dkSez : : : : : : Don Kahle's blog

We’re told that USC and UCLA bolted for the Big Ten because they wanted part of a richer broadcast rights package being negotiated. The windfall for each school looks to be at least $20 million per year and possibly double that.

Pac-12 responded by accelerating negotiations for their next broadcast rights package. Most anticipate an announcement in the next month or two. Apple and Amazon have both been willing to open their checkbooks for a seat at the table. Other streaming services may also have interest.

American soccer fans will have to enter the Apple ecosystem to watch their favorite teams. There will be an app that streams with Apple TV. Some games will be included with Apple TV+. Highlights will be available on the free Apple News app.

Meanwhile, Amazon paid billions for the exclusive broadcast rights for NFL’s Thursday Night Football. Their first broadcast delivered a healthy audience. They also sold more Amazon Prime memberships in those three hours than ever before.

Should the Pac-12 conference entertain offers from streaming services? Should they consider giving them exclusive rights if the price is right? Or is it too soon to deny ESPN and FOX the nighttime inventory that only comes from Pacific Time Zone match-ups?

Answering the last question first, no. “Too soon” applies only when the trajectory is uncertain. Streaming will overtake cable and broadcast television. They want to hasten their conquest.

Don’t forget that FOX had only “The Simpsons” until they added live sports. Cable TV was considered a luxury until ESPN earned it legitimacy. Don’t forget, because the negotiators haven’t forgotten. Pac-12 could instantly become a leader again. To think otherwise is nothing but a failure of imagination.

Broadcast outlets deliver more households right now, but for how much longer? What can streaming services do better than any broadcast outlet? I’ve started a list:

– A memorable play can be turned into an instant meme for social media, including avatars of successful players.

– Click here to buy your favorite player’s jersey right now. Add a little extra to the purchase price and we’ll deposit all the extra and a little more into that player’s NIL account.

– Dr. Pepper’s Fansville commercials (and others) can be digitally altered to show the good guys wearing your team’s colors, based on your account preferences.

– Don’t feel like watching the commercials? You can skip them for 99 cents and get extra analysis from your favorite personalities. Or an instant video game that puts your avatar in the same predicament your team just faced. Can you do better? You have 90 seconds!

– Should they go for it on 4th down? Instant polling can show immediate results. Do all your friends agree? How about all the friends of your friends?

– Show current game and season stats for each player whenever they touch the ball.

– Play-by-play can be made available in any language through crowdsourcing, including sign language.

– Bid on a signed jersey or an NFT from one of your team’s former greats. Fifty percent of proceeds will be given to that player’s favorite charity.

– Put your friends on your screen, watching the game with you, with their sound on or off. It will feel like a Zoom meeting, but an enjoyable one.

– Alexa remembers you ordered a pizza at halftime last game and asks if you want to do that again.

When Pac-12 popularity explodes onto social media, SEC and Big Ten will wish they hadn’t locked themselves into legacy broadcast deals. If the Pac-12 is really shrewd, they will negotiate a 10% commission on all future deals with other conferences in return for proving the concept.

==

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

Tags: No Comments.

I have a friend back East who was recently laid off from her job. A new executive had been brought in to implement the dreaded euphemism, “corporate restructuring.” She could see the writing on the wall. The difficult decisions in that case may even have been overdue. But what often comes next is what concerns me most.

We know our economy is slowing. We’re told that’s mostly a good thing. It’s painful nevertheless. Just a few days ago, local EV manufacturer Arcimoto announced it was immediately cutting its payroll 32 percent. More than 100 employees are being furloughed or their positions are permanently eliminated.

That means a few hundred neighbors are looking at life differently this week than last. That contains a mix of anger and fear, but also sometimes relief and curiosity. “I wonder what my next chapter will look like,” my friend mused. She’s one of the lucky ones.

Here’s how those decisions are often enacted in the workplace. This is what bosses should rethink and workers should no longer accept. Immediately after giving the news to a worker that their job has been “restructured” away, the boss has a final paycheck already prepared, including any severance and often the last two weeks of salary.

