Dec 3, 2013

Oregon Wages Lower

This is because Oregon is ran by a bunch of super-uber-mega-conservatives in a horrible Red State. Wait..... Nevermind....Polar opposite!

Adjusting for inflation (always a good thing), we notice low-income wages are not improving. Wierd. Oregon is a progressive "blue" state that has numerous policies that are 'meant' to support the underserved. Very unusual that liberals, progressives and socialists tout Oregon as being "progressive" while some other red states are fairing better, despite the typical criticisms.

How can you blame the "capitalists" or conservatives when they hardly exist in Oregon in the first place? At least not in Portland.....where the majority lives...where the majority vote for liberal Democrats like Merkely...who was voted one of the most liberal of politicians.....hmmmm....

The idea of free trade is not what's happening right now. Free trade theorists propose their arguments for the poor and middle class, for innovations and advances in technology....of course people get rich doing so. It's a necessity. They're not proposing their arguments to get people rich but to at least allow them to.
Corruption, you ask? I hate that too.

President and His Administration Using "Soviet-Style" Tactics.

Their words, not mine. Interesting read. Apparently, this is worse than other administrations. Wonder why?

Nov 30, 2013

Liberals start to lose in Honduras.

This is actually happening throughout the world, whether Krugman likes this or not...

The Economist | Honduras’s presidential election: Mano dura wins the day via @theeconomist

Nov 18, 2013

Absolute Tolerance Towards Conservatives

You should know, before we begin, I am not a fan of Sarah Palin. Neither am I a fan of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and a few others. I am also not a fan of Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman or Cenk, from the Young Turks.
Why? All of them are guilty of saying some inflammatory comments towards the "other side" and it seems like people are not held to a certain standard.

When Rush called that younger women a "slut" because she advocated that the government should pay for all contraceptives, etc. for women in college, it became national news and rightfully so: he was an asshole.
Almost lost his job for that. I wouldn't have cared, however. I could careless about political commentators, of any side on the political spectrum.
What disgusts me, however, is the level of which "side" gets the most negative publicity in regards to their awful statements.
Take Bill Maher for example....called Sarah Palin the C-word and conservatives were fairly angry. Liberals didn't care much. In fact, it was not really in national news. Nobody really cared.....

Now, you have this guy:

Despite your views about Sarah Palin's methods or how she talks to people, or her political views, let it be known that many liberal commentators are not held to the same standard as conservative commentators. Even though Rush apologized for his words.....they still hate him. Just like this guy....I wonder how many people will even care about his comments?

What about the above video? He apologized and felt really bad for saying such things....yet, he is known for making similar (though, not as bad) comments towards those he disagrees with....

UPDATE: He resigned. 

Occupy Wall Street and other topics...(Updated again, sorry)

Here, you hear a man discuss major socio-economic issues with members of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Peter attempts to discuss the morality of getting unnecessary regulations out of businesses so they can hire young workers, why college tuition costs so much, why we do not have free trade in this country and why the Occupy Movement was protesting in the wrong direction.... He was sincere and polite, trying to reason with them. Some of them were certainly shocked about his ideas... being an advocated of such ideas myself, I am often labeled with nasty names fairly often. If you have time, it would be important to listen to the amount claims, forms of logic and differing ideologies amongst the crowd.

Listen to the emotions from these poor people.

For the level of intolerance that appears from my fellow Americans, I am surprised of the civil discussions that occurred here.

In about 30 minutes into the video, you'll notice someone constantly not letting Peter talk. Accusing him of things like "wanting to go back" to some bad times.... When he does not. The younger fellow does not give him a chance to talk.....hardly ever.
This is actually fairly typical in debates....on both sides. Notice how he constantly tries to discuss that guy's claim every time but is not even given about 2 minutes to rebuttal those claims and accusations?

This is ongoing.

Even for me, people often confuse me of being a right-winger, or something. Even some friends of mine have accused me of such things....or being a "leftist." My favorite is when some believe they know my views yet are surprised at my opinions....

