natecurrie.com

Rebooting Democracy, Part Two: A Blueprint for Oregon

noreply@blogger.com (Nate Currie) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:58:00 +0000

The second workshop I went to was presented by 1000 Friends of Oregon.

In the introduction, Bob Stacey (Executive Director of 1000 Friends) laid out the present situation. Though encouraged by the passage of Measure 49 and Portland's progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the state's carbon footprint is still growing and farms and forests remain under threat. 1000 Friends is focusing its energies on three ideas:

We'll still need farmland in 2050. We should keep this farmland close in to help contain transportation costs. We'll also need forests for CO2 sequestration.
We need to reduce carbon emissions. 38% come from tailpipes. We can fix how we get around by studying land use patterns (and influencing them) to decrease transportation distances.
We need to expand transportation budgets. Balance needs to be reached in our transportation networks, with more dollars going to transit, walking and biking.

Protecting farmland
Presented by Greg Holmes

Oregon has some of the richest farmland in the country, even the world. The agricultural sector accounts for $5 billion annually and $12 billion when factoring in related industries (approximately 10% of Oregon's economy). A high percentage of this is from family farms, which are located all over the state, not just in the Willamette Valley.

In the mid-70s, Senate Bill 1000 created statewide land use planning, including agricultural zoning and Urban Growth Boundaries. Unfortunately, many provision have been weakened and population growth is on the rise, leading to global warming and potential fossil fuel shortages. It's becoming increasingly important to grow our food close to home.

In the next 18 months, the next phase of land use planning will begin with the establishment of "rural reserves." Where SB1000 helped establish when you can build, rural reserves will be set up to protect areas (like prime farmland) from future development.

How to reduce greenhouse emissions through land use planning and design
Presented by Dan Eisenbeis

Look around the streets of Portland. You still see the rings where people used to tie up their horses. Results of land use decisions are in place decades later, and can take just as long to change. The single biggest indicator of transportation sustainability is VMT, Vehicle Miles Travelled. In Portland, per capita VMT has gone down 15% since 1990. We have succeeded in attaining the goals set out by the Kyoto Protocols.

What we need to do now is apply lessons learned in Portland to the rest of the state. The legislature has succeeded in passing some "goals" but we need to make those mandatory. This can be done most effectively by adding fees to inefficient development and using the funds to pay for smart development.

Transportation networks—how we get around
Presented by Eric Stachon

First and foremost, our policies need to reflect transportation resources (funding and land) and accommodate environment impact.

Problems with the current system:

Gas tax hasn't increased since 1993.
Oregon has some of the lowest vehicle registration fees in the country.
Our infrastructure is failing.
Our failure to maintain our infrastructure is having an increasing economic impact on freight.

Some possible solutions (from proposals to the 2009 legislature):

Fix roads before expanding them.
Create real transportation options, particularly for the young and elderly.
Make better use of our existing resources before expanding them.
All transportation proposals need to be looked at through the frame of what their effect on our carbon footprint will be.

---

Well, that pretty well sums up my notes from the session. I wish I'd written this sooner so I'd be better able to flesh out some of the sections from my memory. Still, this outlines the basics of what was discussed.

Rebooting Democracy, Part One: Framing

noreply@blogger.com (Nate Currie) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:45:00 +0000

Over the weekend of January 11-13, I attended the Rebooting Democracy conference put on by the Oregon Bus Project. It featured several workshops, policy discussions, and candidate debates. Over the next week or so, I'll try and summarize some of these happenings. (I had intended to do a quick wrap-up over a couple of days, but I ended up going more in depth here than I intended. Ultimately, I think this will be more interesting for any readers I may have, but it's going to take a bit more time.)

The subject of the first workshop I attended was "framing." For those not familiar with the concept, framing refers to setting the context in which an issue is discussed, particularly the language used to discuss the issue. For example, on the issue of abortion, you'll notice that pro-choice advocates talk about "choice" and "the right to choose" rather than being pro-abortion. Their opponents are considered anti-choice. On the other side, abortion opponents call themselves pro-life and consistently refer to the fetus as an unborn child.

