Every now and then, another ex-Nazi soldier or prison guard is found living in the United States. Invariably they've lived an admirable life, and everyone who knows them now just can't believe they could every have been a part of such atrocities. And, of course, part of their defense is always that they were young, and they were just following orders.

Just following orders. Hmmm.

We've never accepted the "just following orders" defense. No matter how much good someone has done in their life since that time, we just can't accept "just following orders." Why didn't they have the courage to refuse? Why did they make the choice to follow orders?

Recently in British Columbia, Canada, a memorial was dedicated to some people who did have the courage to stand up and say they would not follow orders, and go to a war that they felt was wrong. They had the courage to give up their entire lives. They left their jobs. They left their families. They went into exile to do just what we expected those young Germans to do thirty years before them.

But instead of prise, they have been condemed by many of those who expected the young German boys to do the same. They aren't seen for the courage they demonstrated. They've been call cowards. Cowards who would not perform their duty, and follow orders.

How can anyone expect young German boys to have stood up, and dodge the draft of the German Army, but then condem American boys who did the very same thing?

Of course the answer is this time it was "our" side. "Our" side can't possibly be wrong.

One lesson has been learned, however. For our current war, the draft will be avoided at all costs. That way people can refuse military service without becoming heros to anyone.

Too bad it wasn't that way in the '60s and '70s. So many boys had no idea that they wouldn't be considered heros for doing something that German boys of the '30s and '40s were expected to have done to be considered heros.

That's how I see things.

I'm coming in late on this one, but I've been busy, and in some ways, it's a timeless subject.

Last week, Star Jones-Reynolds announced that she wouldn't be back for the next season of the view. Barbara Walters appeared shocked, but it wasn't because she didn't know Star wouldn't be returning. It was because she was amazed that Star would publicly announce it at that time.

A few days later, they played a pre-recorded program that was recorded with Star. The guests were the stars of The Devil Wore Prada, and during Hot Topics, talk turned to whether or not women make better or worse bosses. Barbara half-heartedly defended herself, and Joy chimed in with, "But you're not really our boss because you're also one of us." Star then seethed, "Oh, make no mistake. She's the boss."

After seeing that, I have to say that Star showed a lot of restraint by not spilling her guts right then and there.

But what really got me was how Barbara Walters said that she would have done anything for Star until "she was betrayed." Bullshit! It wasn't Star that betrayed Barbara!

The View has always been about a group of women who got together each day, and bonded. Occasionally one would leave, and go on to new opportunities. But this is the first time they decided to ostracize someone. And instead of just saying good-bye, they told her, "you'll no longer be welcome here three months from now." That pretty much blows the whole dynamic right there.

I'm happy Star kept it together, and allowed Meredith her time in the limelight. Star could have easily said, "If you don't want me here, then I'll just go," but she kept quite, and acted as if nothing was wrong, and allowed the spotlight to shine on Meredith. That was classy.

So now what happens to The View? I didn't think Rosie O'Donnell was a good choice. She's too much like Joy. Could this be a sign that Joy is going to be replaced, too? I had my doubts about how things would work with two middle-aged comedians on the panel. But now that we know that the circle of friends is not a circle of friends, and that anyone could be fired, what kind of dynamic can they forge? Certainly no one can ever believe a facade of this being a bunch of friends.

If The View makes it completely through the next season, I will be surprised.

I think I'm going to watch The Price Is Right instead. Or maybe I'll record Today, and watch it. But I just don't think I can ever buy into any fake comradity on The View again.

That's how I see things.

I'm going to be up front about this: As a consumer, I hate mail-in rebates (MIRs). When I make a buying decision, I base it on the price before rebate, as I can't ever count on the rebate coming through.

I almost didn't get one substantial rebate once. It was one I could track online. I had to buy two products to get two rebates, and then submit the one receipt with both UPC codes to one place. The reason they gave for not giving me one of the rebates was that the receipt wasn't submitted! Well it was there for the other rebate. I spent a half-hour on the phone before someone who supposedly was smart enough to become a supervisor in a rebate house could understand that the receipt couldn't be there for one, but not the other rebate.

Yes, I know that there are people who always get their rebates because they make photo copies of everything they submit, keep logs on when they submitted them, and follow-up when they don't get a rebate. But why should I have to work that hard? I'm the customer. If the seller really wants my business, they won't require me to do all that work to get a reasonable price. Plus, I would rather have my money in a savings account or an investment. Having a few hundred bucks of my money always floating around in pending rebates is a waste, as are all the stamps, trips to the post office, and trips to the bank.

