Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber announced today that he was stopping all executions in Oregon. An excerpt from his letter here:
[Capital punishment] has been carried out just twice in last 49 years in Oregon. Both were during my first administration as Governor, one in 1996 and the other in 1997. I allowed those sentences to be carried out despite my personal opposition to the death penalty. I was torn between my personal convictions about the morality of capital punishment and my oath to uphold the Oregon constitution.
They were the most agonizing and difficult decisions I have made as Governor and I have revisited and questioned them over and over again during the past 14 years. I do not believe that those executions made us safer; and certainly they did not make us nobler as a society. And I simply cannot participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong.
Let me be clear, I had no sympathy or compassion for the criminals or for anyone who commits the most heinous of acts – taking the life of another person. The families and friends of victims deserve certainty that justice will be carried out on behalf of the loved ones who have been taken from them in such a cruel fashion.
But the nature of their crimes was not different from other murderers, some of whom are sentenced to death but never executed and others who are sentenced to life in prison. What distinguished those two death row inmates during my first term was that they volunteered to die.
Read Governor Kitzhaber's full letter here, or full text after the jump.
Governor Kitzhaber's full letter:
"Under Article V, section 14, of the Oregon Constitution, I am exercising my authority as Governor to issue a temporary reprieve in the case of Gary Haugen for the duration of my term in office. I want to share with Oregonians how and why I came to that decision.
"Oregon has a long and turbulent history with capital punishment. Our state constitution originally had no provision for the death penalty. Enacted by statute in 1864, the death penalty was repealed by voters in 1914, restored in 1920, outlawed again by voters in 1964, re-enacted in 1978, deemed unconstitutional by the Oregon Supreme Court in 1981 and again reinstated in 1984.
"It has been carried out just twice in last 49 years in Oregon. Both were during my first administration as Governor, one in 1996 and the other in 1997. I allowed those sentences to be carried out despite my personal opposition to the death penalty. I was torn between my personal convictions about the morality of capital punishment and my oath to uphold the Oregon constitution.
"They were the most agonizing and difficult decisions I have made as Governor and I have revisited and questioned them over and over again during the past 14 years. I do not believe that those executions made us safer; and certainly they did not make us nobler as a society. And I simply cannot participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong.
"Let me be clear, I had no sympathy or compassion for the criminals or for anyone who commits the most heinous of acts – taking the life of another person. The families and friends of victims deserve certainty that justice will be carried out on behalf of the loved ones who have been taken from them in such a cruel fashion.
"But the nature of their crimes was not different from other murderers, some of whom are sentenced to death but never executed and others who are sentenced to life in prison. What distinguished those two death row inmates during my first term was that they volunteered to die.
"Oregonians have a fundamental belief in fairness and justice – in swift and certain justice. The death penalty as practiced in Oregon is neither fair nor just; and it is not swift or certain. It is not applied equally to all. It is a perversion of justice that the single best indicator of who will and will not be executed has nothing to do with the circumstances of a crime or the findings of a jury. The only factor that determines whether someone sentenced to death in Oregon is actually executed is that they volunteer. The hard truth is that in the 27 years since Oregonians reinstated the death penalty, it has only been carried out on two volunteers who waived their rights to appeal.
"In the years since those executions, many judges, district attorneys, legislators, death penalty proponents and opponents, and victims and their families have agreed that Oregon's system is broken.
"But we have done nothing. We have avoided the question.
"And during that time, a growing number of states have reconsidered their approach to capital punishment given public concern, evidence of wrongful convictions, the unequal application of the law, the expense of the process and other issues.
"Illinois banned it earlier this year, ending a legacy of faulty convictions, forced confessions, unreliable witnesses and incompetent legal representation. New Jersey abolished capital punishment after determining it had spent a quarter of a billion dollars on a system that executed no one. New Mexico recognized that the death penalty is neither an effective deterrent nor fair to victims' families burdened with lengthy trials and appeals and replaced it with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
"Today, in Oregon, we can no longer avoid the question. Last Friday, a death warrant was signed for another death row inmate, Gary Haugen. And again he has volunteered to die.
"He is just one of 37 inmates on death row today. Some have been there for over 20 years. They all have many years and appeals left before there is even a remote possibility of carrying out their death sentence. Two others have died of natural causes after more than a decade on death row. The reality is that Oregon's death row is an extremely expensive life prison term, likely several times more expensive that the life terms of others who happen to have been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole -- rather than the death penalty.
