Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The independent. (Vernonia, Or.) 1986-current | View Entire Issue (May 3, 2000)
Page 2 The INDEPENDENT, May 3, 2000 it. INDEPENDENT Serving the upper Nehalem River valley. Published twice monthly, on the first and third Wednesdays of each month, by Public Opinion Laboratory Ltd., 725 Bridge Street, Vernonia, OR 97064, as a free newspaper. Edi tors and Publishers, Dirk & Noni Andersen. Phone/Fax: (503) 429-9410. Opinion -¡iTiiw« A ^>0 The candidates do matter There are many, too many, uncontested candidates in the May 16 primary election and there is no need to either endorse or oppose uncontested candidates. Only contested positions will be considered here. Columbia County Commissioner. Pos. 1: Democrat Mike Avent is the closest this area can come to a local candidate. He is a local property own er but, more importantly, he is here fairly often and re ally does understand the strengths and weaknesses of the area— he doesn’t have to pretend. ok wfc'tt. Republican Colleen DeShazer has learned a great deal about county government since her unsuccessful candidacy a few years ago. At that time, her lack of knowledge hindered her, but she has worked to de velop a more comprehensive understanding of county Ike Says. . ■ government. By Dale E. Webb, member Representative in Congress. 1st District: Republican Alice Schlenker represents the type of Izaak Walton League, Nehalem Valley Chapter Republican we have seen too seldom the past few years; she is fiscally conservative and socially moder On recent kayak trips, it has ate. In other words, she is the Republican party’s best become readily apparent that hope for winning this position from Democratic control, some people haven’t read their because the voters of this district have made it abun fishing synopsis. Trout fishing in local streams does not open dantly clear that they will reject an ultraconservative until May 27. Trout may not be candidate for congress. retained and you must use arti Secretary of State: ficial flies or lures only. Several Republican Lynn Lundquist has shown the ability to proposed regulation changes work with all groups and, because this position affects going before the Oregon De partment of Fish & Wildlife elections, he is the better candidate. His opponent commissioners this year may seems like a really poor choice to be in charge of elec allow a very limited consump tions since, as former speaker of the Oregon house, tive fishery in the future. I have a correction to make she regularly ignored the majority, not allowing votes on the increases in fishing and on some issues. Lundquist understands Democracy. hunting fees: Pioneers will not Judge of the Supreme Court, Pos. 2: have to pay full price for their Charley Merten has remarkably broad support for a elk tags. The cost is $15.50, an nonpartisan office. He has been endorsed by a huge increase of $12 over last year, number of jurists and attorneys and is the only candi yet still less than the full price date to receive a rating of “highly qualified” from the of $29.50 for the general popu lation. state bar association board of governors. i V 2 I 4; I allot Measure 81 In the last issue of The Independent, our position on the ballot measures was explained. This is only a re minder about Ballot Measure 81 which would amend the state Constitution to allow the legislature to set lim its on damages in civil litigation. If the legislature had held public hearings on this measure when it was proposed by insurance compa ny and health care lobbyists, they probably wouldn’t have referred it to the electorate. That is the point. When the legislature keeps the public away from the process, listens only to a few lobbyists, then hur ries to do their bidding, bad law will invariably occur. With this example before us, we should fear the re sults of Measure 81, for the same process could be re peated when insurance companies want to limit any damages they may have to pay. It will not reduce in surance premiums, but it could reduce insurance com panies’ responsibilities. Vote NO on Measure 81 I have tried to stay away from the topic of gun control because people on both sides of the subject get very emotion al, but I feel it is time to air this matter. In the last INDEPEN DENT, on the front page, was an article about one of our high school students who had inad vertently brought a gun to school. Upon driving onto school property, the youth had violated the zero tolerance law about bringing weapons to school. He did not remove it from his vehicle or make any threatening remarks to class mates. There was no intent or malice on the student’s behalf. The gun, basically, was an inert piece of wood and steel, not unlike most of the vehicles in the parking lot. While I do not advocate bringing weapons to school, I also feel that we must use common sense in dealing with these momentary lapses of judgement. Luckily our school board had some com mon sense and realized there one // at O N tf JL w r« o«/€l Mi s p iT U Co(4*<cr<6H ’ . is a difference between stu dents that have intent and those who do not. We must re member that many of these students are part of the “gun culture” as stated by President Clinton. I was watching CNN the day that our leader labeled a lot of us as belonging to the “gun cul ture.” I have never felt so alien ated in my life. All through my life, I have felt like I was a mainstream all American boy, when I suddenly found out that I belonged to the “gun culture.” I felt divided from my fellow cit izens and almost like I be longed to a cult group, an un welcome group at that. That day was the divining moment that I fully understood that our president of the United States wanted to ban all guns. He may say that is not the case, but please don’t ask me to believe a known liar. Gun control is a hot topic these days because of the ac tions of a very small part of our society. The school shootings are abhorrent and we must work to solve this problem, and the zero tolerance law on bring ing weapons to school is a step in the right direction. But the fact still remains that this law will do absolutely nothing to stop an intended school shoot ing. In fact this law, in a way, makes schools an easier tar get. There is much publicity about gun shows and the ease of buying guns. We could regu late the gun shows, yet the criminals will still get guns. We can mandate gun locks and storage, yet criminals will still get guns and still commit crimes. This may sound more like an anti-gun slogan rather than a gun defender slogan. It is, instead, the realization of the truth. In order to stop gun crime, all guns would have to be removed from society and this, my friends, is illegal under our current constitution as many of us see it. Besides, if all guns are removed, crime as a whole will increase, not de crease. Many people will scoff at this notion, but all they have to do is look at the statistics that are coming out of Australia after their partial gun ban. Crime has dramatically in creased and home invasion crimes are becoming rampant. I can think of no other crime that is so hideous as to be at tacked in your own home with out the resources to defend yourself, yet that is exactly what is happening in Australia and the blood is on the hands of that government and the anti-gun people. A lot of people believe that, by controlling gun shows and mandating smart guns and safety locks, crime will be re duced. I have to question this thinking in light of how the last gun legislation affected society. Under the Brady Act, an esti mated 500,000 people have been denied guns by licensed gun dealers. These people were denied guns because of their criminal records. By trying to purchase a gun, these very same 500,000 people commit ted a felony offense. Guess how many of them were pros ecuted under the Brady Act. Only a handful. When the NRA attacked the president for this administrative failing, many people felt that they had gone too far. But they were right, and yes, Mr. President, you do have blood on your hands because you, of all people, could have mandated enforcement of the Brady Act, but you intentionally allowed these criminals to go free, and yes, many of them ac quired guns through other means and probably commit ted crimes, and you could have stopped them. We must then ask ourselves why Please see page 3