The panel discussing the issue consisted of Ian Greenfield, Adam Klugman, Mac Pritchard, Steve Bella. The first point they made was that you have to frame things in a way that people personally relate to. People don't care (as much) about other people who don't have health care. What they worry about it losing their own. This can't just be a factual connection; it needs to be an emotional one. People respond most strongly when they're angry, concerned, or afraid (fear being a frequent tool of the Bush administration in particular). It's also important to be the first one to frame a discussion. If the media and public have already accepted your opponent's frame, it becomes much more difficult to make them see it your way. Furthermore, when your opponent does try to frame an issue, you have to respond immediately. The strategy for changing an existing frame is actually fairly simple. You must send out more press releases and attract more media using your frame than the opponent does using his or hers. Also you can try to form relationships with the press by allowing them access to your campaign and making them more sympathetic to your frame. Journalists are always looking for stories so the more you can give them using your frame, the more likely it is that they will adopt it. Finally, you can't accept your opponent's frame. This is one reason Barack Obama received a great deal of criticism from Paul Krugman and many other progressives recently for referring to the "Social Security crisis," which is a frame Republicans have used a frequently in their attempts to privatize Social Security.

Another great example of framing that could be particularly useful today occurred early in the twentieth century. Like today, huge corporations wielded a disproportionate amount of power in the government and, through their monopolies, in the marketplace. Woodrow Wilson, in running against Howard Taft, called for a "new freedom" in the marketplace. He posited that entrepreneurs were being kept out of the market and crushed by the influence of these massive and powerful corporations.

Another key in framing is to take a perceived negative and turn it into a positive. For example, in response to a question from the audience, the panel discussed how Kerry could have responded to the Swift Boat allegations. The Republicans were attacking his strength (his war record) and trying to turn it into a negative, another classic framing trick (Karl Rove is one of the masters of this ploy). In response, Kerry could have tried to use the incident to address one of his negatives. During the campaign, one of Kerry's problems was his inability to speak to voters in a voice they related to. In contrast to Bush's down-home [idiot] charm, Kerry appeared stuffy and elitist. If, for instance, he had chosen to go on a personality show, like Oprah, and explained how the accusations hurt him personally and how they were insulting to all veterans, he might have been able to turn the issue to his advantage by showing his own humanity and vulnerability, and also his strength in standing up for himself and other veterans.

Towards the end of the workshop, the discussion turned to how progressives who represent a variety of different issues can be helped in using successful framing. The panel suggested that a list of talking points and accepted framing be distributed for each of the major issues before us. Then whenever a candidate or policy-maker is addressing one of these issues they can be using approved, unifying language.

They also suggested that in addressing baby boomers, who remain a hugely important and influential voting block, that we adopt an overarching frame about their legacy to their children and grandchildren. This frame can be applied to virtually every major issue before us (health care, foreign policy, energy policy, and the environment, among others). We need to persuade them that they have a moral obligation to leave the country better than they found it.

The workshop ended with an admonition to stop looking to our supposed leaders for answers, to distribute leadership among ourselves, the masses of progressives all over the country, and be our own leaders.

Oops, my bad

noreply@blogger.com (Nate Currie) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:28:00 +0000

Hmm, what is this taste? Kind of like poisson, but gamier. A bit like squab, only leaner and chewier. Oh, I know, it’s crow.

Yes, I was wrong. I can take some solace in the fact that every other election prognosticator in the country was similarly wrong. Hillary surprised us all and knocked off Obama in New Hampshire. This wasn’t exactly Dewey Defeats Truman, but in these days of daily tracking polls, crosstabs, and statistical analysis, this is as surprising a victory as we are likely to ever see. There are many theories on why the pollsters failed. I think the best summary I’ve seen was done by Chris Bowers over at OpenLeft, and can be read here.

But that's the past now. The question is, what's next? Well, the Nevada caucuses (1/19)are up next, and Obama has received some high-profile union endorsements (which are historically very important in Nevada) and looks to have the inside track. Pollsters have been largely ignoring Nevada so anything could happen (though, as we learned last week, anything can happen anyway). Well, and Michigan (1/15) is also up, but Hillary's the only one on the ballot, so the impact should be limited. Then it's down to South Carolina (1/26) and Florida (1/29) before heading into the critical February 5th primary featuring a huge collection of states.