My favorites from social conservatives: "So, if you allow same-sex marriage, people will want to marry their animals." This one I feel like screaming after this is said. It's a ridiculous claim and fairly harsh towards same sex couples. Downright mean, actually. They're undermining someone's relationship based off of their viewpoints.....completely disregarding a couple's love for each other. For these claims, I often ask this person a simple question, after validating their claim: "Why are you, or those similar to you, against same-sex marriage?" Sometimes, the answer is just like the first claim. At this moment, it is nigh impossible to change their mindset on such topics....

My favorite from socialists: "You don't care if people get sick, that's why you're against everyone getting healthcare." This claim, being on par is a similar fallacy, though it's usually referred to the tin-man fallacy, meaning because you're against a politicians legislation to force people to buy health insurance, makes you heartless. No. I am against such policy (although some good things in there) overall because it just ensures something that the socialists hate in the first place: Private Health Insurance. Newsflash, we hate it, too.

I hear arguments about why "we" all need single-payer healthcare because it's better. I hear arguments of why our "free market" healthcare is failing.

I can easily rebuttal these claims using peer-reviewed research. If you don't want to, then fine. I highly suggest that you conduct you're own research. Google doesn't count.

Go into your college's peer-reviewed data base. Search EBSCO, business source premier, etc. and "click" on the scholarly link, to ensure it's only peer-reviewed. Search efficacy single payer or socialized medicine or access socialized or nhs efficacy or whatever words you can come up with. You'd be surprised that there are many things great about socialized medicine. I know this. However, giving people "access" doesn't necessarily mean they'll get actual coverage.....

Also, I know "our" system is also awful but I'll elaborate on that at a different time. Our system isn't so great either...

Some of you of who personally know me, would never say such disgusting things about me. You would know very well of what kind of a person I am. This bigotry in this country needs to stop.

Nov 5, 2013

Free Market Healthcare and Why It Works (Soon, November 8th)

There will soon be a peer-reviewed paper about the complexity of our healthcare system, why the status quo is not working, why insurance companies and government funded insurance companies are making healthcare worse and why parts of the ACA actually induce these. Of course there will be more topics.

Some critics say that we have a "free market" in healthcare but how can that be true if half of healthcare is paid by government and most of it is regulated by government? That was a trick question. These simple facts enable that premise to be false: we barely have a free market oriented healthcare system. In fact, with the government tampering with producers, consumers the third-party-payers, it's no wonder why costs are out of control.

Here's a taste:

Many critics of the U.S. health care system argue that our practice of "freemarket"

medicine has been a failure, and we ought to follow the Europeans and

embrace "socialized medicine." We maintain, ho\\e\er.. that this country's "awkward

flirtation with the marketplace" (Whalen 2003) more closely resembles corporate

welfare than an experiment in free-market medicine. Therefore, we suggest that

before Americans abandon the free market, they ought at least to try it.

Kroncke, C. & White, R. (2009). The Modern Health Care Maze. (2009). Independent Review, 14(1), 45-70.

Nov 4, 2013

Republican Healthcare Reform. Proof. Also, Krugman rant.

If you know me, then you that I cannot stand Paul Krugman. Not because he considers himself a liberal because that would be ridiculous. I have several friends that are considered “liberal.”
I dislike him because he let his Nobel Peace Prize go to his head and at this point, he only blames Republicans and conservative or libertarians for every economic/social ill known to humans.
The following are just a few examples of why he angers me.....
Him lying about the Bush tax cuts, getting the wrong information (this source has sources):
Lying about Mitt Romney:  Seriously, actually making this stuff up… This has many other examples of him well, lying.
Here’s him blaming Republicans for all the effing healthcare problems:
His idea of what the NHS is like, not really true: Maybe I should send old Krugster some reports that he’s wrong?
Then you have ahem….this….guy. Same horrible idea of “Republican Healthcare Plan: Don’t Get Sick.” Simply childish. Why are some of these people leading our country?     “It was a blank piece of paper” “Don’t Get sick”
Why would someone simply bash the other side? Alan Grayson, with all due respect, why were you so immature about this? This is not even remotely true.

