Texas Pacific deal presents best PGE scenario
I listened to city Commissioner Erik Sten's comments given at the City Club of Portland. I was struck by the disingenuous nature of his discussion.
We currently have an investor willing to purchase Ñ with cash Ñ Portland General Electric and keep it in Oregon.
It appears Sten wants the Public Utility Commission to blackmail the public into a decision to support him and those interested parties in a big bond issue or condemnation process to acquire the assets of PGE. Sten's option is to have the PUC disapprove the purchase and hope the creditors of Enron Corp. will listen to an offer by the city, one that had already been disregarded before the Texas Pacific Group offer.
Another argument presented is that the public can get its money tax-free or at a lower cost. This argument again is lacking. There is a finite amount of capital available, and if the public invests a great deal of money in one segment of the infrastructure, there is less available for other capital projects. A good discussion of this can be found in 'The Federal Subsidy Beast,' by Brian Finegan. There is no free money.
The Texas Pacific offer is the best of the alternatives currently available to us.
in all its forms
OK, here I am on TriMet going home from school, reading the Portland Tribune's Insight article 'Let's not get distracted by the process argument' (Insight, March 16). I am a big fan of the freedom to marry whomever we want, so I agree wholeheartedly.
A voice behind me says, 'Why are you reading about gay marriages?' Not one to back down to a question, I reply, 'Why not?' I turn in my seat to face the speaker, who turns out to be a kid perhaps 11 or 12 in age but 40 or 50 in cynicism. His response is to tell me that 'it's wrong.' I ask him what is wrong with marriage? He just says, again, 'It's wrong.'
I point out that same-sex pairings occur in nature, with creatures like wolves, swans and geese Ñ creatures that mate for life. He just keeps saying, 'It's wrong.' Now this child is speaking from ignorance, but I'm sure that he receives his information from intolerant caregivers.
I am proud of Portland for correcting a wrong. This is a free country. We all take pride in this fact. How can we be a free country if we tell the citizens whom they can or can't marry? As long as my mate is of age and not a close relation, I should be able to marry whomever I wish.
Now we have the Defense of Marriage Coalition. Who are we supposed to be defending it from? The evil people who love one another? Oh, please, spare me! We should encourage love in all its forms, whatever the form may be. If people look back, it was not all that long ago that we could only marry within our own race and socioeconomic class. It's time for equality for all, not just a select few.
Marriage should be
spiritual, not societal
So when will the voice of the single-person household be heard (Gay weddings tie city in knots, March 5)? Who is fighting for the rights of singles? Why aren't governments passing constitutional amendments to ensure the rights of all citizens, prohibiting discrimination, instead of sanctioning marriages Ñ of any sort? Whatever happened to a separation of church and state?
The current dilemma and upsurge could be avoided if marriage remained a religious sacrament and not a societal institution of political, social and commercial discrimination.
Issues of child custody and support, dual-party adoption, etc., should be legislated with no credence given to religious bondings, i.e., there should be no 'legal' standings in regard to marriage. It should remain solely a religious distinction and have no legal or economic bearing.