I know I'm not alone in hating rebates. Enough consumers have rebelled against rebates that some companies like Best Buy have pledged to eliminate MIRs. The problem is, they keep saying they'll eliminate them, but they keep pushing the date back, and they keep adding exceptions. So far it's been an empty promise.

The bastard step-child of the MIR is the instant rebate (IR). The instant rebate is one that they give you at the check-out counter. When IRs started to become popular, I wondered what the point was. If the price is reduced at the check-out, why not just lower the sale price?

In Oregon there is no sales tax, so taxes don't matter. But in other states, you're usually going to pay sales tax on the full price, not the price after rebate. The question is why does the retailer want to collect extra taxes? And a related question is whether their accounting system accurately reports revenue before those IRs, or are they reporting revenue after the IRs, and pocketing the extra sales tax they collected.

So if customers hate MIRs so much that retailers are making (empty) promises to eliminate them, why do they still exist?

Well, there are two obvious, and some not so obvious answer. First, not everyone will collect their MIR. If they simply lowered the sales price, everyone would get the discount. Second, when you send in for a MIR, you have to give them your name, address, and often your phone number and/or e-mail address. The rebate houses can build some really accurate mailing lists that are very targeted. Those lists are worth a lot of money!

Before I tell you the not-so-obvious reasons for rebates, let's note that those two obvious reasons don't apply to most IRs. Occasionally you'll have to give your name and address to get an IR, but even if they ask you, you can still refuse, and usually get the IR.

Generally, even if it's a "store" rebate instead of a "manufacturer" rebate, the money is coming from someplace other than the store itself. It is usually coming from some point higher in the distribution chain. Items with rebates are useally things that were either already in the store inventory when the rebate started, or they were sitting in some distributor's warehouse. Usually, but not always, rebates are a way to reduce inventory after someone in the distribution chain has paid for the items.

For example, a manufacturer notices that retailers have stopped ordering product A. But product A isn't making it to the consumers. The manufacturer can't really retroactively lower the wholesale price of product A, but they can offer a rebate for product As bought during a certain period. This is especially important if product A consumes product B to work (like a printer that consumes ink). They really need to get product A moving off the shelves in order to sell product B. (If product B is made by a different manufacturer, they may be the ones to offer a rebate on product A.)

There's still one other issue to consider: commissioned sales people, and store managers. Almost always their commissions are based on the price of the item before the rebate, whether it's a MIR or an IR. If the items were simply on sale, they wouldn't make as much in commission. This makes sense because if the purpose of a rebate is to reduce inventory, then you don't want to give the salesperson an incentive to sell a competing product that has no rebate so they can earn more commission. You want to give them an incentive to sell your product.

Now knowing and understanding why rebates exist doesn't help me feel any better about them. I still hate them. But knowing this helps me understand that the consumer backlash to rebates needs to be bigger, and persistent if we ever expect rebates to become the exception rather than the rule.

I don't want to help some company build a salable mailing list. I don't want to wait six months to get my $50 back. I don't want to have to spend more time tracking rebates than I do on balancing my checkbook. And I know there are other ways, such as spiffs, to give salespeople and retail managers the incentive to move the product. So as a consumer, knowing why rebates exist doesn't help me one bit to accept them. I still hate them. And I still won't make a buying decision based on the after rebate price. My buying decisions will continue to be based on the price before any rebates.

That's how I see things.

I grew-up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The origin of the word Milwaukee is along the lines of the meeting place of the rivers. The Milwaukee, Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers meet at Milwaukee, and empty into Lake Michigan. In a stretch of the Milwaukee River that's about 2 miles long, there are 17 bridges. In Chicago, there is a two mile stretch that has 20 bridges, a number of them double-decker. To me, crossing a river was never a big deal.

But in the Portland area, you can travel 15 miles down the Willamette River, and only pass 13 bridges -- and one of those bridges will be a railroad-only bridge. The most bridges are in a three mile stretch that has only 7 bridges. The river is something that can't be taken lightly.

South of Portland, I-5 crosses the Willamette River near Wilsonville on a bridge known as the Boones Bridge, named after the old Boones Ferry, which was operated by relatives of the famous Daniel Boone. The bridge was built in 1954. The nearest other bridges are about 10 miles in either direction. Essentially, when the bridge is closed because of an accident, traffic can't move. The routes to the other bridges are not capable of handling very much traffic.