When the worker returns to their station or office, a security guard is there to meet them with a cardboard box. They are told to surrender their employee badge. Assistance is provided to “restructure” their workspace until all personal affects have landed in the box. They are then escorted out the door. Remaining workers try to avoid eye contact.

I once worked for an employer who was even less humane than that. My co-worker had a meeting with the big boss at 9:30 that morning, but was not told why. He tried to check his company email for any news but was unable to log in. Some of us knew what that meant. We watched for the cardboard box to arrive shortly thereafter.

Layoffs may become more common very soon, so I hope everyone can see how this termination procedure looks to those who have not (yet) been called into the boss’s office. It’s demoralizing and demeaning — unnecessarily so. No wonder “quiet quitting” looks attractive to some.

Business owners and managers often liken their company or department to a family. They work to create an atmosphere where relationships can thrive. But when the time comes to subtract from the system, everything becomes ruthlessly transactional. Quiet quitting answers loud layoffs.

Certainly there are instances where somebody is fired for good cause where these procedures are appropriate. Terminations that are respectful and appropriately painful for everyone involved show strength and health instead of only power and policy. Forcing restructured ex-colleagues out the door in a perp-walk does nothing for the morale of those who remain.

Even if they have been paid for their final two weeks, an abrupt physical severance creates unnecessary trauma. Terminated employees deserve time and space to exchange well wishes with former colleagues. They may need to do some restructuring of their own.

==

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

Tags: No Comments.

Policy professionals inside the U.S. government are attempting to engineer what we’ve learned to call “soft landings” in three separate arenas. A sudden collapse of the economy would be painful, but the consequences for abrupt change in the geopolitical or cultural realms could be catastrophic.

We’ve all heard about the concerns of the financial sector. The Federal Reserve has raised interest rates three times in the last three months, aiming to slow inflation without causing a spike in unemployment. Rising prices on groceries and gas hurt everyone a little. Losing a job hurts only some people but it hurts them a lot.

The Fed is trying to slow the economy without throwing it into reverse — a soft landing. The same objectives apply to policies regarding Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

Putin gave western democracies a gift when he paraded into Ukraine and exposed Russia’s military as suitable mostly for parades. The show of force was more show than force. We understand better now, thanks to Putin’s face-plant, that open societies display their weaknesses and hide their strengths. Ukraine stands tall and Putin loses stature.

Diplomats and State Department strategists are trying to nudge Russian forces back. President Biden has asked Congress for just enough weaponry to keep Ukraine’s momentum. The unstated goal: avoid chemical or nuclear warfare from a humiliated Putin. Putin’s gradual defeat can strengthen and clarify the world order — another soft landing.

Federal and state agencies are also hoping for a gradual defeat of Donald Trump, his business interests, and his most rabid followers. We’ve watched the painfully slow pace of Merrick Garland at the Justice Department, Letitia James in New York, and Fani Willis in Georgia. Why not bring down the hammer quickly?

New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman may have uncovered an important clue. Trump is often asked whether he would have run for president if he knew all the trouble the scrutiny would invite. His answer: “Yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.”

Over Trump’s career, one lesson came clearly into focus. Fame can make you money, but money can’t make you famous. Money is the water Trump drinks. Fame is the air he breathes.

Trump (and his alter-ego publicist John Miller) have crafted three very different personas of Trump. During his real estate career, he was a womanizing cad. On television, he became a ruthless tycoon. On the campaign trail, his populist appeal turned him into an aggrieved victim, targeted by elites.

Stay with me here, because I’m following this trajectory beyond the land of common sense. Here we have someone who wants to be well known more than anything else. His throngs don’t validate him unless they teem. And nothing riles them more than tales of victimhood. 

Why did Trump refuse to return the documents he took with him from the White House, especially after several urgent but quiet demands? Because there’s no such thing as bad publicity. It’s a short step from victimhood to martyrdom.

