Only Oregon and Idaho have prioritized teachers for COVID-19 vaccinations. This should be a point of pride. Instead, Republican lawmakers used it as a pretense to boycott their work in Salem and angry letters to the editor have filled this page.

Courtney Campbell, a professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University, told The Oregonian that he can’t formulate “an ethically justified defense for prioritizing daycare, preschool and K-12 employees.” (I’m raising my hand, Professor.) Let me try!

The Oregon Health Authority counts 152,000 eligible teachers, K-12 support staff, early learning and childcare personnel who qualify for the vaccine. Prioritizing this small percentage of Oregon’s 4.2 million people will allow schools and daycare centers to reopen.

Anyone who believes that students can skip one whole year of schooling without risking lifelong harm is uninformed or unrealistic. Our “remote learning” regimen has been a dangerously inadequate substitute for the classroom experience.

Younger teachers and children without complicating conditions may not be at grave risk without the vaccine. Giving educators vaccine priority won’t save lives. It will do something bigger than that. It will preserve society. It will also curb deleterious effects students could otherwise suffer for the rest of their lives.

The Center for Disease Control has issued a ruling that teachers should be able to safely return to the classroom without first getting vaccinated, so long as the schools have proper ventilation, rigorous cleaning protocols and social distancing. When was the last time any of those CDC researchers visited a grade school classroom?

Yes, it is theoretically possible for a teacher avoid close contact with his or her students, but that would only replicate the worst parts of “remote learning.” It looks possible on paper, but not in the real world.

School does so much more than instruct our children. They need the classroom experience to gain important social skills. Teachers convey the material to be learned, but they also model a confidence that comes with mastery. Fearful teachers make hesitant learners.

Also consider social equity. The students losing the most ground are generally those with the smallest margin for error for future success. Stable families with large homes and present parents have been inconvenienced, but those children are more likely to maintain some academic momentum.

Families in crowded conditions without food security and Internet access have been less likely to keep their children connected to their teachers and academic goals. Once children feel they are falling behind their peers in school, the temptation to give up grows monstrously.

Get students back into their classrooms, where hunger and emotional fragilities can be addressed. Parents — especially mothers — will be more productive and less stressed. Neighborhoods will once again be woken by children being trundled off to school. The rhythm of life will resume.

The cost of prioritizing education staff is being borne by senior citizens. Big-box retail greeters notwithstanding, most seniors can minimize their exposure risk until they can be vaccinated. Every child that regains ground from the school year they’ve lost will benefit society for decades to come.

==

Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a column each Friday for The Register-Guard and archives past columns at www.dksez.com.

The post Society benefits by vaccinating teachers appeared first on dkSez : : : : : : Don Kahle's blog.

It’s been seven months since the Holiday Farm wildfire. If you’ve visited or passed Blue River in the past month or two, you probably noticed trees festooned with pale blue dots. Those trees are marked for removal. Some look charred at their base but with healthy crowns, causing locals to worry that too many trees will be cut.

Evaluating which trees pose potential road hazards is complicated. “Getting a second opinion” on every tree would slow the clean-up process intolerably. I was curious how incentives have been aligned to favor particular outcomes. So I sent a list of questions to Elsa Gustavson at the U.S. Forest Service. I haven’t heard back from her, but here are my questions.

Regarding the crews who are evaluating and/or cutting the blue-dotted trees:

• Is any portion of their remuneration determined (directly or indirectly) by the number of trees cut?
• Do contracts codify alacrity by rewarding speed or punishing tardiness?
• Do any contracts acknowledge that a certain-width path must be cut (healthy or not) to gain access to a hazard tree?
• Are healthy trees that must be removed to gain access to hazard trees identified and tracked separately?
• Once a tree is cut, are there additional fees earned for removing, chipping and/or processing the logs?
• For trees that cannot be milled for lumber, who pays for the felled timber to be processed or disposed?
• Who receives payment for any lumber cut from the felled trees, and how is the accounting handled?
• Is the owner of standing tree always the owner of the resulting logs? If ownership changes in the process, how is that transfer documented?
• Who determines the fate of a tree that is on private property, but is tall enough to block a public roadway if it fell?
• If a tree poses a public hazard but stands on private property, what options are given to the owner and how are those options conveyed? How specific and timely must the owner’s response be?
• Do any liabilities for tree-related hazards endure for contractors or their bond agents after the contracted period?
• Are there best practices available in contract language that rewards crews for preserving as many trees as possible? (For example, if every felled tree obligated the contractor to grind the stump six inches below ground and cover with replacement soil, contractors would think twice before cutting even one tree.)
• In short: If a tree is exactly in the midpoint of all evaluation factors, will contractors see greater incentives to cut or keep that one particular tree?

I have one more question, not for the Forest Service but for all of us. Why does public safety outweigh all other human concerns?

Life is full of hazards. Every tree is dangerous. A splinter can lead to infection and possible death. Healthy limbs don’t often fall on people, but the chances of something falling from above is never zero. We should all wear helmets all the time.

If we protect life so well that it’s no longer worth living, what good is that?

==

Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a column each Friday for The Register-Guard and archives past columns at www.dksez.com.

The post Does a falling tree make a sound? appeared first on dkSez : : : : : : Don Kahle's blog.

Much ink has been spilled over the last few months about whether Democrats might bring to an end the Senate’s filibuster tradition. Keep in mind that it is nothing more than a tradition. Filibusters are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. 

It’s true that our founding fathers wanted to avoid the tyranny of the majority, but they rested in the belief that competing ambitions and general bonhomie would suffice. They never dreamed that a minority of lawmakers would consider halting all government business and declaring themselves satisfied.

What might happen if the majority gains the power to assert its will without active participation from the minority? Recall George Santayana’s warning, slightly revised: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to reading about it in one of Kahle’s columns.”

In the decades after the Civil War, the House of Representatives had an obstruction strategy employed by the minority that will seem all too familiar to Oregonians. They called it a filibuster, and it was a Republican who put a stop to it.

The practice at the time was to begin each session with a courtesy measure that doubled as a roll call. Unfortunately, the precursor to Microsoft Excel used since the first Congress had only two input options — yes or no. There was no way to vote “present.” Those who refused to answer were effectively marked absent, even if they were standing beside the clerk.

Once tallied, if the official ledger showed too few recorded responses to constitute a quorum, business was adjourned. It was no different from how Oregon legislators in the minority have obstructed lawmaking in Salem several times over the past few years. No different except that olden lawmakers marked themselves absent but didn’t bother staying away.

House Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed, a Republican from Portland, Maine, ended the practice in January, 1890. Reed was a master parliamentarian, similar to Mitch McConnell today. When his party was in the minority, he led the obstruction by refusing to have his presence recorded.

When Republicans surged into the majority and he became Speaker, he knew just what to do. Reed instructed the House clerk to count and record whoever was present. This must have involved inputting calligraphied comments in the spreadsheet cell notes until quill feathers jammed the keyboard.

As recounted by David Litt in The Atlantic last month, Kentucky’s James McCreary protested, “I deny your right, Mr. Speaker, to count me as present.” Reed’s response: “The Chair is making a statement of fact that the gentleman is present. Does he deny it?”

Democrats then tried to hide under their desks or leave the chamber. Three days of parliamentary maneuvering ensued. Tactics included locking the chamber doors from the outside (this is true) and probably (just guessing here) jamming cell phone reception and suspending members’ UberEats delivery accounts. The House of Representatives lost its filibuster 131 years ago and no one remembers they ever had one.

Will legislative leaders in Salem lock the chamber doors to keep the minority present, ending their de facto filibuster? Probably not, but it wouldn’t be the first time.

==

Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a column each Friday for The Register-Guard and archives past columns at www.dksez.com.

The post How the other filibuster ended appeared first on dkSez : : : : : : Don Kahle's blog.

