Clin VOL 7, NO. 3 erly FALL 1985 STAFF vo-editors Lenny Dee David Milholland Editor on Leave Jim Blashfield Associate Editors Peggy Lindquist Paul Loeb Michael Helm Todd Oppenheimer Design and Production David Milholland Guest Designers Reed Darmon Eric Edwards Tim Braun Coverwork Sharon Niemcyzk Jim Blashfield Production Assistants Stephanie Denyer Gail O’Neill Ad Production Stacey Fletcher Joyce Fletcher Camerawork Tim Braun Laura DiTrapani Typesetting Archetype, Harrison Typesetting Lee Emmett, Marmilmar, Sherry Swain Proofreaders Steve Cackley Betty Smith Ad Sales—Oregon Dru Duniway, Sandy Wallsmith Joyce Fletcher, Lynn Wilson Ad Sales—Washington Jennifer James, Scott Wilson Doug Milholland Development Lenny Dee, Suone Cotner Mary Lou Calvin, Libby Dawson Farr Lisa Shara Interns Dan McMillan, Barbara Griswold Contributing Artists Tim Braun, C.T. Chew Stephen Leflar, Carel Moiseiwitsch Isasc Shamsud-Din, Anne Storrs C. Vuplae Printing Tualatin-Yamhill Press Thanks Jeff Bachrach, Linda Ballantine John Bennett, Bart Diener Paul Diener, Julie Draper, Dennis Eichhorn Lola Jones, Tyra Lindquist Nicole Luce, Theresa Marquez Melissa Marsland, Enrico Martignoni Laurie McClain, Kevin Mulligan Alana O’Brien, Annie Reiniger Jim Styskel, Stephanie Styskel Debra Turner, Loring Voegl Ann Vrabel, John Wanberg Elizabeth Young Oregon Historical Society Technicolor, Inc. The Clinton 500 EDITORIAL utility: useful, dependable, vital, the opposite of aesthetic. Our utilities, both public and private, have historically provided us some of the world’s most efficient delivery of telephone services, electricity and natural gas. And up until the recent WPPSS scandal and the breakup of AT&T, the Northwest region’s utilities have largely been offered at acceptable prices, compared with other parts of the country. The true costs have been much more subtle, but their long-term implications need to be examined, understood and responded to. § Since it is clearly uneconomical to run multiple power and telephone lines through the same neighborhoods and countryside, very early on the delivery of both electricity and telephone services became the fiefdoms of one or at most two companies. There were opponents to these private monopolies long before the FDR regime. They called for municipal or county control and established publicly owned telephone services and utility districts. With the New Deal, an outpouring of federal monies created hydroelectric dams throughout the Columbia/Snake River Basin. This vast resource became the Bonneville Power Administration, and given the political tenor of the times, carried a preference clause that gave distinct advantages to those areas which established PUDs. Though massive amounts of private money rose to oppose their creation, the State of Washington became home to some 30 PUDs, joining the long-standing municipal districts in both Seattle and Tacoma. In Oregon, the private interests were sucessful in limiting their number to less than 10, most in rural districts. And with the preference clause in place, Washington residents and industry paid as little as one third of Oregon’s private rates for electricity. Oregon’s PGE and PP&L have many times, as recently as 1982, fought off PUD initiatives sponsored by coalitions including Grange, labor and progressive elements. These private utilities bring three powerful elements to those struggles: 1) money, in ratios of twenty or thirty to the one raised by PUD advocates, which buys a whole lot of media; 2) political clout, developed over years of carefully orchestrated contributions to both politicians and causes at every level; and 3) public confidence in their ability to provide power dependably. And even though there is a constant undercurrent of resentment toward their price manipulation and political power, it is insufficient to withstand the barrage of resources they bring out whenever they are challenged. For years these utilities have been feathering their nest with the support of politicians of every stripe. They give freely to both hard rock conservatives and rising star liberals, with very few capable or willing to resist the utilities’ overtures. And when their survival is threatened, their resources extend to include their major suppliers and sub-contractors, literally from around the country. This year, with PUD initiatives currently in abeyance, the four major utilities, which include Northwest Natural Gas and Pacific Northwest Bell, devoted their political money to the pro-sales tax campaign, giving more than $1,000,000.00 to that hoary cause. Needless to say, the property tax saving they’d realize in less than one year would more than pay back their “investment.” Oregon’s reputation for environmental leadership and corruption-free politics unfortunately does not extend to this realm. For as long as both executive and legislative bodies consist of politicians greatly endebted to these few companies, little hope exists for a reprieve. Even the judicial branch consists