Surely no narcissist would sacrifice his freedom for the sake of an ideal. But famous people often lose everything in an attempt to become just a little more famous. If Trump gets rebuked by government authorities too quickly, martyrdom and the movement it could spawn must be a real concern.

Authorities must enforce the rule of law without making Trump into a martyr. They must work slowly, carefully, and with great transparency. It’s tricky having as much power as the U.S. government does, especially when greedy stock market investors, wounded world leaders, and petulant former presidents are looking for any advantage.

==

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

Tags: No Comments.

It’s all over but the shouting. Lane County Elections has until Oct. 3 to certify the results for the recall of Eugene City Councilor Claire Syrett. Syrett is significantly behind but has asked the courts to void the originating petition. 

Syrett will remain on the city council until a judgement is rendered. If the petition and the results are declared valid, city council will appoint her successor. Ward 7’s new representative will then be chosen by the representatives for every ward in the city — except Ward 7.

There’s nothing in Eugene’s city charter to prevent city council from choosing Claire Syrett to replace Claire Syrett. During this lull before a final decision is announced, it’s worth taking a closer look at the SEL 350 form, which set this election in motion back in April.

At the top of the form there’s an exclamation mark, followed by this text: “Warning: Supplying false information on this form may result in a conviction of a felony with a fine of up to $125,000 and/or prison for up to 5 years.” 

Above the section where the petitioner makes their statement, a second reminder reads, “Provide the reasons for demanding recall in 200 words or less. Any factual information provided must be true.”

Then, above the chief petitioner’s signature, there’s this: “By signing this document, I hereby state that any factual information (not a matter of opinion) in the above statement is true.”

In the statement of fact that became the basis for the recall, petitioner Gerald Morton included some non-facts. Such as: “Claire Syrett voted to … take substantial property from businesses and residences. Traffic congestion will increase. Syrett is ignoring the facts…. Syrett supports MovingAhead’s EmX plan despite the fact that taxes will need to increase to support operations….” (Readers can follow the link below to the form itself.)

Syrett’s lawsuit claims that the planning for EmX has not yet reached the point where land acquisition or tax increases have been determined, so the petitioner proffered something other than facts, despite three reminders. Opinions, predictions, fears — these all have a place in our democracy, but that place is not anywhere on the SEL 350 form.

“It’s really kind of scary,” former Secretary of State Bill Bradbury told me, “People are busy. Signing petitions is  good for our system. But they don’t always know what’s true. That’s why it’s essential that they can rely on the petitioner’s statement. If the petitioner doesn’t speak truthfully, it can lead to some ridiculous consequences. And what does that do for public service? It destroys it!”

If other city councilors believe the system has been abused, they may be tempted to appoint Syrett to replace herself.

I don’t live in Ward 7 and I don’t endorse candidates. Regardless of how you feel about EmX, Syrett, city council, recalls, or elections in general, defending facts is important. That’s just my opinion, and your opinions may differ. But our facts should be the same.

==

Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a column each Wednesday and Sunday for The Register-Guard and archives past columns at www.dksez.com. The recall petition’s SEL 350 form can be viewed at https://apps.lanecounty.org/Elections/Document.ashx?id=3314

Tags: No Comments.

Barack Obama, your country needs you. Again.

As we rev up for midterm elections in November and then start the quadrennial primary season for 2024, citizens find themselves immersed in political messaging. Except this time we are having two political debates disguised as one.

Democrats are running against Republicans. These are healthy debates for a thriving democracy, always with a side helping of internecine battles within each party between centrists and purists.

We must reserve the label “extremist” for something new for America. The second debate is between those who believe our system of government is worth continuing, and those who would rather burn it down if they don’t get their way.

To be fair, we’ve had this second debate before. It’s been a lively debate here in Eugene, pitting anarchists against big business and government officials. But our local anarchists have the courage of their convictions. They don’t often run for public office, promising to tear it all down from the inside.