From here out, I'm not going to try and prognosticate any more, both because crow doesn't taste very good (even with a nice ginger, rosemary and pepper spice rub), and because there's a very good argument to be made that focusing on the horse race at the expense of other issues is, in fact, detrimental to democracy in general. So, I will continue to talk about the issues and interpret results, but won't be making any more silly predictions.

Finally, I'm spending this entire weekend at the Rebooting Democracy conference put on by the Oregon Bus Project. It's a great event and we've been discussing a lot of interesting things. In the coming days I'll be posting more about what we talked about, what I've learned, and where we go from here.

The Best Places in Portland to Get a Pint

noreply@blogger.com (Nate Currie) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:42:00 +0000

1: The Horse Brass. If you can handle the smoke and the rest of the authentic British pub atmosphere, this is by far the best place in town to get a pint (make that a 20oz imperial pint). Many years after helping kick-start a nascent micro-brewing revolution, this is still the place to go for the best selection of local brews, imports, and tasty traditional pub fare. Four steel-tip dart boards and video crack can help you pass the time.

2: The Green Dragon. New kid on the block Green Dragon has only been open for a few months, but has already carved out a nice niche for itself. Arguments in favor include: no smoking, a selection of unusual beers that you won't find elsewhere (don't come here if you're attached to your old standbys—unless you spend an inordinate amount of time following beer, you're virtually guaranteed to see mostly unfamiliar options), and a unique menu that veers far from traditional also hits the mark (I highly recommend the Tuscan chicken bread salad, though once the chicken was a bit overcooked). Pinball is the featured entertainment here.

3 (tie): The New Old Lompoc and The Hedge House. These two places really aren't all that alike, but the things to love about them are. Both have large covered and heated patios. The beer selection includes many great Lompoc brews as well as a few guest taps. The menus are different, but both feature well-executed slightly upscale pub food. There's no smoking indoors at the Hedge House, but it's allowed on the patio.

4: The Moon and Six Pence. Here's another bar that tries for the Anglophile crowd. It doesn't hit on every note, but that's not really a big deal to most of us. They do the British pub food well, and while their tap selection isn't nearly as comprehensive as the Horse Brass's or as unique as Green Dragon's you're likely to have several good options on any given night. Three steel-tip dart boards are hung for your pointy-object-throwing pleasure.

5: Produce Row. Taps here skew strongly to the local end of things. They also have a lovely outdoor seating area. Frequent live music is great if it's an act you're into and annoying if it's not. Food is also solid, especially anything that comes with the delicious beer-battered fries which will harden your arteries in seconds but are worth the pain. One pool table beckons from the back room.

There are a few other places that are worth a brief mention, despite the fact you can't even get a draught pint in two of them.

π-rem. π-rem is a great little underground gallery, lounge, and performance space. It has an excellent list of imported bottled beer and wine. There's no food available, so eat before you show up. Also check the calendar for interesting avant garde electronic music acts.

The Blue Monk. Blue Monk has a respectable selection of taps but the real standout is an impressively extensive list of bottled beer. The food has been good whenever I've visited, but I've heard tales that it can be inconsistent.

The Pied Cow. Yes, a coffee shop makes this list for two reasons. First, in the summer and fall, the Pied Cow has one of the best outdoor seating areas in town. The side lawn has numerous benches and tables nestled amongst the trees and shrubs with lighting provided by tiki torches and hanging strings of Christmas lights. Second, they have a surprisingly sizable list of bottled beer, many of which are hard to find elsewhere. Food consists of well-made coffee-shop fare like sandwiches, cheese plates, and various desserts.

Belmont Station. It may not even be on Belmont any more (it's now a few blocks north on Stark), but this is still by far the best place to by bottled beer in town, and the new(ish) location has a small cafe where you can enjoy one of a few taps, or pick a bottle out or the cooler and enjoy it on the spot. I haven't sampled the food, so I can't speak to its quality.