"And while it may be convenient to blame lengthy and expensive death penalty trials and appeals on inmates 'working the system,' the truth is courts (and society) continue to reinterpret when, how and under what circumstances it is acceptable for the state to kill someone. Over time, those options are narrowing. Courts are applying stricter standards and continually raising the bar for prosecuting death penalty cases. Consider that it was only six years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself and held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on those under the age of 18. For a state intent on maintaining a death penalty, the inevitable result will be bigger questions, fewer options and higher costs.
"It is time for Oregon to consider a different approach. I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer; and I will not allow further executions while I am Governor.
"I do not make this decision lightly.
"It was the will of the voters in 1984 to reinstate the death penalty in Oregon. I respect that and, in fact, have carried out that will on two occasions. I have regretted those choices ever since – both because of my own deep personal convictions about capital punishment and also because in practice Oregon has an expensive and unworkable system that fails to meet basic standards of justice. Twenty-seven years after voters reinstated the death penalty it is clear the system is broken.
"To those who will inevitably say that my decision today compromises the will of the voters; let me point out that, in practice, it is the current system itself which compromises the will of the voters. I do not believe for a moment that the voters intended to create a system in which those condemned to death could determine whether that sentence would be carried out.
"I could have commuted Mr. Haugen's sentence – and indeed the sentences of all those on death row – to life in prison without the possibility of parole. I did not do so because the policy of this state on capital punishment is not mine alone to decide. It is a matter for all Oregonians to decide. And it is my hope – indeed my intention – that my action today will bring about a long overdue reevaluation of our current policy and our system of capital punishment.
"Personally, I favor replacing the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole and will argue for that policy in any future debate over capital punishment in Oregon. Others will point to opportunities to speed appeals or change the criteria for death penalty cases. In any event we can no longer ignore the contradictions and inequities of our current system.
"I am calling on the legislature to bring potential reforms before the 2013 legislative session and encourage all Oregonians to engage in the long overdue debate that this important issue deserves. I am convinced we can find a better solution that keeps society safe, supports the victims of crime and their families and reflects Oregon values.
"Fourteen years ago, I struggled with the decision to allow an execution to proceed. Over the years I have thought if faced with the same set of circumstances I would make a different decision. That time has come."
Leave a Comment:
A politician with courage is rare. His letter is the foundation for other states to ban capital punishment. Will they? I doubt it. Even in Illinois, the Republicans are campaigning on reinstating the death penalty. It is time to stop the madness.
So, if a Republican governor began trying to take steps to halt all abortions because he/she felt it was morally wrong, would he/she get applaud as well?
What do mean "if"? The Republicans declared war on abortion a long time ago. It presumes abortion is taking a "life" when in fact, science cannot say precisely when life begins. Politicians should not be declaring what science should be. We have a Constitution that guarantees every person, male and female, the same rights and that includes the right to make medical decisions. If you grant politicians the right to make a medical decision for a woman, then you have given them the right to make any medical decision for any person. You forfeit any legal claim that a person's body may not be taken by the state without due process of law. And that principle is what our whole legal system is built upon.
Mike, you know that's not what I asked. I said what if a Republican governor did what this governor did (and I'm not even saying I disagree with his decision) and declared he was stopping all abortions in the state because he felt it was morally wrong. Would he be applauded for his courage?
It would not be a science issue and your statement above illustrates how it could be solely a moral issue. If science doesn't know when life begins, the governor could be standing on the moral ground we "err on the side of life" for both mother and unborn child.
I'm not trying to start a debate on capital punishment or abortion (so let's not go there). I'm simply saying you can't applaud the moral courage in one situation where you agree with the decision and not the other because you disagree with the position.
What you can say is that you agree with Governor Kitzhaber's position and thus applaud his decision. But to disagree with the position of the governor in my scenario and then not to applaud his moral courage would be hypocritical. That's all.
Agree with his decision, don't give him points for courage.
RobDon: you're within your rights to ask the question and to argue the point. "IF" a Republican (or a Democratic...there are a few) governor refused to "participate" in abortions...