That’s what we’re seeing now. By some accounts, nearly half of the candidates chosen by the Republican party nationwide for November’s election refuse to accept the outcome of our last national election. They cling to their belief that the 2020 election was “stolen,” despite the fact that every attempt to independently prove their case has failed.

We will not convince them that they are wrong. The human psyche can protect itself from logic or reason. But those who believe the Big Lie do not constitute a majority of American citizens. Most estimate they comprise nearly a third of the electorate, but that’s nothing more than a guess. (These folks tend to lie to pollsters.)

We should be focused on and concerned about those who don’t approve of insurrectionist propaganda, but who grant that they do sometimes make good points. Voters in this vital middle third of the electorate may have voted for Obama, but haven’t warmed to Biden. Or maybe they didn’t vote for Obama, but think he did an OK job as president.

These people in the middle often agree with some conservative policy proposals, but they don’t like or understand the vitriol, the name-calling, the disrespect. In most cases, they just wish the volume could be turned down so everyone can get on with their lives.

This brings me to No-Drama Obama. He has gotten on with his life. He’s written his memoir. He’s started a media company. He won his second Grammy and his first Emmy. He never liked politics very much, even though he was very good at it.

But that’s not quite right. Obama has always loved politics, but he hates partisanship. Remember the “One America” speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic convention? His vision for a larger view of civic life thrust him onto the national stage.

Obama always preferred being above the fray, but the fray is growing at an alarming rate. His voice will calm the American psyche, soothe the soul that his former running mate fights for. Obama’s high-mindedness will offer counter-programming against the guttural goon squads, our homegrown extremists.

We need a philosopher-king to guide us through the tumult. Sensible conservatives from every state will gladly share the stage with Obama. George W. Bush will take his call. Mitt Romney will too.

Obama can remind people that our system of self-governance asks a lot from us. Voting is important — no matter who you vote for — but losing graciously is fully half of what has made our nation great.

Let the partisan squabbles continue as they always have. But this notion that our political system isn’t worth the trouble must be defeated resoundingly.

==

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

Tags: No Comments.

Chris Hansen and Chris Pietsch dug through the R-G archives last week to remind us about Oregon’s last Autzen victory over Brigham Young University. Their time capsule took us back to 1990, long before Phil Knight decided to remake his alma mater into a football powerhouse. I was struck by a detail that was very different three decades ago.

Oregon’s Defensive Coordinator Denny Schuler was quoted about the pressure he felt trying to contain the BYU quarterback in the second half. Ty Detmer would go one to win the Heisman Trophy that year, but Schuler was thinking about his own recent past experience. 

The previous year, the Ducks led BYU at halftime but lost the game. BYU and Detmer scored 33 points in the second half. His job on the sidelines was to make sure that didn’t happen again. “I felt like the guy who goes in and defuses bombs,” Schuler told beat reporter John Conrad.

Football coaches nowadays seldom use similes and they almost never talk about their feelings. But this quote came from an era when reporters had full and constant access. Practices were not closed to the media, though there was a “gentleman’s agreement” not to divulge anything that might give opposing teams a strategic advantage.

To use a term we reserve mostly for war correspondents, reporters were “embedded” with the team they covered. Readers enjoyed more colorful quotes, but they also gained a deeper understanding about the situation. Chip Kelly is reliably colorful, but it’s all more scripted and performative than it was in 1990.

Colorful commentary is all around us, but that’s not the same as an unscripted comment from the person directing the actions being discussed. We hear more of “what I would have done” and less of “what I was feeling while I was doing it.” And it’s not limited to sports pages.

What if we’re all just less colorful in our everyday life? Or at least less original in our colorful comments. Talk radio and cable news give us a daily treasure trove of colorful comments that we can use as party patter. That doesn’t tell others anything about what it’s like to be inside our skin, the way Schuler spoke to Conrad.