There are other mountain passes in the West that are just as bad, but they're out in the middle of nowhere. The Boones Bridge was on the fringe of the Portland Metro area, but for all practical purposes, it is now part of the Portland Metro area. It not only is a critical link on a major Mexico to Canada corridor. It's part of a commuter route for thousands of people, and a local link to many as well.

Once again there is some talk about building an alternative. This talk is only about 30 years later than when it should have been done, and like the numerous times it was brought up before, it may or may not result in any serious planning. But as long as there's some talk, let me toss in my ideas.

The real solution is going to require many, many miles of new high-capacity highways cutting through farmland. Because of that, it will face major opposition before it dies because of a lack of funding. But the reality is, all that farmland becomes worthless if there are no roads to market.

So the most practical solution -- one that's only a stop-gap at best -- is to build a new bridge between I-205 and OR-99E just south of Oregon City. On the north side of the river, it would cross just east of the Willamette neighborhood of West Linn, and on the south side it would be just west of the Canemah neighborhood. This would require some upgrades on 99E to restore it to four through traffic lanes, plus turning lanes. Traffic signals would be needed at South End Road, New Era Road, and the already planned signal at Territorial Road.

I would also want to see a Canby by-pass along Territorial Road that connects to Knights Bridge, and Arndt Road, along with a northbound exit and southbound entrance to I-5 at Arndt Road.

Back to the long-term solution, we need to look at the OR-211 and OR-219 corridors. 219 will take people as far as North Plains, and the US-26 route to the coast. 211 will take people as far north as Sandy/Boring, and the Mt. Hood Highway, and the yet to be built Sunrise Highway.

Initially the 211 corridor would be more useful, as a connection to the Mt. Hood Highway would provide a new route to the east, by-passing Portland and the Gorge. But there's no practical way to extend this corridor into Washington to ultimately provide a full north-south route.

Eventually, 219 could be extended north through the hills to US-30, and across the river to rejoin I-5. The problem is that opposition to a west-side bypass is greater than the desire to solve the Boones Bridge bottleneck.

Unfortunately I don't see either of these routes being developed despite the great need for one or the other. And some day the Boones Bridge will have some catastrophic failure that will disrupt commerce, and cost the entire region a few billion dollars. And even after that, the bridge will just be rebuilt, and the alternatives will die again.

That's how I see things.

Whole Foods is a mega chain of organic and healthy foods grocery store. They have taken what used to be some hippy concepts, and made them viable. They have brought the healthy and organic movements to the people.

So who is against Whole Foods opening in Eugene, Oregon? The big supermarket chains that sell us unhealthy stuff? No. Some fat-cat business people who don't want us to have organic and healthy choices? No. The people who are protesting the loudest are those who were the most zealous in their support of organic and healthy lifestyles!

Why is this? They're apparently afraid that Whole Foods won't introduce their lifestyle of organic and healthy choices to anyone new. They're convinced that they, themselves, will be so enticed by the Whole Foods siren song that they'll abandon their small local businesses.

It is apparently more important to keep organic and healthy choices confined to a few people that can then claim the moral high-ground than it is to see that lifestyle become mainstream.

They're not pro-organic. They're anti-success.

That's how I see things.

There is a fur store in downtown Portland that endures protesters in front of the store every Saturday. It reminds me of the protests outside of abortion clinics. I can't help but wonder what the purpose of these protests are.

I very much doubt that even if the protesters weren't there that anyone walking down the street on a Saturday in downtown Portland decides on impulse to buy some fur. Fur isn't cheap, and I would expect that most of the buyers have already given some thought to when and where they'll do their shopping. They'll either come despite the protesters, come some day other than Saturday, or go to a different furrier.

It's been said that the protesters know their rights, and know the law, and do not cross the line to illegal activities. Often their spokespersons seem to pontificate a moral superiority, but I noticed something on the last video of these protests: The people buying and selling the furs never wear masks, but a number of the protesters are wearing masks! If they're not breaking the law, and they're on the moral high-road, why do they have to hide their faces? Something isn't adding up here.

What I see are some people who've decided that fur is bad. They're probably not in the minority, although I'm not sure of that. One thing I'm sure is that the message that fur is bad is nothing new. It's been out there for quite some time. Screening, yelling, carrying big signs and intimidation aren't doing a thing to convert anyone.

What I see are people who are incapable of presenting their position as persuasive education have resorted to thuggary. They might not be getting arrested, and the message that they're trying to present may be morally right. But they are not moral people. They are thugs. Thugs that feel they need to hide their faces. Thugs that are incapable of doing anything that would actually help their cause.