1. He/she isn't a doctor, so that point is moot.
2. He/she couldn't or wouldn't sign a bill banning abortions (to whatever extent) because if he/she really thought about it and understood ALL the issues - the way Governor Kitzhaber understands the ones around capital punishment - just signing the bill would STILL be participating in abortions because it would force women into having illegal and unsafe abortions.
3. I keep saying this in many fora: morality and virtue are the province of religion and are spoken of in the language of belief. You cannot speak of them in the language of fact and science...the old "how many angels dance on the head of a pin?" silliness. It makes no linguistic sense. Similarly, you cannot legislate them (morality and virtue) because you are forced to define legislation in the language of fact, measurement, science, legalese. Thus, making LAW to hang around a decision that is basically within the realm of religion and belief is a stupidity unto itself. Until we recognize that and quit chasing our tails over it; we're fighting ourselves over nothing at all.
Nice Lady from Carolina (and I hope I can say friend), a few things:
1. Why are there laws against stealing? You can't say "because stealing is wrong" because the sense of "right and wrong" are based in morality. (My point, unless your answer convinces me otherwise, we DO legislate morality. The whole capital punishment issue is mostly )
I am assuming you are using this argument to say the Governor would not be accomplishing his moral aim because he would not be stopping abortions, only making them more dangerous. To the fictitious governor this would be akin to the government passing out needles to drug addicts.
All the above is somewhat a side issue, unless you agree that the Governor of Oregon should not be applauded for moral courage. My point is you can not praise someone for moral courage because you agree with the decision and not do the same when you do not agree.
Abortion is a choice exercised by an individual. Execution is a penalty exacted by the State. There is a difference.
Thus the morality of an individual versus the collective morality of the people through the state? Hmmm. Now that is a very valid point of distinction (IMHO). I guess this difference is also highlighted in the debate/disagreement around state/federal funding for abortion.
I do think your observation has merit and it definitely makes my scenario much less relevant (um, thanks?). I still contend, although much more humbly now, that you have to be careful praise moral courage because you are hypocritical when you don't acknowledge the same where you disagree with the stand.
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere! I can't judge any of you; not being goddes of TRMS or anything similar. I CAN judge myself. That is where MY morals begin.
RobDon: your points re: morality/legality. We CAN define theft as a crime against property and thus take "morality" - as in the religious commandment, Thou shalt not steal - out of the linguistic equation. It gets more difficult when you get into defining whether abortion or homosexuality or not "honoring" one's father and mother are illegal as well as (perhaps) immoral. The language of legality isn't up to the language of religion, which is able to say "Thou Shalt NOT..." and make it stick because - presumably - god is going to getcha if you do.
And, yes, if our hypothetical anti-abortion governor signs an anti-abortion bill into law, he IS doing the equivalent of handing out heroin to addicts; he's driving women to abortion in unsanitary and life-threatening conditions. He's not stopping abortion; he's stopping abortions by doctors in medical facilities.
I would add that religion attempts to answer the question of which is more important, the mother or the fetus. This again puts politicians in the position of making a medical decision based on religious beliefs that should be left to the woman and her doctor. Our laws are based on the principle that religion and government should not be intertwined because you cannot legislate based on the beliefs of one religion over another. Christians may feel the life of the fetus is more important, but other religions and atheists do not agree. Our constitutional rights should not depend on religious beliefs of any particular brand of religion. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion under our laws. Christian conservatives do not agree with this principle despite the fact that this is a part of our constitution which they would like to conveniently ignore. Our laws should not become a battleground for different religions.
One last point of clarification and one point of agreement.
Most pro-life of Christian faith (or not) do not see one as more important but see them both of equal importance (to use your wording).
I agree. Even a position or argument stemming from one's faith, if to be adopted by society as a whole, must stand up own its own outside the tenets of one's beliefs. On this, I agree.
I think, unfortunately, you got yourself into a semantics debate rather than a substance debate RD (although to be fair to you, assuming I was reading your post correctly, this was not at all your intention). Assuming I interpreted his intention correctly RD isn't trying to divert this conversation to abortion nor is he necessarily advocating for/against. His point was merely that the logic used to conclude that what our governor here in OR is doing cannot be called morally courageous unless you're willing to apply that very same logic to something like a governor enforcing some other opinion he/she deems to be "moral." In principle I agree, but I do think this probably was a poor choice all things considered RD ;-)
Most people seem to have gotten caught up on the semantics in which they have correctly pointed out that executions are nothing like executions (which they are not and FTR RD wasn't arguing that they are), that they are not handled the same, and that the laws/principles/morals surrounding them are quite different.