In the endurance race to vaccinate as many Oregonians as possible, Governor Kate Brown has been using a “sit and kick” strategy. We’ve allowed others to keep the lead while we wait for the best opportunity to show that Oregonians finish races better than their peers. We must reach for a higher gear to cross the finish line of herd immunity.

What will the kick look like? It’s easier to describe what it won’t be. It won’t be “steady as she goes.” That won’t get us there. Vaccine skepticism has always had a strong presence in Oregon. When we see a “Question Authority” bumper sticker, we rightly ask “Says who?” Only Oregonians question the authority questioners.

This vaccine effort could become completely worthless if we don’t reach herd immunity as fast as possible. It’s the only effective endgame against this virus and it’s looking like we may not get there. If this wily virus mutates to overcome our vaccines, we’ll have to rerun this race with no recovery time in between. We don’t want to do that.

We cannot settle for “heard immunity” — “I heard something that makes me feel better, so I’m going with that instead of getting a vaccination shot.” We have an opportunity here to show the nation and the world that Oregonians know how to finish a race. Here’s what that extra gear might look like.

Stop talking to vaccine skeptics as citizens. Those who choose and act on behalf of the common good have already gotten their shots. That ship has sailed. Address them as shrewd consumers. Sad but true, this is the only path to empowerment that many Americans perceive. Let them consider themselves “smart shoppers.”

What does a consumer-oriented pitch look like for this next phase of vaccinations? West Virginia and Maryland are experimenting with hard cash. That’s a bad idea for two reasons. First, it heightens concerns that the vaccine must be a trick. Second, this won’t be the last time we need people to get a shot to keep everyone safe from a disease.

Soften the contours of the deal. Make it less starkly transactional. Add a social element to wean them off the addictive individualism. Give them game tickets. Meet them at their favorite bar. Dangle a bigger prize that represents our pooled interests and benefits.

New Yorkers can parlay vaccination for free tickets to a Yankees or Mets game. Erie County in western New York launched an innovative “shot and chaser” program. They set up inside a local brewery. Free beer garnered more shots over the weekend than all the other clinics in that county combined.

We know what motivates Americans. We only need to do it.

Oregon Governor Kate Brown could partner with sports teams and brew pubs tomorrow. Declare a daily $1000 drawing for a lucky vaxxer. Up the ante to $10,000 daily if Oregon’s vaccination rate passes all other states or reaches 85 percent of our population. We can lead the way. Others will follow.

Let’s finish this race on our own terms. Everyone should see that Oregon knows how to kick.

==

Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a column each Friday for The Register-Guard and archives past columns at www.dksez.com.

The post Finish the vaccine race with an Oregon kick appeared first on dkSez : : : : : : Don Kahle's blog.

Oregon’s most sparsely populated counties would like to secede from Oregon and join Idaho, where liberals don’t dominate state politics. I can hardly wait to find out what I think about such a plan. (My fingers don’t always give my brain advance warning on matters that don’t impact me urgently.)

In case you haven’t heard, Baker, Grant, Lake, Malheur and Sherman County residents approved ballot measures this month stating their preference to become Idahoans. If other rural counties follow and the plan succeeds, Idaho would become the third largest state in the union, still with one of the smallest populations.

It won’t happen — this much we know for sure, which  is why my brain was comfortably dormant on the issue. The Oregon legislature would have to approve it, which they won’t. Idaho would then have to consent to take the land, the cows, and the people as their own. Then the federal government would have to officially grant the request. Oddly, Rand-McNally has no role in the decision-making process.

A smaller Oregon might not be so bad. Bend would lose most of its metro area to Idaho, which might slow its reckless expansion. Ashland would be a big loss, but it would be offset by the fact that Oregon would no longer share a border with California. There could be other upsides. The Dakotas might merge to match Greater Idaho’s land grab. We never needed two Dakotas.

I doubt many Wasco residents will want to pay Idaho’s 6 percent sales tax, so they’ll still travel west to what’s left of Oregon to buy things. This points to a larger problem for the would-be secessionists. Idaho doesn’t have an economic engine to support a widened girth, unless they develop commercial-scale potato batteries like the ones we made for fifth grade science fairs.