I suppose it's good that they've found the fur store to rally around. Without that kind of focus and guidance on how to avoid arrest they'd probably be out vandalizing things with no direction at all like all the other common thugs.

And they pretty much confirmed that they are not very bright this last week. The city was trying to get the group leaders and the store owners together for some mediation. The opening proposal that the fur protesters put forward is way out there. It would be like going into a car dealer, and offering $10 for the car with a sticker price of $30,000, and expecting that a deal can be made around $15,000. The fact is, if you did that to a car dealer, you'd be laughed at, and then asked to leave. And that's pretty much what happened to the fur protesters. The store owner saw that they were not capable of realistic negotiation, and left their offer on the table.

Seeing how dumb these protesters can be, and how they feel they must cover their faces as they deliver their message actually makes people question whether the concept that fur is bad is really right. I've accepted that fur is bad at face value for a couple of decades, but now that I see what kind of people are leading this movement, I must review my position, as I'm sure many others are doing as well. The result is no one new will be convinced that fur is bad, and some people who accepted the premise at face value may no longer support the concept. And the fur dealer gets free advertising with every news story.

The more I look at those protests, the more I realize how they're being staged by people who can't think more than one-step ahead of themselves, and are being carried out by a bunch of dumb thugs. The fur is bad movement deserves better than these masked thugs.

That's how I see things.

It eventually comes up in every region. Toll roads.

The problem is that all these proposals are essentially double-dipping taxes. Gas taxes are a user fee that we're already using to pay for roads. But you still have to pay tax on the gas you use to drive on the toll roads. Two user fees for the same activity. That's just not fair.

But let's put that aside for the moment, and look at some of the roads they're proposing to use a toll for, and examine why a toll is not appropriate for those roads. (Have I already exposed my bias?)

First up, I-205 from Oregon City to Tualatin. The first thing that will happen is long-distance truckers will avoid I-205, and instead take I-5 through Portland. You think the Twilliger Curves are fun now? Wait until you're surrounded by semis as you navigate them. The second thing that would happen is more local people would start using the local roads. East-west routes from Lake Oswego to Canby will see traffic volumes they were never built for. Of all the proposals, this would be the worst.

Second proposal: The proposed Sunrise Highway from Clackamas to Damascus. Who's going to use this road if it's a tollway? Most of the traffic problems on Oregon 212/224 are because of the trucks and workers in the huge industrial parks. Even if the Sunrise is built as a freeway, that traffic wouldn't use it. Once the entire Sunrise is completed all the way to US-26, it will form a potential alternate route for long-distance travelers to avoid I-84 through the Columbia Gorge, but that won't happen with just the first phase. If the first phase is a tollway, it'll essentially be an empty road, and no one will ever build the remaining phases to complete the highway.

The proposal for OR-217 involves not making the whole road a tollway: Only the new lanes would have a toll. I have no faith that the technology works well enough to make this feasible, and I doubt that the honor system will work. They say that the people in the free lanes will benefit because some traffic will use the toll lanes instead, but if the free lanes really are benefiting, why would anyone pay the toll? When equilibrium sets in, the regular lanes will still be jammed tight during rush hours, and the new toll lanes won't produce a cent of revenue any other time of the day. Safety will be compromised in the off-hours because people will choose to stay in close quarters. During peak hours, rich guys who don't care if they spend a few bucks on a toll will speed down the toll lanes, waiting until the very last second to cut-across the free lanes to get to their exit. It'll be a royal mess. And that doesn't even start to address the message that only people with money for tolls deserve to get traffic relief.

The Interstate Bridge might see a toll to fund a new bridge. I'm sure that all the people who live in Vancouver, and work in Portland will love that one. They're already paying Oregon income taxes, and Washington sales taxes. And people expect them to pay a toll, too? The Sam Jackson Bridge and the Banfield will be the alternate routes everyone flocks to.

Okay, now for the good news: The Newberg-Dundee by-pass for 99W. Yes, 99W is packed going through these towns. A by-pass would benefit people driving to the coast, as well as traffic bound for the west side of the valley. And in this case, there will be a better balance of people choosing to pay the toll versus people still willing to drive through town. And while the people of Newberg and Dundee may think they want to get rid of all the traffic going through town, they really shouldn't. Take away all the traffic, as a free bypass would do, and there will be a lot of businesses that won't be able to stay open. Leave some traffic in town, and their economies might not be ruined. And people who want to get to Spirit Mountain will get a better pay-off from their toll than they would if they saved that money for the casino.

