Letters to the editor

Yes, good news sources are getting harder to find

Larry Ulrich in his letter to editor of June 18 makes a good point that what we think we know about vaccines (or anything else for that matter) depends on where we get our news. And where to get trustworthy news has become a huge problem for us citizens.

After living through those three years of daily Trump/Russia Collusion “news,” which we finally learned was a huge hoax, I don’t know of anybody who has any trust in any of the mainstream news media organizations. I know that I only look at CNN’s version of “news” to see what is the current deep-state narrative of the moment, with fairly good odds that it is so deeply spun as to be indistinguishable from a lie.

For local news I like our Central Oregonian, and as an old guy with a computer, I have turned to the “independents” for my National/World news. “Independents” are mostly folks who got fired from some mainstream news outfit and have gone out on their own with an email newsletter or YouTube or Rumble channel. I read newsletters from Alex Berensen, Jeff Childers, Pierre Kory, Meryl Nass, Matt Taibbi and “A Midwest Doctor.” I watch podcasts from Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Greenwald, John Campbell, Darkhorse and Redacted. I don’t miss any interview that Tucker Carlson does.

It takes a lot more time than I used to spend when I plopped down in front of the TV and took in a half-hour of CBS news and a half-hour of ABC. But that seems to be what it takes to find out “stuff” that is happening. My grandkids seem to stay pretty well informed off social media, but I don’t have that technique developed.

But Mr. Ulrich, if you still have not read anything about the COVID vaccines not totally positive, then you really need to widen your reading. Even the New York Times has provided a few hints of trouble, and from those sources I am using, I knew by March of 2021 to avoid the shots and to get vitamin D levels up and lay in some hydroxychloroquine and some Ivermectin in case of catching COVID. And by the way, an 84-year-old man who got every shot ever recommended for him has not had a quarter of the shots they put in our kids by the time they are 18. Ouch!

Earl McKinney

Prineville

‘West Coast Liberalism’ has flawed approach

A surprising article, “What have we liberals done to the West coast?” by Nicholas Kristof, takes an in-depth look at the realities of liberalism and the differences in results between the East coast and the West coast.

Kristof begins: “As Democrats make their case to voters around the country this fall, one challenge is that some of the bluest parts of the country — cities on the West coast — are a mess.” He then states that “Centrist voters can reasonably ask why put liberals in charge nationally when the places they have greatest control are plagued by homelessness, crime and dysfunction?”

Kristof points out: “Democratic states enjoy a life expectancy two years longer than GOP states. Per capita, GDP in Dem states is 29% higher than GOP states and child poverty is lower. Education is generally better in blue states with more kids graduating from high school and college.” He continues with: “Yes, governance is flawed in some blue states, but overall liberal places have enjoyed faster economic growth and higher living standards than conservative places, and that doesn’t look like failure.” Kristof concludes that “The problem is not with liberalism. It’s with West Coast liberalism.”

I didn’t independently verify the things he claimed or the comparisons he cited. The focus for me is his description of “West coast Liberalism,” which I think is totally accurate. Kristof made these observations:

Oregon and California have the highest rates of unsheltered homelessness.

Oregon ranks last for youth mental services.

Oregon and Washington have below average graduation rates.

Drug overdoses appear to have risen last year in every West Coast state.

The homicide rate in Portland last year was double that of New York.

A number of East coast blue states, he claims, fared much better. So why is Democratic governance less effective on the West Coast? He suggests the West coast is less serious about policy and less focused on relying on rigorous evidence, offering that perhaps the problem is not so much about unseriousness but more being infected with ideological purity focused on intentions rather than oversight and outcomes.

“Out west,” he says, “too often we settle for being performative rather than substantive,” citing the example of taking money out of an “already tight education budget” to put tampons in boys’ restrooms including boys’ kindergarten restrooms.

What really matters, he contends, is improving opportunities and quality of life and doing so by prioritizing the use of methods based on experimentation and observation, which sounds like conservative side advocacy, but, he adds, doing so “clashes with the West coast’s indifference to the laws of economics.”

Concluding his critique of West Coast Liberalism he said: “… less purity and more pragmatism would go a long way,” coupled with “the humility to acknowledge our failures.”

I believe Kristof’s article would strike a positive note with the nearly 50% of the voters who did not vote for Tina Kotek. It’s an objective review, not all negative, regarding governance particularly in Oregon. Oregon lacks substantially in major categories, due in large part in my view to leaders burdened with stupid-smart mindsets.

Kristof is correct. Healthy political parties keep opposite parties healthy. The street runs both ways. Oregon has been a one-way street for too long. And it shows. Vote accordingly friends.

Al Phillips

Prineville