We’ve become increasingly transactional, even with our friends and colleagues. This came to light for me when dealing with refugees from Afghanistan. Too often we assumed we had a language barrier, when it was much more of a cultural divide.

Spontaneous exchanges are more risky. We might reveal parts of ourselves that others didn’t know and they might not appreciate. Rejection or rebuke stings quite a bit less if you are only repeating what somebody else said. It doesn’t matter if you’re quoting Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity.

It’s safer to rely on memes and clever quotes, but it’s a whole lot less revelatory. If a defensive coordinator could talk honestly about how he feels, we should be able to follow suit. It’s harder today, but only because it’s less common. If we choose to stay safe, we’re making the world just a little bit less colorful.

==

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

Tags: No Comments.

I had a strange and literal awakening last week. I woke to the sound of a woman in my back yard, just after sunrise, carrying bag out to the street. She had rifled through our spare refrigerator outside and helped herself to a rotisserie chicken, a frozen pizza, and assorted beers.

(I called the police and filed a report, but that’s not an important part of the story.) I followed her in slippers and pajamas to a bus stop. I approached her carefully. I told her how much I liked that pizza. (It was shipped to me overnight from Chicago in dry ice.) I took her photo with the pizza beside her, and then asked her to return my groceries. She agreed, and I walked home with my stuff.

I updated the police after I reviewed my security alerts. She had been in my back yard all night, leaving twice for short whiles. Nothing was touched except the fridge, as far as I could tell. No doors or windows were opened.

I never felt unsafe — mostly just confused. I didn’t feel threatened, but my assumptions sure did. That in itself is an uneasy feeling.

My first urge — it was amazingly fierce, a compulsion, really — was to tell somebody about what had just happened. Then, after sitting for a minute, another urge came more quietly. I didn’t want to evoke fear in others.

Then came a third quandary, and then a fourth. (The mind races!) Why was that first urge so strongly felt? Does this isolated incident point to a larger (and more worrisome) trend that we may not see?

I’ve told this story to only one other person — a friend who is a therapist by trade. “The urge was strong because it all made no sense. We puzzle things out by talking with others. They might notice a detail we overlooked. Even your attempt to arrange the details into a coherent narrative is making it all less chaotic.”

Could the urge be epigenetic — a hard-wired instinct? (It felt that deep.) Describing a hazard to others would keep the species safer, earning genetic favor. It certainly has all the elements of a good story — fight-or-flight angst, tight chronology, surprising twists. It’s bound to garner rapt attention — an immediate reward for me, not my species.

But what if I don’t want others to feel unnecessarily afraid? I’ve lived here for 25 years and nothing remotely similar has ever happened. That context won’t matter because listeners have the same primal urges. For as long as we’ve had campfires, we gather around, telling spooky stories. NextDoor and other apps prey on these instincts.

Can we talk ourselves out of that fear-mongering urge? And if we can, should we? In the days since the intrusion, I’ve wondered whether the woman was herself afraid, hiding in my yard from some danger. Is she getting enough to eat? Should I have called White Bird instead of the police? Could the dispatcher have routed the call to a social service agency? I didn’t have that clarity in real time, but first responders could.

Human desperation may be inching toward us. As it happens, I’m selling an old laptop and one buyer offered to trade his electric bike for it, except he didn’t have the charger. I declined. The next day the same guy offered me instead an $800 mountain bike. I ignored the offer, but I could have suggested we meet at the police station to make the exchange.

Why does he need a laptop so badly? To keep a spreadsheet of his stolen bicycles? Maybe someone will trade him a Chicago-style pizza for it.

==

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

Tags: No Comments.

First came the weather and wind warnings. Then came the news of closures on Hwy. 58 and around Waldo Lake. Even though these bits of information came over the mental transom exactly two years after the Holiday Farm wildfire, the Cedar Creek wildfire felt like an abstraction. No weather map has ever made me feel hot or cold.

