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