. Anything and everything is fair game. That’s what makes it so useful to law enforcers. Precise comparison algorithms zip through the entire database at lightning speed to analyze frontal and profi le facial photos along with any information connected to the targeted person. Whether it’s your name, birthdate, hometown, children’s names, high school, hobbies, favorite bar, political views — if it’s on the internet, the algorithm uses it. Most police offi cers would probably use such software only under authorized circumstances. But we know from a few local cases that not all offi cers can be trusted. Some could use it for personal enrichment or to fi nd out, say, who an ex-spouse is dating. Now imagine such an app on a cellphone for general public use. You’re walking down the street, and a complete stranger greets you by name, identifi es your spouse and kids, maybe mentions the name of your employer or how your family’s Grand Canyon vacation went. Maybe the stranger mentions your address, or your political leanings. Left unregulated, the threat and exploitation potential would be unlimited. Clearview insists its software is closely monitored and secure, and is designed to “identify child molesters, mur- derers, suspected terrorists, and other dangerous people quickly, accurately, and reliably to keep our families and communities safe.” But when a New York Times reporter looked into the company and contacted offi cers for a demonstration of the program, one offi cer received a call from Clearview and asked him why he uploaded a New York Times reporter’s photo. A block was placed on searches of her. It was a clear demonstration of how the software is vulnerable to political manipulation. If ever there was a clarion call for Congress to impose tight restrictions on this technology, it’s now — before the notion of privacy becomes a quaint memory of a bygone era. Your views Stop spreading Trump’s lies, exaggerations Thank you, Craig Martell, for your letter to the editor regarding the recent “Checking the facts” editorial. I too was appalled to see my local paper spread- ing Trump’s lies and exaggerations. I expect better and am hoping this was just an aberration or the result of tem- porary brain freeze. If I wanted to hear this type of nonsense, I would watch FOX news. Rita Fuller Baker City Americans shouldn’t consider electing socialist as president I have a couple of thoughts on cur- rent political issues. After the countless hours wasted on the Trump impeachment experi- ence by politicians and the even more countless and obnoxious hours wasted by the media on their daily analysis, I can sum it up quite simply. Democrats had a majority in the House so they impeached the President. Republicans had a majority in the Senate so they acquitted him. It was always and only about politics. Outcome of each House Letters to the editor We welcome letters on any issue of public interest. Letters are limited to 350 words. Writers are limited to one letter every 15 days. Writers must sign their letter and include an address and phone number (for verifi cation only). Email letters to news@bakercityherald.com. or Senate effort was predictable from the start and only a fool would think otherwise. So now that months were wasted, while real issues were generally ignored, (OK, so they did pass USMCA during this time) can we expect better? What are the chances that Republicans and Democrats will manage to agree on legislation that would be benefi cial? How about addressing the national debt for a good starting point? When Democrats spend all their efforts at- tacking Trump and the Republicans spend all their efforts defending him, little gets done. As a Republican I have no say in the Democrat primaries; that’s as it should be. I can accept the differences between Republican and Democrat philosophy. But what is abhorrent is that a social- ist/communist is a frontrunner in the Democrat party. He shouldn’t even be considered! Socialism is not just a dif- ferent political idea — it is evil! There is no successful example of socialism in history. Don’t suggest the Scandinavian countries — they are capitalist although with more social programs. Do people know or remember Stalin and the 60 million Russians he had murdered? Or about Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) and the 60 million people who died in World War II? Are people aware of the recent failure in Venezuela? Do high school students read Orwell’s “Animal Farm” anymore? What are students taught about socialism? Are Bernie Sanders supporters aware of what socialism/ communism is or are they actively try- ing to undermine our America? I realize Sanders is not the fi rst socialist/commu- nist to run for president but he is being taken far too seriously as a possible elected leader for our country. James Carnahan Baker City No need for Democratic panic Calm down, Democrats. There have been exactly two nominating contests for your party’s presidential nomination, both in deeply unrepresentative states: Iowa and New Hampshire. And so far, it appears that Demo- crats are behaving exactly as everyone thought they would. They are torn between choosing a candidate who wants to turn over tables and really shake things up (“Medicare for All,” much higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy), or a more moderate candidate who wants to accomplish essentially the same goals without breaking too much china (Medicare for most, somewhat higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy). All the fi rst two contests really make clear is that there are still a lot of vi- able candidates in the race, and that Democrats are exactly where parties without an incumbent on the ticket tend to fi nd themselves at this point in the campaign. The anxiety is under- standable but counterproductive. In 2016, remember, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders fought it out until July, when he formally conceded, and endorsed her. The bad feelings from that contest endure to this day. In 2008, Clinton and then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama also went the dis- tance; they battled until June 7, when Clinton dropped out, having made, in her memorable words, “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling.” That was a mere fi ve months before the elec- tion, which still left plenty of time for Democrats to freak out about Obama’s electability. “There are growing fears in some quarters that the Democratic Party may not be choosing its strongest candidate to beat Republican John Mc- Cain,” said the Guardian. ROBIN ABCARIAN Obama was too far left, he accused rural voters of clinging to “guns or religion,” he told Joe the Plumber he wanted to “spread the wealth around” (socialist!), and his pastor gave fi ery speeches denouncing America. Oh, and for God’s sake, he was black. And while it’s popular today to talk about how, even if Democrats win the popular vote, the Electoral College favors Republicans, let’s remember that while Obama garnered 52.9% of the popular vote to McCain’s 45.7%, he also earned 365 votes in the electoral college while McCain got 173. In 2012, when then-incumbent Obama ran against Mitt Romney, he had a very bad fi rst debate. He was rusty, he seemed listless. Democrats immediately proclaimed the end was nigh. One prophet of doom, the erstwhile conservative Andrew Sullivan, wrote perhaps the most hysterical assess- ment: “A sitting president does not recover from being obliterated on substance, style and likability in the fi rst debate and get much of a chance to come back. He has, at a critical mo- ment, deeply depressed his base and his supporters and independents are fl ocking to Romney in droves.” (The headline on his essay: “Did Obama Just Throw the Entire Election Away?”) Less than a month later, Obama soundly beat Romney, 51.1% to 47.2%, earning 332 electoral votes to Rom- ney’s 206. And then there’s Donald Trump. He was the most unelectable candidate in recent American political history, until he wasn’t. Trump made all kinds of preposter- ous promises: He would build a wall on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it. He would revive the moribund coal industry. He would “take the oil” from Iraq to pay for the U.S. invasion. He would release his tax returns. Outraged Democrats could not believe their ears. His supporters just laughed off the criticism: We take him seriously, but we don’t take him literally. It would help Democrats to think about their candidates in exactly this way. When Democrats promise Medicare for All (or most), when they vow to tax the super-rich to raise money for uni- versal preschool, or to abolish college debt, just relax. These are aspirations, all of them excellent. As Matthew Yglesias of Vox tweeted Thursday, “Take Medicare for All seri- ously but not literally.” I would, above all, urge Democrats not to automatically recoil at the phrase “democratic socialism.” Do not allow Trump and his allies to demon- ize the phrase the way Republicans demonized the word “liberal” back in the day when Rush Limbaugh was ascendant. Call me crazy, but I happen to believe that Americans are smart enough to tell the difference between Scandinavia and Venezuela. So take a deep breath, Democrats. Erase the word “electability” from your vocabulary. Think about the kind of country you want to live in, the kind of person you want in the White House. Then vote accordingly. Robin Abcarian is an opinion columnist for the Los Angeles Times.