Next up, New Hampshire

noreply@blogger.com (Nate Currie) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:37:00 +0000

As expected, Obama’s win in Iowa has resulted in a significant lead heading into New Hampshire. Clinton had a 4-10 point lead before the Iowa caucuses but, as in years past, Obama’s win in Iowa has translated into a significant bump in NH, South Carolina, and later states. With Obama almost certain to carry New Hampshire and South Carolina, it’s likely that the next significant state that Clinton will have a chance at will be Florida, leaving her to attempt to emulate Rudy Giuliani’s strategy of using a few wins in big states to overcome early losses. In all likelihood though, early momentum will be too significant for either to overcome. Hillary also has to worry about the possibility of Edwards dropping out and throwing his support to Obama, which would definitely speel the end for her.

Speaking of Republicans, it appears that John McCain has the inside track on winning New Hampshire, which should all but eliminate Mitt Romney from contention. The one thing he has to worry about is his dependence on independents who can vote in either primary (but not both). Obama’s popularity appears to indicate that most independents will vote in the Democratic primary to support him, rather than register their preference for McCain in Mike Huckabee is then virtually certain to win in South Carolina setting up a showdown in Florida with McCain (or Romney if he’s pulls out a win in New Hampshire) and Giuliani. Giuliani has been sitting out the early (and more conservative states in hopes of making a late run, so Florida is a must-win for him. McCain too must win to maintain his momentum going into February 5th, when several big states will be holding primaries.

So, for both Democrats and Republicans it seems likely that things will follow a set form until Florida. On the Democratic side, this will be Hillary’s last chance to make a move and possibly pick up some momentum heading into February 5th. For the Republicans, Florida will be Giuliani’s first chance to show he’s a real contender and also the first state likely to be legitimately contested by both McCain and Huckabee. In both cases, the winner will definitely have the inside track on “Super Tuesday.”

The Three Best Things I Ate This Year

noreply@blogger.com (Nate Currie) — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:03:00 +0000

1) Ike's Vietnamese Fish Sauce Wings - Pok Pok

2) The Rueben - Kenny & Zuke's

3) Tie: Sautéed Chanterelles on Griddled Bread and Squash Dumplings with Braised Lamb - Toro Bravo

Honorable Mention:

Super Gyro with Lamb – Aybla Grill, 920 SW Alder (yes, it's a cart)

Iowa Fallout

noreply@blogger.com (Nate Currie) — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:38:00 +0000

So, my predictions for the Dems were in the right ballpark, but turnout was even higher than my highest expectations. This drove Obama's margin from slim to convincing. For those not following elsewhere, the final count was Obama 37.6%, Edwards 29.8%, Hillary 29.5% (full results).

So, what's next?

Well, New Hampshire takes to the polls on Tuesday. Obama has already been trending upward and Hillary downward according to Pollster.com, but she still had a solid lead as of a few days ago. The withdrawal of Dodd and Biden could make a few more votes available, but their numbers were low enough that the impact should be minimal. In some ways, Edwards's strong showing in Iowa may actually have helped Hillary. Had he been defeated handily, his supporters might well have fled to Obama, as the most viable non-Hillary candidate.

Still, I think Obama has a great chance to turn his momentum from Iowa into a win in New Hampshire. If you haven't seen it, Obama's victory speech was pretty solid. We should have some new tracking polls out in the next day or two and I'm going to wait till those come out before going out on any limbs. If I had to guess now, I'd say Obama beats Hillary by about 3 points. Edwards finishes about 10 points back of that. I'll come out with a real prediction when I see some post-Iowa polling.

Now, what about the Republicans?

Huckabee laid the wood to Romney and the rest of the field, which wasn't entirely surprising given his recent surge and the number of religious conservatives in Iowa. New Hampshire is pretty much a must-win for Romney or McCain, since neither are likely to beat Huckabee in South Carolina. Unfortunately the Obama win does not bode well for McCain's chances in NH. Why does Obama matter in the Republican primary? Because in NH, independents can vote in either primary (but not both). In 2000 it was the independent vote that drove McCain to a surprise victory over Dubya in NH. Sadly for McCain, independents are also a huge part of Obama's support and it looks like a lot of them are going to choose to vote in the Dem primary (at least Obama better hope so). Right now, I'd have to say Romney has the advantage over the rest of the field in NH.

That's it for now. More in a day or so when I've got some more recent polling.