So one out of five. That's not bad, considering my bias against toll roads.

That's how I see things.

Last week it came to light that the FBI was trying to plant a mole in Portland City Hall. They wanted to hear all the dish, even the confidential work product.

Was this because they were investigating something? Nope. Did they have any reason to believe there was something to investigate? Nope. They're just nosey. They want to go on a fishing expidition.

Apparently crime is down so much that the FBI is looking for stuff to keep them busy. Sounds like a good place to cut the budget, if you ask me.

An FBI spokesperson tried to equate their move to "community policing". In community policing, the beat patrol officers get out of their squad cars, and start walking. And while their walking, they chat it up with people. Community policing has to do with building a raport with the community, not some attempt to infultrate and spy. It's also something primarily done by patrol officers. Detectives might be invited to speak at a community event, but the real community policing is done by the patrol officers.

The FBI doesn't patrol anything. They have no uniformed officers. They are not a police force. You won't see FBI agents directing traffic around an accident. You won't see them walking a beat. You won't see them walking around your neighborhood festival or block party. They might be there, but they certainly aren't there to build rapport!

So how can they possibly justify this kind of action in what should be a free society? What they're doing is spying and intimidation. The FBI is acting like they're the KGB.

Of course in this era the Constitution means nothing. Too many people prefer that all the freedoms our soldiers fought and died for be tossed to the side, and the Federal government be allowed to trample their civil rights. How sad. How unamerican.

So the FBI got caught trying to infultrate Portland City Hall. How many other places were they able to get into? How many moles does the FBI have out there spying on citizens? How many covert operations does the FBI have going on that have nothing to do with valid investigations? And how many valid investigations are suffering because of those fishing expiditions? Is the FBI out of control? It just might be.

That's how I see things.

Oregon has a system of providing local services that is very different than what I'm used to. Back in Wisconsin, for example, every inch of Milwaukee County was incorporated before I was even born. Look at maps of other metro areas: Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis -- you don't see any unincorporated islands within those metro areas. And generally an area has to be annexed before there can be any urban or suburban development.

Not so in Oregon. There are some substantial areas in the Portland metro area that do not belong to the city or any suburb. Generally the county sheriff acts as a police department in these area, and fire protection is usually from a fire district. School district boundaries aren't related to city boundaries at all. Other local services, traffic management, for example, are often provided by the nearest incorporated jurisdiction.

Taxes are lower in these unincorporated areas because the property owners pay nothing to support the community. They only pay for services directly provided to them. They may indirectly benefit from many things the city does, but they don't pay for them. And if anyone asks them, the say they're in that city that they're really not in.

So Nike acts as if it's in Beaverton, even though it's not. Beaverton surrounds their campus. They get all the benefits of being in Beaverton, but they pay for none of them. And when Beaverton came up with a long-term plan to annex areas benefiting from Beaverton services, Nike went into full attack mode.

It's bad enough that they got the state legislature to pass a law that prohibits Beaverton from annexing them for numerous years. (It's amazing what some well placed bribe... er.. a... campaign contributions can buy you, and how cheaply some legislators can be bought-off.) Nike took legal action against Beaverton, and made a public records request for all documents pertaining to the annexation plans.

Well, Beaverton handed over the documents that they could find, but that wasn't good enough for Nike. They insisted that there had to be more. They got a court to order Beaverton to hand over any documents that had any words from a list of keywords they handed over.

So Beaverton complied. They handed over every document that had, for example, Murray Blvd. in it as they were ordered to. As you can imagine that included a ton of crap that Nike had no interest in. So off they went to court again. And the judge agreed with them! So now the city has a week to hand over just the relevant documents -- which is what they did in the first place, but apparently wasn't good enough. The judge is jerking the city around.

And who's going to pay for all of this? The taxpayers of Beaverton, of which Nike is not one.

So whenever you think you have a bad neighbor, just remember that at least they're paying property taxes. Nike wants all the benefits of being in Beaverton, but doesn't want to pay any taxes for those benefits. I find that deplorable.

That's how I see things.

It looks like New Jersey is going to end their ban on self-service gas, which will leave Oregon as the only state that still does not allow drivers to pump their own gas.

When I moved to Oregon a little over ten years ago, I thought that the ban on self service had to be the dumbest thing in the world. What made Oregon different than the rest of the country?