As to the laws argument (about whether or not they are religiously dependent) I would counter that argument. We all exist in a society together and as part of that society we adhere to a contract w/ one another. In our contract we agree to give up certain personal freedoms and personal benefits in order to gain societal freedoms and societal benefits we could otherwise not have. So, as an example, I give up the right to decide that your property should instead belong to me. The benefit I gain from giving up this right is that both you and your wife, in turn, agree not to take my property away from me. Our laws then- at least this assumes our laws were made logically, which the pessimist in me might want to degrade, but I digress ;-)- reinforce this agreement by providing punishment for those who violate the basic tenants of our social contract. If I steal from you and your wife I have broken the agreement the 3 of us made, therefore I must face a negative consequence for that action and/or reconditioning in order so that I a. do not commit the crime again and so that b. during the time in which I am being punished and/or reconditioned I am no longer posing a continual threat to society. And it is to this latter effect that I'd like to redirect this conversation back to the issue of the death penalty and it's applicability, if I may:
There are only a handful of instances in which I can see the death penalty being an applicable means of punishment and those "handful of instances" are certainly fewer between than what we currently exercise as a society. If the basic premise of a legal system is in order to punish people who violate the social contract and recondition those individuals so that they can be released back into society and (hopefully) become productive, non-harmful members, then we must operate under the presumption that life imprisonment suffices both of these goals in instances of repeated rape or murder most of the time. We must also hold true that the punishment has to be equal to that of the crime committed or else the punishment becomes egregious and in turn violates the contract we've agreed to socially. And, as concluded before, in most instances life in prison would be an equal punishment for most crimes currently considered for death row. This latter tenant- however- may make itself justifiable in the instance of repeated egregious offense.
So let's say that I am sent to prison for committing secondary murder and I am released after 20 years in prison. Let's say I then go on to commit two first murders. I have now proven that the reconditioning element of my imprisonment has been unsuccessful and that society cannot reasonably assume I can be rehabilitated. This means that society cannot risk allowing me to return back into freedom so at the very least I have already proven that I deserve life imprisonment. But then we have that issue of punishment and equal application of punishment. Since I was given the chance and every opportunity (at least in the hypothetical- I know someone is going to point this out later so please understand I do not necessarily condone nor am I necessarily advocating our current justice system in this regard) to be rehabilitated and to be punished. This means that escalation would be the only means of applying equal justice and unfortunately in this type of extreme case escalation means execution. The only people to whom we can argue such an extreme escalation would be individuals who commit mass murder, such as Tim McVeigh or serial murder (like Ted Bundy).
The Catholic Church, which is the largest religion in the US, believes the fetus is more important than the mother. Even if other Christians believe the mother and fetus are equally important, an abortion ban would put doctors in the position of trying to save the mother and child when an abortion may save the mother whereas the former could mean death for both. It is probable that doctors would refuse to take on a problem pregnancy because they do not want to be put in this situation. Although these situations are rare, we still have a conflict with Christians and other religions or lack thereof on the issue. A doctor would be acting as God if he tries to save both when he knows from medical science that only one can be saved.
I would add to my other comments about rights to make a medical decision. If we take away the right to make a medical decision, then politicians have set themselves up as a death panel but they are hiding behind a law. There are people that are looking to ban contraceptives in addition to abortion. It is not unreasonable to think that religions may push to ban the use of contraceptives. We are opening a door to religions demanding the law fit their interpretations. Let the churches battle dogma out in the churches, not the legislature.
Mouzer...I think you've correctly interpreted my lame attempts. I would add that even in your scenario, the contract is developed from peoples morals (their sense of what is right or wrong).
Mike, this is where I eventually came down on regarding the personhood amendments/movement. As a Christian, I don't find where Jesus said, "I just can't get these Jews to do what I tell them so I'm going to get the Roman government to pass a few laws."
My contention is if we of Christian faith were adequately representing the love, grace, and compassion in which our faith is rooted we would not have to have a discussion about abortion. But, I'm fallible, I could be wrong.
Thanks all...have a Happy Thanksgiving!
