Mike Erickson on the issues...or not

Has anyone noticed Mike Erickson's website doesn't really say much at all about where he is actually at on the issues?

It strikes me as a little strange that he's accepting online donations and asking for volunteers, but not saying anything about where he is on the issues.

Gordon Smith challenger claims they'll stay positive...

Bates' strategist: don't go negative on Smith

The above BlueOregon post concerns Sen. Alan Bates and his possible challenge of Gordon Smith for his U.S. Senate seat. His people are saying he pledges not to go negative. Here's a snippet:

Former Ashland Mayor -- and Bates' campaign strategist -- Cathy Shaw commented in response (and quoted in the Daily Tidings) that a Bates campaign would stay positive and not engage Smith directly.

Cathy Shaw on a Bates candidacy:
Of Novick and Bates, they’re both great with each bringing different strengths and weaknesses. Although I do not know Steve well, I do know Bates and he will never go after a democrat in a race. How do I know that? Because, he won’t attack a republican opponent either; never has, never will. Before all of you roll your eyes and say that anyone refusing to go negative is an “amateur” or doesn’t know the game, I would suggest reading Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s book entitled: Everything You Think You Know About Politics…And Why You’re Wrong (A New Republic Book, 2000).

And in the Tidings:
As for running an aggressive race, Shaw said Bates "never has, and never will" run a negative campaign. "He just doesn't do that," Shaw said. "People say it wins elections, but it doesn't."

My take:
It all depends on what you mean by "negative campaigning". If a candidate refuses to aggressively point out flaws in their opponent's actions or positions, then they have no business running for public office. However, pointing out an opponent's bad policy decisions or faulty political ideas is not the same as attacking someone personally. I'd expect a candidate who is tough and courageous, but also principled and wise. The end is important, but it ultimately doesn't justify the means.

The decline and fall of eco-terrorism

Susan Nielsen has an editorial in The Oregonian on the decline in the popularity of eco-sabotage in recent years...it's definitely worth a read.

Here's the gist of recent punishments:

The largest prosecution of eco-sabotage in U.S. history hit a milestone last week. A federal judge in Eugene sentenced Stanislas G. Meyerhoff to 13 years in prison, and two others to long terms, for their roles in a serial arson campaign that crossed the West and caused at least $40 million in damage to corporate and government property. Seven more people in the ring are scheduled to learn their punishments by early June.

She then goes on to show the complete inconsistency in their actions, including times when attacks had the exact opposite of the intended effect:

...they caused a lot of damage without coming anywhere near a global hub of power. They terrified scores of innocent people without sticking anything to The Man.

My take:
I think anytime you use destruction of property and killing of innocent people to make a political point, no matter how apparently valid the point, you become a terrorist. And you do something evil. There is simply no getting around it.

Student's Public Praying - Legitimate Expression or Dangerous Activity?

Where two or more students are gathered in God's name . . . there is controversy

This article in the Oregonian today piqued my interest. The basic facts are:

• Some students gathered to pray regularly in a “commons” area of the school.
• The principal, feeling it was blocking the way of students and teachers, asked them to move to a classroom to pray.
• They refused.

Of course, both sides are lining up for the show. Here’s an excerpt:

"The case has already been seized upon by national figures and advocacy groups.
The Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based conservative legal advocacy group aligned with The Rev. Jerry Falwell, has thrown its support behind the students, threatening to sue the district over the principal's suspensions. School officials received numerous complaints Thursday from radio listeners in Wisconsin, and a Christian radio station in Florida plans to air a discussion of the incident and issue, and area churches have phoned in solidarity.
On the other side is Heritage High and Evergreen Public Schools, whose administrators say they were just trying to get students to class safely and on time, and evenhandedly apply rules about student gatherings. The school, just north of east Vancouver, is nestled in a working-class neighborhood of modest homes. "

Not all the folks in the religious community in the area are lining up behind the students, however. Here is what Roger D. Miller, principal of Vancouver Christian High School, had to say:

Do I think students should follow policies for how to organize a group? Yes. Do I think sometimes religious groups in schools get unfair treatment? I'd probably agree with that, too. Whether this is one of those cases, I don't know.

My take

To me, it boils down to one basic question…were the students actually blocking reasonable access to areas of the school for other students and teachers? If so, it’s a no-brainer…they have to pray somewhere else. If the reverse is true, then this is clearly a case of an attempt to deny freedom of expression.