Are Oregonians so dumb that they can't pump their own gas without blowing something up? Well, there have been some issues about education funding, but I'm pretty sure that the mix of smart and stupid people isn't that different than the rest of the country. So that couldn't be it.

Someone mentioned that the weather is so bad in Oregon that it's not practical for ordinary people to get out of their cars to pump their own gas. Well, that line might work on someone from sunny Southern California, but I come from Wisconsin where it's winter seven months of the year, and no one thought twice about pumping their own gas. So that couldn't be it.

Someone mentioned that it created jobs. Lots of jobs for people who would otherwise not be able to find employment. That almost sounded like as good of arguement as any -- until I saw how many people were begging for money at the expressway off-ramps, and noted that it didn't seem to have any measurable affect on the unemployment rate.

So I thought back to the '70s, when Wisconsin dropped their ban on self-service. Even back then, Wisconsin and Oregon were both on the short-list of states that banned self-service. Wisconsin dropped their ban during a gas shortage that choaked the country. (Say... Anyone notice these gas problems only come when Republicans are in control?) So the idea was that we could save money by pumping our own gas.

And you know what? We did. Or at least we thought we did. Gas stations were still required to offer an option to have them pump the gas, and the cost of full service gas was 10-cents a gallon higher than self service. But who's to say that the full service price would have been that high if there wasn't self service available? Gas stations were pricing their self service gas to attract customers, but they were pricing full service to discourage anyone from requesting it. There's no way to know for sure if we were really saving money.

The reality is that we probably would save a little bit of money, but the entire savings of eliminating the gas pumpers would not be passed on to the consumer. The service station owner would keep some. And perhaps the wholesale price that the service station owner pays would go up, too, just because the oil companies could do it.

But ten years ago, what bothered me most wasn't the idea that I might be paying a penny or two extra per gallon. What bothered me is how long it took to get gas in Oregon. There were and are far fewer gas stations than any other part of the country I've been to. (That probably has more to do with higher prices than no self service does.) And once I found a station, I'd have to sit and wait for the guy to finally get over to me to start pumping. Then I'd have to wait for him to come back when the pump shut-off. And quite often, I couldn't just stay in my car and pay him, I had to go into the station to pay.

In Wisconsin, and most of the rest of the country, pay-at-the-pump for credit and debit cards had been a reality for a number of years. I was used to not having to wait for anyone when getting gas. It wasn't quite as fast as a pit stop in NASCAR, but it was quick. In and out in three minutes was common. In Oregon, I had to plan to get gas because sometimes it took me 15 minutes!

So you're probably thinking that I'm in favor of ending the ban on self service. Well, you'd be wrong. After a decade of sitting on my butt while someone else fills my tank, I'm spoiled. I know I'm not going to save as much as some people claim. The weather isn't that bad, either. And these days most Oregon stations also have pay at the pump, and that has sped things up, too. I'm also not in as much of a hurry as I was ten years ago.

So I don't want to see the ban on self service go away. Yes, I know I'd probably still have the option to get someone else to pump my gas, but I'd be paying not only the cost associated with it. I'd have to pay a penalty just like Wisconsin drivers did in the '70s.

So how do I justify the ban? I justify it by saying I don't care if the rest of the world pumps their own gas. I live in Oregon, and I don't have to. It's one of the reasons I like living in Oregon. You don't like it? Well, move to Washington.

That's how I see things.

There is something that is almost uniquely Oregon: No sales tax. I say "almost" because there are four other states that have no state sales tax: Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire, and Delaware. But Oregon is by far the largest. (Oregon's population is about 3.4 million. The total combined population of the other four states is just 3.5 million.)

Every couple of years some politicians will advocate a sales tax for Oregon to raise more money for our cash-strapped state. While I respect those politicians for having the courage to advocate for a new tax they believe in, I cannot support them because I do not believe a sales tax is a fair way of taxing people.

A sales tax taxes consumption. Yes, people with more money consume more, and at first glance it may seem that this means the wealthier someone is, the more their affected by a sales tax, but in fact, the opposite is true. The middle-class is the most affected by a sales tax. Here's why.

If you're a typical working American, either poor or middle-class, you're most likely in debt. You're living from paycheck to paycheck, with very minimal savings. Maybe you have a little going into a 401K. Maybe you have a small emergency fund. Maybe you're saving a few scraps for a down payment on a house, or a child's college education, but essentially you're spending almost everything you make. And if you're being taxed on everything you spend, that means you're going to be paying a sales tax on almost every cent that you earn.