If we define morality as adhering to the contract then yes it would be morally based. This is different, however, than stating it's dependent on religious morality. This is why I tried to specify religious interpretation and not necessarily morality (re-posted below):
The argument I was giving was that our laws are not necessarily religiously dependent. Now are there laws that we make specifically to adhere to or otherwise endorse religion? Yes. But that assumes those laws should have been made in the first place (which I think most liberals would say they should not). For instance I used to live in Colorado which had a law against people purchasing alcohol on Sundays. Sunday Liquor Laws were made because people operated from the assumption you should be sober at least 1 day a week and that day should be the sabbath (Sunday). Colorado has finally abolished this stupid law, but the idea behind it was religiously motivated and that law was dependent specifically on Christianity for it's existence. Such a law violated the social contract (or at least that would be the argument I submit) because it a. forced people to adhere to someone else's religious beliefs, b. infringed on the rights of businesses to make profit w/o showing clear harm to society, and c. infringed on personal liberty w/o showing clear harm to society. Laws that make sense- like anti-theft laws- do not need religion in order to be justified.
In principle I don't think people should vote their morals, but I have to concede that I think you are correct when you say that it's impossible not to vote based on what you think is or isn't right/wrong. Not all of our public policy ideas are based on empirically knowable things. Even if modern science could agree on a definition of what "life" is/means and when it starts that would still leave open our personal opinions to decide whether or not we want abortion to be illegal or legal. So, in essence, abortion is one of those debates where it will always boil down to your own morality. Even though I try to be very objective this is one of those things where it's about which argument you're (as an individual) more inclined to believe. And that, unfortunately, attaches to it the inclination of personal experience, personal dogma, and emotions. So I would have to agree that we vote morality on at least some subjects (on other subjects maybe not, but on subjects like abortion yes).
Also hope you enjoy your Turkey Day! May you eat much turkey and slumber well ;-)
I know this thread has come to its conclusion, but John Kitzhaber's decision (which I applaud) has various levels of philosophical arguement. For instance, Gary Haegan has volunteered to be executed. The two previous executees also volunteered to end their lives. Therefore, they chose, mindfully, consciously, to die and that wish was carried out. This then, upholds the ideals of individual liberty and choice. However, the people that carried out the executions, and the Governor granting that wish, are facing that religious dictate "thou shalt not kill." And though Governor Kitzhaber did not base his written decision upon that dictate, it may have been in the back of his mind. By making this stand, Kitzhaber has spared all who participate in executions (even witnesses and victim's family members) from facing this religious dictate. But in doing so, he has also denied Gary H. his individual decision to die. (Interesting how this thread of thought can tie into the abortion debate, hm?).
However, in the state of Oregon, we have the Death with Dignity law. This is for people who make a mindful, conscious choice to end their own lives when their terminal illness can "terminate" their body. Doctor's then mix up a concoction that will shut down the body. It is up to the patient to use it when he/she feels it is appropriate to do so. (BTW - this is a highly vetted and taxing procedure to get through and many individuals may not make it through the process due to any number of reasons. And those who do, often won't take the dose). Again, while the doctors may not adminster the prescription, they are still within the grey realm of the religious dictate "Thou shalt not kill" when they use their knowledge to mix it(many doctors will not participate based upon this principle).
So, based upon these two laws that have Death in their titles, we have a prisoner volunteering to die, and a terminally ill patient volunteering to die. Both are excercising their individual liberty to free choice. Is there a difference between the two? For the terminally ill patient it can be argued "yes, he/she will die anyway." Well, won't the prisoner eventually? Factually, he will. What Kitzhaber has done is said that Gary H. cannot die with anyone's help, and (i'm assuming) Gary H. will be kept from all instruments of death, including other inmates, so that he cannot take his own life. In this way, Kitzhaber adhere's to the the religious "thou shalt not kill", sparing all who participates in such executions, but also tramples upon Gary H's free will of individual choice.
I know no one has said it, so I will. Except for athiests, most people belive in an afterlife - that the soul meets its' Maker and has some sort of atonement for the life it lived. And if indeed Godde is absolute in his judgement, could he not judge a person who decided to allow others to take a life (even if that life freely volunteered) just as harshly as the one who willfully took a life?
God's thoughts on killing are pretty muddled. There are times in the Old Testament when he seems to sanction killing such as Passover in Egypt or when he commands people to be stoned to death for one reason or another. He needs to clarify his rules, so until then we have to rely on or rules.