Long story short, rural Oregon residents need us more than we need them. We’d still be able count mounted antlers in John Day or buy quilts in tiny shops, though quilters may migrate to Oregon coast shops instead, where prices could be six percent cheaper.

Sherman County residents would no longer get annual town hall visits from their senators. Town hall meetings in every county is an Oregon thing. They might miss those.

The land itself wouldn’t change in Idaho’s new western annex, except during fire season. Things might change quickly when flames blow through town and they can’t call on the resources of Portlanders to douse things. Roads will start to crumble. Maintenance costs money. But hey, they’d be able to pump their own gas.

Oregon has lost some of its remarkable balance between urban and rural interests. Things have become weighted mercilessly in Portland’s direction. We feel that even in Eugene. Our eastern neighbors have driven that point home like a wayward weaner calf. We need them to stay so they can keep doing that for us.

Here’s my conclusion. (Thanks, fingers.) Oregon will add a sixth Congressional district in 2022. If that new district focuses on non-Portland concerns, we can have a Greater Oregon.

==

Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a column each Friday for The Register-Guard and archives past columns at www.dksez.com.

The post Greater Idaho: Thinking it Through appeared first on dkSez : : : : : : Don Kahle's blog.

Sen. Ron Wyden shouldn’t be surprised if he gets a call from Rep. Peter DeFazio, warning him not to work too hard on the upcoming $3.5 trillion Build Back Better reconciliation package. DeFazio has shown no signs of bitterness about the first infrastructure bill, now sitting in the House docket, but no one could blame him.

When DeFazio arrived in Congress in 1987, he was like a freshman on campus without a declared major. For somebody as curious and wonkish as DeFazio, he must have felt like a kid in a candy store. He joined the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, as it was known back then.

He focused on highways and transit, building on what he had learned as a county commissioner across one of the most diverse terrains in the country.

He rose to chair the ground transportation subcommittee as those with more seniority retired. He became the ranking Democrat on the House Committee for Transportation and Infrastructure in 2015. He waited four more years for Democrats to win the House majority (making him Chair), and then two more for a Democratic President (making it matter.)

In 2021, after more than 30 years of on-the-job training, DeFazio finally reached the pinnacle of his political career. The timing looked perfect. Transportation funding packages are assembled roughly every six years, so this year was his first chance to put to work all that he had learned over four decades about moving people and stuff around.

Never one to avoid hard work, DeFazio rolled up his sleeves. He oversaw the committee’s work with 67 of his colleagues and hundreds of staff members. DeFazio sponsored HR 3684 – Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act on June 4, 2021. It passed the House less than a month later.

Then the Senate threw it all out. They kept the container of HR 3684, but emptied it of all of DeFazio’s hard-earned expertise. Then they stuffed the container with what a handful of Senators (with nothing approaching the same expertise) thought would be better. They paraded their alternative for TV cameras. It passed the Senate and awaits a rubber stamp from the House.

Could you blame DeFazio for being livid? He may feel compelled to warn his Oregon colleague in the Senate. Wyden has risen to be Chair of the Senate Finance Committee. His committee has been charged with formulating the funding for the gargantuan reconciliation package, so that it completely pays for itself.

In fact, Senate leaders want it to raise an extra $1 billion, so they can claim they are paying down the federal debt. (To spare you the math, that projected “surplus” amounts to less than 0.003% of the total funding package. Cynical? Yes.)

You might think that Congress would respect the work of its committee structure and its resident experts. Think again. Inevitably, the work will get supplanted by a few high profile members with back-of-envelop calculations who don’t like the sound of this or that. Will Wyden’s deep knowledge — his Congressional career began in 1981 — be respected? DeFazio’s wasn’t.

==

Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a column each Friday for The Register-Guard and archives past columns at www.dksez.com.

The post Congress Ignores its Own Experts appeared first on dkSez : : : : : : Don Kahle's blog.