The Caucuses are Coming!

noreply@blogger.com (Nate Currie) — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 06:08:00 +0000

For the inaugural (real) post of my blog, I had to talk about what can't help to be one of the top stories of 2008. Of course, I'm speaking of the Presidential election. For those who don't follow these things very closely, the election season kicks off Thursday (January 3) with the Iowa caucuses. Despite the fact that our national election is still eleven months away, one can make a reasonable argument that we may well know who our next president will be within the next few weeks, if not days.

Okay, we won't know who the next president will be, because there's always a chance for unforeseen circumstances to arise. However, given the likely hostile environment to be faced by the Republican nominee, and the ridiculous fundraising advantages enjoyed by Democrats in general over the past year or so (particularly the numbers put up by Clinton and Obama), it's fair to say the odds favor the eventual Democratic nominee, though of course this is far from assured. The Democratic nominee (and likely the Republican as well) will be almost certainly known by the end of the day on February 5th which, in addition to being my 32nd birthday, is also the day that a huge number of states representing over a quarter of all delegates to the national conventions will hold their primaries. In actuality, we will probably know much sooner. This is because the huge role Iowa and New Hampshire play in choosing our presidential nominees. Yes, it's absurd that two small, predominantly white and rural states basically choose our options for President, but that's a rant for another post. You only need to go back four years for a prime example.

In 2004, Howard Dean was leading nationally and in New Hampshire by significant margins, but faced a tough battle in Iowa. One third place finish and a "scream," followed by a quick fade and disappointing loss in New Hampshire 10 days later, and Dean was toast (on the other hand, a second-place finish in Iowa propelled John Edwards to a win in South Carolina and the eventual vice-presidential nod).

So, suffice it to say, we'll know a great deal about the eventual Democratic nominee in just a few short days. The Republican situation is a bit more complicated, and this post is already looking to be a bit long-winded, so I'll save that for a future post. Hopefully I'll get a chance to write it before Iowans ~~take to the polls~~ gather to horse-trade their votes. Yeah, that's another thing. Iowa does not have a direct-vote primary like most other states. They use a caucus to allocate their delegates. This is pretty complicated process (especially on the Democratic side) and will simply refer you to the comprehensive series on DailyKos by desmoinesdem (Part One/Introduction, Part Nine/Index)

Now a summary of what may transpire tomorrow and what it could mean:

Barack Obama

Will win if: he succeeds in turning out a large contingent of young and other first-time caucus-goers. Also, it sounds like some of the lesser candidates may throw their delegates to Obama if they aren't shown to be viable.

If he wins: he has a chance to boost his chances in New Hampshire which could give him the momentum to carry South Carolina and a majority of the large states voting on February 5th.

Prediction: 1st

John Edwards

Will win if: turnout is low. Has a strong following in the activist and labor communities. Also has the advantage of having an experienced team on the ground and he's been here before (finished a strong second in Iowa in 2004).

If he wins: Edwards is still far enough behind in NH, that an Iowa win may not be enough to carry him to victory there, but if Obama finishes third in Iowa, he may be able to steal enough of Obama's anti-Hillary votes to win or finish a strong second which could give him enough momentum to carry through SC and to February 5th. Still would have a lot of work to do to win.

Prediction: a very close 2nd.

Hillary Clinton

Will win if: turnout is solid, but not strong among Obama's core constituency of first-time caucus-goers. Also will be helped if some of the lesser candidates reach the viability threshold (15%) to hang onto their delegates and not send them to Obama or Edwards.

If she wins: Hillary could be unstoppable. She leads in all of the upcoming states and doesn't need much help to follow through with a series of wins in NH, SC, and others.

Prediction: a very, very close 3rd.

The Field

Will win if: hell freezes over. A third place finish by any of the also-rans would be considered a huge victory, but...

If one of them wins: and by "wins" I mean finishes third, it would probably still not be enough to threaten either of the top two. However, it would be the death knell for whoever finished fourth.

Prediction: Less than 10% between them.

Basically, I think all three major candidates will all be around 30%. That's why turnout will be so important. Just a few extra delegates in the right precincts could swing this thing.

The new blog

noreply@blogger.com (Nate Currie) — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:40:00 +0000

This is going to be the home of my new blog which I'm hoping to launch January 1, 2008. Hopefully it will be updated almost daily and will contain my random thoughts on politics, food, drink, movies, music, and whatever else I happen to feel like talking about.