of ex-politicians and appointees of utility-funded politicians. The only hope of rectifying this situation is beginning on square one. Each candidate for office should be asked the hard question, both about utility financial support received and her/his opinions on public power and curbs on the private utilities’ currently unbridled influence. Those who pass this litmus test, should be supported both financially and politically. Though the WPPSS fiasco has rightly sullied the reputation of publicly controlled utilities, over the years Washington consumers have invested billions of dollars in facilities they own and control. In contrast, most Oregon consumers have paid much higher rates and own nothing. And because the Utility Commis- ' sioner, appointed by Oregon’s governor (no recent governor, Republican or Democrat, has reached office without massive utility backing), sets the rates to guarantee profits, the utilities’ political impact is virtually guaranteed to continue. The latest episode in this sage is .most telling. In November 1984, some 638,000 Oregon voters approved the creation of a Citizen Utility Board, as a partial offset to the power of the private utilities. The CUB prepared an enclosure for insertion in the private utilities’ current billings, the key “right” supposedly guaranteed by the wording of the initiative. Several utilities challenged and Federal Judge Owen Panner declared that such an enclosure would violate the utilities’ freedom of speech. That this central right of our democracy extends to corporations is certainly debatable. But any successful challenge would be prohibitively expensive. This decision once again abrogates the power of the virtually powerless, making the CUB scramble for mere existence while the utilities pocket yet another round of guaranteed profits. Efficient, dependable delivery of TABLE OF CONTENTS 'over Steve Winkenwerder Atomic Childhood G w ion..................................... The High Cost of High Tech Lenny Siegel and John Markoff Lynn Margaret Sharon Lynn Pugh............... Ellie Manette and the Steel Drum's Freedom Song Lynn Darroch .......................... Triangle Self Help Album C.T. Chew ............................. Freedom Rising James North ............................. Should Portland Become a Nuclear Free Zone? Elinor Langer ........................... 4 8 12 18 24 29 37 Intervention in Vietnam and CentralAmerica: Parallels and Differences Noam Chomsky ........ A d Index ......................... 40 47 The Clinton St. Quarterly is published in both Oregon and Washington editions by CSQ—a project of Out of the Ashes Press. Oregon address: P.O. Box 3588, Portland, OR 97208, (503) 222 6039; Washington Address: 1520 Western Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206),682 2404. Unless otherwise noted, all contents copyright© 1985, Clinton St. Quarterly. utility services, whether from a public or private firm, is the least we should expect and accept. To date, neither has failed to provide this bottom line. It is now time to begin removing the heavy foot of the private utilities from our necks. DM I t was over 2OO years ago that our Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to lay down the principles upon which our new country would be based. If the Clinton St. Quarterly had been around then, you can bet your boots that these dedicated American patriots would have turned to it time and time again for reference and inspiration as they painstakingly worked out the ideas contained in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. OK. So they might not have had much use for “Christmas Gifts for Chickens” or the story of the woman who divorced her husband and married her bowling ball. But what about the other stuff? You know, the political stuff. They’d have read that, wouldn't they? Of course! Yeah, sure! And might they have picked up their copies of the West Coast’s favorite journal of fiction, features, political writing, humor and eyeball-snagging graphics on street corners in Seattle, Portland, Eugene and points nearby? Of course not! It would have been a long ride by horseback and canoe. Many would have died. It wouldn’t have been worth it. Instead, they’d have subscribed to the Clinton St. Quarterly and had it delivered by postal employees, many of them wearing shorts in the summer. That's how they'd have done it. Our forefathers loved America. If you love America you'll be like them and subscribe to the Clinton St. Quarterly. Four issues a year for only $6.00. Get the picture? Stop being a squalling left-wing panty- waist. Be an American. Subscribe now. Name Name Address Address Send only $6 for first subscription, $5 for each additional one to: The Clinton St. Quarterly OR For a Friend? OK. And send me a pointed hat like Paul Revere if you've got any. Do you? Or don’t you? Is this a trick? P.O. BOX3588 Portland, OR 97208 1520 Western Avenue Seattle, WA98101 Clinton St. Quarterly
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz