Measure 39 would prohibit a public body from condemning private property if it intends to convey all or part of the land to a private party.

On the face of it, this seems like a good thing. However, this is attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. Unlike the east coast, where a certain amount of corruption is accepted as a part of life, even the proponents of Measure 39 have not been able to identify a single instance of abuse of condemnation in Oregon that this measure would have prevented. The Oregon constitution already requires fair compensation to landowners when land is condemned, and this process has worked for us.

Further, as it is written, this measure could make it more difficult and more expensive for cities and counties to acquire land for their normal business activities.

Those unintended consequences are a danger in any measure like this, which is one reason why I say that a measure must pass a rather high standard. This measure does not pass that standard.

No on measure 39.

Oregonians have 10 statewide initiative measures on their ballot this fall, almost all of which should be allowed to slink back into obscurity.

Initiative measures should need to pass a high standard in order to be enacted by the populace. A measure needs to be more than just a fairly good idea. It needs to be a REALLY good idea. Constitutional amendments need to pass an even higher standard; the constitution is the fundamental document that governs the way our lives are run in this state.

After reading through the statewide measures, the Committee for Rational Thinking urges a "no" vote across the board, except for the prescription drug plan, Measure 44. Over the next few days, I hope to write essays documenting my objections to each measure one by one.

I especially despise the advertisements in which slick marketing campaigns to try to convince you that the measure is something it is not, in order to sway those voters who do not pay attention. The worst of the crowd this time is Measure 48, the State Financial Straightjacket amendment, which proponents are cheerfully casting as the "Rainy Day Amendment". The only reason that name is applicable is because of the rain of tears that will fall because of the severe cutbacks that will be required should this amendment pass, but I'll get to that later.

It also frustrates me that every non-incumbent wants to elect them so they can "turn things around" and "enact REAL change" and "combat politics as usual". Those sound like wonderful catchphrases, but is that what we really want? Personally, I think Oregon works pretty well now. Yes, there are some things we need to tweak, and some adjustments we need to make in several key areas, but I'm not sure I want "REAL change". Further, politics is a game of compromise. The only way to get anything done in legislature is to learn how to compromise -- how to play the game of politics. When we elect someone who wants to "combat politics as usual", what we're really electing is someone who doesn't understand how the game is played. That, in turn, means that they won't be able to get anything done.

What I'm asking is that each Oregon really use their heads to understand the issues -- to look through the slogans and catchphrases and find out what each decision really means.