The Oregon Ducks host the Oregon State Beavers this weekend for their 125th rivalry football game. Both university presidents agreed to stop calling it the Civil War — a moniker not suitable for a friendly tete-a-tete between scholarly neighbors.

The game is currently referred to as the Oregon Classic (as it was known until 1937), Oregon’s rivalry game, or the football game previously known as the Civil War. I thought we could do better, so I asked around. Facebook friends and I came up with 75 alternatives. You can add more.

Civil War Redux – Some crafted correlatives to the Civil War, pointing forward and back at the same time. For instance: Oregon War, The Latest Indiscretion, The Polite Discourse, Kill or Be Killed, The Tribal Bowl, Research and Destroy, The Uncivil War. 

Generic Names – In the end, this is a branding battle. (Hey, that would be a good name!) Can Oregon’s best branding brains work with one of these? The Good Game, The State Game, The Oregon Bowl, Us vs. Them, Sports Ball Showdown, Pigskin Pickle, The Oregon Prickle, Clash & Dash, Left Overs, The Turkey Bowl, Kerfuffle, Concussion Conclave, A Confederacy of Dunces, The It’s Just a Game Game.

History and Culture – Most sportscasters (except Bill Walton) don’t know our history and culture. Why not make them learn some? Try these: Hemp Bowl, The Oregon Biggie, FurtherDome, The Tie-Dye To Do, Nike Corp vs. Knockoffs, Loggers vs. Farmers, The Burgerville BlackBerry Shake Bowl, Rich Kid Rendezvous, The Toilet Bowl. (Remember 1983? That game has its own Wikipedia page.)

Location, Location, Location – Most national TV viewers have never been here. A good name could tell them what to expect. Samples: The Hwy 99 Bowl, I-5 Itch, The Valley Stomp, Willamette River Rivalry, The Willamette Valley Tacklefest, The Willamette Melee, Willamette River Wingding, Rye Grass Rumble, The Turf War, Blackberry Brouhaha, Crab Cup, The Upper Left Bowl, The Specific Pacific Game, Riparian Rip, Subduction Zone Sweepstakes.

Climate Clarions – We’ve traditionally used our climate to repel visitors. Here are names that Tom McCall would have loved: The Muddle in the Puddle, The Allergy Bowl, Boss of the Moss, Fescue Fracas, The Better Wetter Game, Best of the Wets, Slugfest, The Reign in the Rain, The RainBowl. (Climate activist Shawn Boles suggested the CO2Bowl, acknowledging that football won’t be around much longer.)

Messing with Mascots – The most popular category played on our whimsical mascots. Some are disarmingly direct: Interspecies Bowl, Fowl vs. Rodents, Castor vs. Canard, The Anatidae Castor Fray, Duck Duck Goose, Tail Off, Quack & Chew, Quack Chuck Fracas.

Other mascot-inspired names require extra thought: Waddle vs. Whittle, The Slap-Waddle Bowl, The DamWaddle Cup, Battle of the Paddle, The Platypus Cup, Platypus Bowl, Extreme Platypus Action, Who’s More Platypussy?, Feathers & Fur, Fur’n’Fowl Growl, A Quack in the Dam.

And the Winners are … – I like Rainbowl best if we can spell it “Rainbow’ll,” painting our November sky with an optimistic future. Turf War fits us, but we’re avoiding militarism. My first choice is Slugfest because outsiders picture a battle, but we hear it as a celebration.

==

Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a column each Friday for The Register-Guard and archives past columns at www.dksez.com.

The post Renaming Oregon’s Rivalry Game appeared first on dkSez : : : : : : Don Kahle's blog.

Sometimes it’s difficult to notice something you don’t have. You never had it before, so what’s the difference? You begin to want it only after you see others who have it. That’s not always envy, though it usually is. We sometimes simply lack awareness. I wouldn’t bother bringing this up except that increased awareness here might save lives.

Oregon is one of only 13 states that still hasn’t activated coronavirus exposure notifications for our smart phones.