Contrast that to the wealthiest people. Let's say instead of being middle-class, earning $50,000, and spending $50,000, you're making $250,000, and spending $100,000 of it. Yes, you're spending twice as much. I'm not blind. I can see that $100,000 is twice what $50,000 is. But you're only spending 40% of what you're making. The middle-class guy making $50,000 is being taxed on nearly 100% of what they make, while the guy making $250,000 is being taxed on only about 40% of what they make. A sales tax will eat up two and a half times more of the family budget for a middle-class person than it will for a wealthy person.

The answer to this has been to exempt certain essentials from the sales tax. In most states with sales taxes, you won't pay tax on certain grocery items, and they don't add any additional sales taxes on essential utilities like gas and electric. That's good news for the poor. A larger percentage of what they spend is in those categories than the middle class. The middle class doesn't benefit as much from this.

Essentially, even if a sales tax took the place of other taxes, a sales tax shifts the burden to the middle-class. But here's where it gets even worse: To gain support for a sales tax, advocates of the sales tax spin it as if we will see a reduction in our income tax and property tax bills because some of the burden will be carried by the sales tax.

Now how does that work if the reason for having a sales tax is to raise more money for the state? If you reduce the income tax and property tax because you now have a sales tax, what was the point? We all know that what will happen is that we won't see a reduction in the other taxes. We'll just see more taxes.

Here's the other thing: Today, we grumble about how much we're paying in taxes every week or two when we look at our paychecks, and again when the property tax bill comes. If we were paying a sales tax, we'd be grumbling every time we buy something, and most of us buy something almost every day.

With more money coming out of our pockets on a daily basis, the result is we're going to spend less. Not only will we actually have less to spend, we'll be constantly reminded that we have less to spend. Instead of spending a couple bucks on a coffee from Starbucks, we'll have spent that money on sales tax. Employment will go down, especially on the front-lines where the poor and middle-classes work. (You need just as many CEO's for a company that has 5,000 employees as you do for one that only has 1,000 employees. The CEO doesn't get cut. The front-line workers are the ones who get cut.)

So it's not just that I like the fact that if I buy something that's $4.99, and I use a $5 bill I still get change. It's not that I don't want to have to dig into my pocket for some change every time I buy something. It's that a sales tax shifts the tax burden to the wrong people. It's a bad idea, and the fact that 45 of 50 states implemented it at one time or another doesn't mean it's a good idea. If your friends all jumped off a cliff, would you jump off, too?

That's how I see things.

A big issue here in Oregon City is library funding. Libraries are non-essential services. They're not like police or fire services. They're not like water, sewer, or street maintenance. They're not even like health or building inspections. Libraries are pretty much on the bottom tier for funding even in the best of situations.

Last year they put an initiative on the ballot to provide funding specifically for the library. It's one of those things that politicians want to side-step. They don't want to stand up and say they're cutting funds from the police in order to keep the library open. And they don't want to (and in Oregon they can't) raise taxes to fund the library. It's one of those things that they push off on the voters. And often, voters will rise-up and say, "We're not uneducated yolkels. We can read, and we want a library!"

The problem is that this time it failed. The voters of Oregon City said "no" to paying extra to fund the library.

How could it be, the library people wondered. Circulation is up. And we've always used circulation numbers to justify our existence.

Well, the problem is the library -- and I'm not just talking the Oregon City library, but the whole institution of community libraries -- has grown to worship circulation numbers as if their only mission was to raise circulation.

So let's think about this. If you wanted to raise circulation, what would you do? You'd make decisions on what to buy based not on it's merits, but on how well it'll turn. Thus an important educational reference book is not what you'd buy. You'd buy Top 100 music CD's, the latest blockbuster DVD releases, and trashy paperbacks that are doing well on the NY Times Bestsellers List. Screw educational or reference value. We need circulation!

Aside from obvious decline in the quality of library services, this brings up another question: Should we be subsidizing our libraries' efforts to compete with private businesses? Does not the availability of free, taxpayer subsidized DVD rentals not harm the local video store more than a new WalMart? Should we, the taxpayers, be subsidizing kids who don't have high-speed Internet connections, but still want to steal copyrighted music?

My answer is "NO!"

I don't like paying taxes so some cheapskates can get pop-culture crap for free. I want the tax money that goes to the library to help build a real library collection. The library should be a place to go when you're doing serious research, not someplace to go because you're too cheap to go to Blockbuster for a movie to watch tonight. The bookshelves should have a better collection than the paperback rack at Safeway.