Then came the orange sky, the campfire smell through every open window, and the soot covering the car. “Oh no,” my heart sank, “It’s happening again.” Even worse, it’s going to continue happening, and with greater frequency. We’re told that climate change has arrived, but we’re not polar bears losing our favorite icebergs. It’s affecting them, not us.

Yes, we have more 100-degree summer days. Air conditioning is moving from the luxury category to an everyday necessity. But it’s still been mostly an abstraction. An occasional inconvenience, not an immediate peril.

Then we hear about neighbors upriver who are without power for most of the weekend. The Walterville Fair was canceled. Residents are evacuated from Oakridge and Westfir. A friend’s neighbor in Cottage Grove thought he got a bee sting in his yard. It turned out to be a Cedar Creek ember, carried by the wind. It’s touching us now.

Southern Californians know about summer downslope winds. Santa Ana winds (named after the canyon east of Los Angeles) are especially dangerous during droughts. Native Americans refer to them as “devil winds” because of the havoc they wreak.

Until very recently, devil winds off the Cascades came only in winter. Mountain climbers and small craft pilots know to avoid the fierce turbulence they create, but they seldom posed danger to landlubbers.

That was then. This is now.

After the winds shifted on Sunday, I took a walk by the river. Others had the same idea. One of those was Terry McDonald, executive director for St. Vincent dePaul. He barely said hello to me before he asked, “When are you going to write about Eugene’s South Hills?” My quizzical look prompted his explanation. “They’re gonna burn up!”

Not today. Maybe not for a few years. But the trend lines point toward danger.

Terry McDonald sees things before mere mortals do. He believes the city of Eugene should formulate evacuation plans for residents in those hills before it’s too late. There are too few egress options that can be corridors to safety in a conflagration. “It’s the biggest challenge ahead for Eugene, and nothing’s being done about it,” McDonald told me.

Many homeowners are not incorporating defensible space around their homes. They aren’t pruning vegetation to reduce wildfire fuels. Too many dead-end streets offer only one way out. Some of these dangers are easier to address than others. We don’t know how much time we have, but it’s almost certainly less time than we thought.

The Holiday Farm Fire (2020) and the Cedar Creek Fire (2022) are warning us. A warming planet delivers consequences. The abstractions are becoming terrifyingly tangible for some of our rural neighbors to the east. That club won’t be an exclusive one for much longer.

==

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

Tags: No Comments.

If I told you that Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives doubled their influence overnight as the result of a single state election, you’d call me crazy, right? Well, something’s crazy about our electoral system, and it ain’t me.

Last week, Democrat Mary Peltola was elected to fill Alaska’s lone House seat, replacing Republican Don Young, who held the seat for nearly 50 years. Peltola will represent all 571,951 square miles of Alaska. The other 219 Democratic House districts combined do not cover this much ground (literally).

How did Peltola manage to beat Sarah Palin, a national celebrity, and Nick Begich III, the grandson of Rep. Don Young’s predecessor in Congress? She was simply liked by more voters and disliked by fewer.

That used to be the hallmark of a decent politician — to be liked by many and hated by few. Voters didn’t reward polarizing figures because they generally failed as legislators. Legislation used to require compromise and open-mindedness, so being well liked by the opposing party brought tangible benefits.

That was before cable news gave elected officials an alternate path to success. Now they can appear on TV excoriating their opponents. Fame and familiarity can look like success to voters back home. Being a pariah can be worn as a badge of honor. That “fires up” the “base.”

Politicians have changed. Voters have changed their expectations in response. Polarizing figures attract the most attention, create the most noise, get the least done, but reap the greatest rewards. Exhibit A: Sarah Palin.

Why didn’t Trump-endorsed Palin trounce Peltola? Because a majority of Alaskans hate what Palin has become. Fifty-five percent of Alaskans voted for “anyone but Palin.”

Alaska used Ranked Choice Voting. Peltola received only about 40 percent of first-choice votes in the three-way race. Palin and Begich — both Republicans — split the other 60 percent. Once Begich was eliminated, his voters’ second choices were tallied. Only half of Begich’s supporters named fellow Republican Palin as their second choice.