Jontara- by all means this discussion is not closed. You have brought up the one "hang up" I have w/ my posts before hand. I do not believe, on the one hand, that it is moral to deny someone the right to die if they literally and ultimately want to die. So for instance I would argue that if someone seriously, seriously wants to take their own life there should be no law or exterior social punishment towards that person for making the decision to die (I do believe family members and friends have the right to talk to the person about why he/she wants to die and discuss the consequences if suicide attempts should fail and I do believe that help hotlines and treatment should always be available; this is primarily an anti-suicide law argument, which we can discuss in more detail if you'd like, but is somewhat off topic). But what do we do in the case of someone in prison who wishes to die? On the one hand if we cannot trust returning that person to society because they have demonstrated that no amount of rehabilitation will save them does that person not have the right to state he/she no longer wants to be forced to exist? But if we open up this area then we also have to deal w/ the idea of the state deciding to execute solely because it deems the life of a prisoner who is on death row too expensive or otherwise too useless. Can we implement one law or one regulation w/o necessitating the other? If the two cannot be separated is it morally just to implement one w/o the other? Remember that the state has an obligation, constitutionally, to provide for the health and well being of all of it's prisoners regardless of their crime. Dr. Maddow talks in depth about this in her dissertation (although her argument focuses on how such a mandate pertains to the treatment of HIV/AIDs victims). I ask these questions not to be rhetorical- I absolutely do not know the answer nor have I came to a moral conclusion about an answer. This is why I said you pointed out the one area of my argument that I am not able to address, at least at this time. I do not feel comfortable denying a sentient being the right to sovereignty over his/her own body, yet I do not know if it is ethical for a state to comply w/ such an execution. It is good that you brought it up. I am curious, Jon, what your thoughts are?
I wish there was an island where we could put people who have demonstrated that they have no intention of being a productive member of society and have also demonstrated they are a menace. An island far out in the ocean would do. No guards on the island, just a habitable island so it wouldn't be an automatic death sentence. Let them make their own society.
G'day!
Obviously its history is more complicated than that, but that loosely describes Aussie-land.
But the libertarians ARE already proposing to create their own law-exempt island!
If you can't stop inmates from killing each other in prisons, then you certainly can't do it with an island. Big monsters will prey on small monsters. Bad idea.
Sounds like Australia in the 17th and 18th century, although the bar for capital punishment was much lower in those days.
Testing
Just for future broadcasts, it's pronounced "Kits-hob-er" (or thereabouts). Long ahhh sound. ;-)
Kitz-Hobber
Thank you for the sunlight on this issue. Small point...it's pronounced "Kitz-Hobber"
Rachel, It's Kitz-haber, and said as the peppers you discussed today -habanero. Not Kitz-hayber. Thanks!
"Life in prison" should really be referred to as "Death in Prison," so it doesn't run the risk of seeming too lenient. The convicts will still die, locked up. Death penalty proponents seem to think a sentence of "life" is a pleasant option. Life in prison (without possibility of parole) is a death sentence, so why not call it that?
Because at that point, proponents of the death penalty are more focused on the fact that we're paying for the convicts to live. They see it as a good life with TV, 3 hot meals, recreation, and no responsibility. They don't know that many prisons don't have air conditioning, which can be very smelly in the summer (especially in Florida). Poor guards. They don't know that the prisoners don't get to choose when they eat or what they eat. If there is a TV, it doesn't have cable, only the basics, and that is for crowd control. Kind of like how people stick their children in front of a TV to get some peace and quiet. Semantics is not the issue.
Governor, you make us proud! Thanks for the antidote to Texas.
It would be hard to overstate how proud I am of "Doc" (as we call Gov. Kitzhaber)
TM-Eugene, Ore
It would be hard to overstate how proud I am of "Doc" (as we call Gov. Kitzhaber)
TM-Eugene, Ore
In the interest of "political correctness" our gov's name is pronounced kitzhobber, not kitzhayber. Thanks for the good press for the west's most ethical politician--as long as that statement is not an oxymoron.
I am reminded once again why I love my Oregon! Thank You Governor Kitzhaber!
My favorite politician strikes again! If anyone ever wants to see Kitzhaber at his best, download any of his lectures on the health care system. Doc. K is a pragmatic intellectual, who doesn't get the credit he deserves, and is virtually invisible on the national stage (unfortunately).
The Biking Viking- Portland, OR