Governor Kate Brown posted on her social media accounts this week that the omicron variant has begun its march through our population. The post includes a graph beneath an encouragement to get vaccinated. “We all can do our part to save lives, support our health care workers, and keep our families safe.” But is the state doing its part to save lives? It doesn’t look like it.

Contact tracing is the third leg of the COVID-19 prevention stool. If everyone could be immunized at the snap of a finger (by surviving an infection or by getting vaccinated), the virus would stop spreading immediately. It would die quickly without any human hosts. That’s herd immunity and it has served our species well for millennia.

We’ve failed to stop the virus but we can slow its spread by masking and social distancing, and quarantining when necessary. We do these things to lessen the chance of spreading the virus. They won’t eliminate those chances entirely. Those who harbor the virus don’t immediately show symptoms, so transmissions often happen invisibly.

Contact tracing can make the invisible visible.

Smart phone apps can help when all our precautions have failed. The software operates in much the same way as the virus. While our bodies are exchanging air that may contain droplets carrying the virus, our phones can invisibly exchange encrypted contact information by a short-distance bluetooth signal.

Then if somebody gets sick with the virus, the software can anonymously inform those who were recently proximate. Our phones can then tell us we might be infected before we exhibit any symptoms. Asymptomatic covid carriers can then act to prevent the spread.

But only if the software is downloaded onto Android phones and activated on iPhones. That responsibility has been left to the states, and Oregon is lagging behind.

Thirty-seven states from Alabama to Wyoming have made the technology available to protect its citizens. Washington and California have done it. So has Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and many Asian nations. The benefits have been verified around the world. Why are Oregonians denied them?

Senior advisors for the Oregon Health Authority announced last January that they hoped the software would be completed and implemented by April of last year. From my research, the topic has rarely been raised in the past nine months. Wyoming can equip its citizens with this extra layer of protection, but Oregon can’t?

I called the Oregon Health Authority, requesting an update on the effort. No one was available to return my call. Take their slow response in this life-or-death context however you think is fair, but notice it.

==

Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a column each Friday for The Register-Guard and archives past columns at www.dksez.com.

The post Oregonians Lack Key Tool to Fight COVID-19 appeared first on dkSez : : : : : : Don Kahle's blog.

Nick Kristof is still running for governor of Oregon. Secretary of State Shemia Fagan declared him to be disqualified last week, shortly after three of her predecessors stated that they would have left the matter for voters to decide. The issue will now be resolved in the courts, where case law precedent is thin but probably favors the candidate.

Oregon’s constitution is clear on its residency requirement. “Article V Section 2. Qualifications of Governor. No person … shall be eligible to the Office of Governor … who shall not have been three years next preceding his election, a resident within this State.” In other words, you cannot be elected governor in Oregon on Nov. 8, 2022 if you weren’t a resident of Oregon on Nov. 8, 2019.

Trouble is, our state constitution doesn’t define “resident.”

Fagan based her determination on voting records. Those records are maintained by her office, so it makes sense to start there. Kristof voted in New York in 2020. But he paid taxes in Oregon, bought property, maintained a farm, and spent plenty of time in his childhood hometown of Yamhill, Oregon.

Jeanne Atkins, Bill Bradbury and Phil Keisling, all former secretaries of state, wrote for The Oregonian that the candidate’s intent must be considered paramount. “Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, a person should be presumed to be a resident of the place or places they consider to be home.” 

Kristof may own multiple houses, but he has only one home. After that, voters should be trusted to make their own judgement about whether Kristof is Oregonian enough for them. Fagan’s move would remove his name from ballots, denying voters a choice. Who would have guessed that voter suppression could become an issue in Oregon?

Lawyers will do what lawyers do, but the controversy must not become the context. Here’s a simpler residency test. Ask around.

Yamhill County lists the city’s population at 860. The city’s website: “Yamhill is a small community with 1105 citizens who are proud to call it home.” Wikipedia counts 1024, and Google counts 1346. All sources agree it’s not very many. Is Nicholas Kristof is among them? Ask the people who would know.