Would circulation go down? You bet it would. But so what? Who was the idiot that thought up the idea that the way to measure a library's success was to look at it's circulation figures?

When libraries get back to their core mission, I'll advocate more money for them if they still need it. But I will advocate against giving them anymore money to compete with pop culture purveyors. Get rid of the music CD's. Get rid of the DVD's. Get rid of the trashy paperbacks. And find someone who can buy a book based on it's contribution to society rather than on it's potential to circulate. I'd rather have no library than a library that's focused on nothing but increasing their circulation numbers.

That's how I see things.

This last week we had a primary election in Oregon. Turn-out was pretty bad. The only races creating any buzz were the Democratic and Republican primaries for Governor -- and quite frankly, the leaders on each side weren't all that different from each other. So hardly anyone voted.

But there were some tax levies in some jurisdictions, and for a new tax levy to pass in Oregon, it not only has to have 50% of the votes cast, at least 50% of registered voters have to participate: A so-called "double Majority".

So any time there's a tax levy on the ballot, and it's an off-year or primary election, the people working to pass the levy end up working their butts off just to get people to vote at all. They may have a popular cause with the people who are willing to vote without having their arms twisted, but if enough people don't vote, it doesn't matter at all. In other words, you can vote no by simply not bothering to vote. You essentially are voting no if you don't vote.

I saw some snooty guy on TV saying something like, "Well, that's what they get for trying to sneak something by us in an off year." How pompous can you get?

If someone doesn't have a strong enough opinion to vote one way or another, it is my belief that they are giving up their vote. They're abstaining. Abstentions are not the same as no votes. If you don't want something "snuck by you", then vote! How hard is that???

The people trying to pass tax levies aren't trying to sneak anything by anyone. They had to get it put on the ballot. People get to see what's on the ballot ahead of time. Newspapers, television stations, radio stations, and even bloggers look at what's on the ballot. And they don't conspire to sneak things by everyone else. That doesn't happen. If people don't know about what's on the ballot, it's because they avoided that information. Nothing was snuck by them. The people trying to pass the levies are doing it at an off-year election because that's when they need to get the money. If you need money for the 2006-07 school year, for example, you're not going to wait until the 2008 Presidential election, or even the November 2006 general election.

If you want to vote down a tax levy, then vote. If you don't vote, that means you don't care. It's as simple as that.

That said, I'm probably never going to vote in favor of a tax levy. Why? I shouldn't have to. That's not the way our form of government should be working.

Our form of government is a republic. That is we elect legislators and executives at each level of government to handle the running of the government. We don't have monthly town hall meetings where everyone gets to vote on everything. Our job as citizens is to elect people to represent us.

The essence of the job of an elected official is to identify common needs that the government should be handling, and then funding the actions of government. They should not just be deciding how much is spent. They should be deciding how to get that money to spend. It's their job to tax us fairly.

If we don't like the way they're doing their jobs, then it's our job to elect someone else to represent us. Pretty simple concept, isn't it?

Well, this process breaks down in two ways. First, instead of being responsible voters that elect the right people, we have created laws that prevent our elected officials from doing part of their job. We insist that they're not qualified to represent us, and that the republic form of government isn't good enough for us. If we're going to do this, then why do we bother with the sham of electing people in the first place? Don't even have elected officials if we're not even going to let them govern.

The second thing that happens is some of our elected officials have no backbone. They don't want to take a position on a controversial issue, so they'll sent it back to the voters. No need to take a stand. You can blame the outcome on the voters, and come out smelling like a rose.

Well, I don't like it when either of those things happen, and I'm asked to vote on a tax levy. Ultimately it doesn't matter to me whether it's on the ballot because we castrated the legislature, and aren't allowing them to implement a needed tax, or if it's on the ballot because they were too cowardly to take a stand. It's not my job to vote on tax levies.

So whenever a levy comes on the ballot, count on me to vote against it. And I would like to see everyone vote against these silly things, too. But I would like to see them vote by actually casting a ballot, not by deciding not to vote. If you don't care enough to vote no, I don't want your vote to count as a no, even though I'm voting no, and I'd want you to vote no.

The republic form of government works well on it's own. We shouldn't be perverting it by requiring "double-majorities", or by circumventing the whole form of government by putting tax levies on the ballot. Let's get back to the way it's supposed to work, and elect people to represent us, and then allow them -- going as far as insisting that they do their job.

That's how I see things.