A Tale of (at least) two Ashlands

Does every town have an establishment that plays by the rules and outsiders that would like to share some of the establishment's goodies? Ashland does, and this comes into focus every year at budget time, Two nonprofits -- the Visitors and Convention Bureau and the Shakespeare Festival -- get most of the public dollars targeted for economic development and culture (which are close to one and the same in Ashland), and outsiders wonder how to break in. Those getting the dollars aren't usually impressed and insist, with some good evidence, that they're successfully doing the job of creating economic activity, and (especially in these tight budget times) changing direction doesn't make any sense. What has fired me up for change is meeting bright younger folks who want to launch various enterprises, most food- and farm-related, but need some technical and financial help to get going. And they're just not Chamber types.
         So I've waded into the fray in Ashland. Here's how it looks to me.

"The" answer? Maybe not, but it comes closer than anything else

I'm taking every opportunity I can find to plug public campaign financing, and making up opportuntities when I can't find them.  There is no magic bullet for what ails politics, but public financing comes far closer than anything else.  It's much closer to the root problem than is term limits, and much sturdier against legal challenge than limits on campaign contributions and advertising.

That last point was made abundantly clear by the Supreme Court in their January 21 decision.  Yes, the Supremes just opened the gate for more corporate and union money in politics, much more, and no, I am not making this up.  There are probably more rounds left in this fight, but I'm not seeing any through-path with a happy ending.  The only good thing about this decision is the way it might redirect attention to the strategy that can work: public financing.  I even think the Supremes did us at least one favor, and here is my exquisite reasoning.

Yes. polls say we don't want public financing.  (I always remember the claim of Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader and a Crown Prince of corporate contributions:  Americans have "already voted" against public financing by over 90%, he says, because fewer than 10% of us check the box on our tax returns to contribute $3 to the presidential election fund). Here's something else polls say: support for public financing grows rapidly as people learn more about  its workings.

SO I SHOUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS about the organization that's gathering the resources and support for public financing.  Please check out what they're doing.  If they -- we -- fail, grim times will  get grimmer.

The 2 types of people in the world: those who see 2 kinds of people in the world and those who don't

I blog on Blue Oregon,  a Huffington Post meets the Democratic Party of Oregon kind of site.  You can burn a lot of time there if your mind twists in a certain direction.

Last night a reponse to one of my posts lit up a bulb for me.   Or re-lit it, really.  It reminded me that the conflict that makes politics and progress so hard really isn't about Republican v Democrat or Right v Left.  It goes deeper than that.  It's really about...well, read here so I don't  repeat myself.   What do you think?

It's not about "Can't We All Get Along?"

Oregon's trying to pull itself part way out of its big financial hole with Ballot Measures 66 and 67, which marginally increase taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. As I write we're about 24 hours away from knowing whether or not Oregonians will buy in.

So many feelings and issues have been stirred by this campaign. One of them -- deep anger and resentment at banks, credit card companies and Wall Street -- has been strategically mined by those who want these measures passed. That happens to be my side in this fight, but the cost of this button-pushing ad strategy gives me pause. After an earlier column complaining about  this "Yes" campaign spot

I heard from some folks who wanted to throw up after reading my "Can't We All Get Along?" plea.  I know exactly what they're talking about.  I feel the nausea.  But believing they missed the point, I took another swing with this column.
  If this stirs a reactions, I'd like to hear it at www.immensepossibilities.blogspot.com

This is nothing but a good idea

Taking a break from intense, earnest attempts to ask the Big Questions, this post is just about a good idea.  A simple idea.  Most good ones are.

Tired as they are of the word "sustainability," people I know wants to move towards it.  How, though?  With obstacles so big, with a starting point than can be so discouraging, how do we actually build a sustainable world?

By doing stuff.  Simple, thoughtful stuff.  Enjoyable stuff that shows us, in front of each other, that we actually make a difference.  That gives us an appetite for more.  Stuff like this.

It's not a new idea.  Here's a good NY Times feature on it. Has anyone had personal experience?

[If this is the first post you're receiving by email, welcome.  To add a comment (and that's kind of the point) or see the blog directly, just go here.  More later]

What backward glances will please you on 12/31/10?

I get that New Years' columns are a little passe, and that "Resolutions" are about as hip-and-now as Guy Lombardo playing the New Year's ball down the pole in Times Square. However arbitrary, the calendar re-fresh is a strong invitation to look at what we're doing, and whether what we're doing will is likely to take us where we want to go. I like this way of putting the question: on December 31, 2010, what will you appreciate about what you did this year?

Here is how I answered. It was worth the effort. However uncool New Years is or isn't.