This may turn out to be the most hopeful development for Democracy since the suffrage movements. We can’t change candidates or voters. They’ll change themselves if we change the connection between them. Tug-of-war becomes a different game if the rope is replaced with a wet noodle.

We shouldn’t be surprised that flame-throwers and misanthropes are filling the halls of Capitol Hill. The current system optimizes that outcome. Ranked Choice Voting changed the rules. And it’s not even the best system out there. The spoiler effect is still possible, because voters cannot rank any two candidates equally. On a crowded ballot, your second and third choices will not be tallied if your first choice is the runner-up. (Ironically, Republicans may have won Alaska if Palin had come in third.)

One voting reform alternative that gives every voter an equal voice was born here in Eugene, and it’s currently gathering signatures for a place on the November 2024 ballot. STAR Voting is simple, easy and fair. Voters give every candidate up to five stars, just like a Yelp review. The total number of stars is tallied, then the ballots compare the top two directly — Score, Then Automatic Runoff.

“Our current process is plagued with vote-splitting and spoilers if there are more than two candidates. This leads to a whole slew of toxic incentives and hyper-polarization,” explained Equal Vote Coalition Executive Director Sara Wolk.

If you see a pleasant person with a clipboard gathering signatures for STAR Voting, give them a moment of your time. Voting reform may be the secret to improving campaigns, elections, candidates, voters, and this grand experiment of self-government.

==

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

Tags: No Comments.

Lane County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously last week to begin proceedings that could lead to a lawsuit to replenish funds spent for the Holiday Farm wildfire recovery. Commissioners were careful to state that they weren’t suing anyone, but they had to begin the process to keep that option open.

Had the commissioners not acted by Sept. 7, the statute of limitations would have run out on any liability claims over the tragedy that happened two years ago today. Lane County can pursue legal action if necessary, after the official investigation has been completed.

Have you ever noticed when somebody dies suddenly, people immediately ask about the cause of death? That’s not because they want to “blame” cancer or heart disease. Their question concerns something deeper. The question they really want answered is simpler and more personal: “Am I next?”

If it was lung cancer and I don’t smoke, then the unspoken response is, “Phew.” If it was lung cancer and I do smoke, this might be the moment I decide to quit. We pose the question about the person who died, but the answer we seek is about ourselves.

More than half of the 460 homes lost in the Holiday Farm Fire have not yet begun to rebuild. Only a few dozen have been completed. Whenever the final report is released, it will almost certainly be unsatisfying to the area’s former residents because it won’t be able to answer their most fundamental question: “Is it safe to return?”

Assigning blame and exacting accountability is necessary for legal and financial purposes, but the frame is too small for anyone to determine whether they should dare to rebuild. Can anything be done to prevent a recurrence? Without that hope, every effort to return feels like a six-figure gamble.

The larger frame of causation is much messier and less visceral. A larger study of the factors that contributed to the tragedy will not converge on a single point. There will be no Perry Mason moment, when all eyes turn to the one person or factor that caused so much grief. 

We must take into account everything that happened, but also those things that failed to happen. We may discover how the fire started, but not how it escalated out of control. A thousand choices were made about what precautions to take, what warnings to issue, what resources to distribute, what assistance to seek, what to protect and why.

No official report will be able to weigh how these and dozens of other factors might have arranged themselves differently to change the outcome. The county did the prudent thing to prevent the option to sue from expiring.

My neighbors upriver are facing expirations on options of their own, except their end dates are harder to define. When is Blue River no longer home? When does rebuilding become not worth the trouble? When will global warming make fire protection on forestland impossible?

The official report, whenever it is released, will not answer these questions.

==

Don Kahle (fridays@dksez.com) writes a column each Wednesday and Sunday for The Register-Guard and archives past columns at www.dksez.com. He lost a vacation home in the Holiday Farm Fire.

Tags: No Comments.