Walk into the Trask Mountain Outpost on Main Street, order their famous Bacon Bloody Mary, and ask the bartender, “Does Nick Kristof live around here?” (Don’t use the word “reside.” They’re suspicious of city slickers.) Greet Kristof’s neighbors when they come out to get their mail and ask, “Who lives in that farmhouse over there?”

Most of us don’t know our neighbors, but we know which houses near us are vacant. Has Kristof established his residency with the people who matter most — his neighbors? We’re a small state. We’re all neighbors. If his name appears on the May ballot and voters don’t think he’s qualified to be governor, they’ll say so. What could be simpler than that?

Kristof’s campaign will bring him into people’s homes. If voters aren’t comfortable with him, they’ll find a candidate who makes them feel more at home. The candidate’s definition of home certainly matters, but not as much as the voters’.

==

Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a column each Friday for The Register-Guard and archives past columns at www.dksez.com.

The post Simply Resolving Kristof’s Residency Controversy appeared first on dkSez : : : : : : Don Kahle's blog.

Nick Kristof encountered disruption often in his globetrotting career. But can he create a favorable disruption from the status quo for Oregon as its next governor? Our meeting at a nearby coffee shop began with disruption — staffing shortages shuttered its doors. Instead we enjoyed a break from our welcome rains, sat outside and took a short walk.

I didn’t ask him about the residency controversy that has dogged him this week. Only one of us had anything new to say on the subject, and I wasn’t the one being interviewed. Suffice to say, he’s not deterred by this disruption. He will continue campaigning until his lawyers or a judge tell him he must stop.

“Tell me,” he said, resisting the urge to pull the reporter’s notebook from his back pocket, “what are people in Eugene talking most about these days?” I appreciate that he is using his campaign to learn about our concerns and priorities. Too many campaigns rely on pollsters for that.

He deserved an honest answer: “How would I know? How would anyone know? What does that even mean in this pandemic age?” If we bump into somebody at the grocery store, will we even recognize them with a mask from more than six feet away? Our isolation-ward life is a circumstance that hasn’t yet become a consequence. But it will.

If anything, he leaned into the situation at hand. Voters seem open to — maybe even hungry for — an unconventional candidate who approaches our problems with fresh eyes. Journalism trained Tom McCall quite well. Those are great footsteps to follow.

“Journalism essentially promotes accountability,” he told me. And then he did take out that notebook from his pocket. “We keep track of things. We tabulate results. We ask around. We circle back.” (Those weren’t his exact words. My notebook was still in my pocket.) Kristof described accountability that focuses less on organizational hierarchy and more on end users. Fresh eyes!

Kristof was one of the first to notice hopelessness in our rural areas. He wrote a book about it in 2019, from his farmhouse in rural Yamhill, Oregon. He thinks green energy production could revitalize eastern Oregon. If our wide-open spaces can once again produce what our population centers need, we’ll rebuild the American Dream right here.

Turning our focus back, he asked how Eugene is coping with its unhoused population. I pointed two blocks south and asked if he’d like to take a walk. “Sure,” he said. “Stretching my legs sounds really good.” We walked over to Nightingale Hosted Shelters to tour a tool invented in Eugene. Nobody’s favorite part of Show and Tell was ever Tell.

He marveled at the simplicity of the Conestoga Huts — no special tools, materials, or skills required. With a few hundred dollars and a couple of days’ effort, anyone can be lifted off the ground, protected from elements above, tucked safely behind a locked door.

We didn’t say a word about it, but we were taking in what pollsters miss. Oregon is a place where simple solutions can disrupt conventional wisdom.

==

Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a column each Friday for The Register-Guard and archives past columns at www.dksez.com. Read Kahle’s view on resolving Kristof’s residency status at http://www.dksez.com/ask-around/

The post Can Kristof Disrupt Oregon for the Better? appeared first on dkSez : : : : : : Don Kahle's blog.