Why all of this immaturity towards Republicans? Why say “they don’t believe in reform” when in fact, they’ve attempted several times and you know what happened? DEMOCRATS VOTED NO!!!!
Want proof of these bills? Keep in mind that these are Republican comprehensive healthcare reforms BEFORE the Obamacare/Affordable Care Act (Everyone calls it Obamacare but I don’t like to).
Here’s one from Senator Mike Enzi, a Republican from Wisconsin n 2007:
Another from Senators Burr, Corker, Coburn, Martinez and Dole:
Bennett and ONE Democrat, my personal hero, Ron Wyden:

Some thought....

If you don’t like the idea of a free-market oriented healthcare system, then please, do not tell me “to look at the facts, read a book or tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about” etc like typically happens from a certain political opposition. I am fighting back.
This is a good one about Singapore (you need access from a college website, then search this title):
A review of Singapores Healthcare ideas:
Oh, and here’s some more peer-reviewed literature about free-market healthcare reform and one or two criticisms of it. Usually, the criticisms are “facts” founded by already set-in-the-brain misconceptions about what Republicans want, what conservatives want, how people distort the truth about the free trade.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, (2012). Frequently asked questions hospital value-
based purchasing. Retrieved from website:
Bolch, M. (2012). SHIFTING THE BURDEN: Employers Helping Employees Manage Costs.
Financial Executive, 28(10), 40-43.
Delamothe, T. (2008). Universality, equity, and quality of care. BMJ: British Medical Journal
(International Edition), 336(7656), 1278-1281
Kroncke, C. & White, R. (2009). The Modern Health Care Maze. (2009). Independent Review,
14(1), 45-70.
Fixing Medical Malpractice Through Health Insurer Enterprise Liability. (2008). Harvard Law
Review, 121(4), 1192-1214.
Glasper, A. (2013). The quality of care provided in NHS trusts reviewed. British Journal Of
Nursing, 22(19), 1136-1137
Haviland, A. M., Marquis, M., McDevitt, R. D., & Sood, N. (2012). Growth Of Consumer-Directed
Health Plans To One-Half Of All Employer-Sponsored Insurance Could Save $57 Billion
Annually. Health Affairs, 31(5), 1009-1015. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0369
Herzlinger, R. (2007). Consumerism and controversy: a conversation with Regina Herzlinger by
Robert S Galvin. Health Affairs, 26(5), w552-9.
Herzlinger, R. (2009). Regina Herzlinger: a long-term vision for healthcare reform. Hfm
(Healthcare Financial Management), 63(11), 50-52
Marshall, M. (2009, October 10). Applying quality improvement approaches to health care.
BMJ: British Medical Journal (Overseas & Retired Doctors Edition). pp. 819-820.
Shepherd, J., & Stafford, K. (2012). Patient-centric? Third-party payers interfere. Journal Of
Family Practice, 61(4), 187
Santias, F., Consuelo, D., & MartĂ­nez, I. (2004). Healthcare services in the U.K. PRIVATE SECTOR
Y PolĂ­ticas De Salud, 3(7), 8-22.
 Tacchino, A. (2012). Health Care Reform's Effect on the Working Middle Class. Journal Of
Financial Service Professionals, 66(3), 43-50.
Taylor, J. (2012). Market-Based Reforms in Health Care Are Both Practical and Morally Sound.
Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(3), 537-546. doi:10.1111/j.1748-
Tinkham, M. (2013). Pursuing magnet designation: the role of structural empowerment. AORN
Journal, 97(2), 253-256. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2012.11.011
Tozzi, J. (2013). What the GOP Has to Love About Obamacare. Bloomberg Businessweek, (4345),
Tu, H. T., & May, J. H. (2007). Self-Pay Markets In Health Care: Consumer Nirvana Or Caveat
Emptor?. Health Affairs, 26w217-w226. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.26.2.w217
Williams, H. F., Lopez, G., & Lewis, K. (2013). Certification -- Good for Business. Nephrology
Nursing Journal, 40(3), 247-254.
Williams, C., & Maruthappu, M. (2013, January). "Healthconomic Crises": Public Health and
Neoliberal Economic Crises. American Journal of Public Health. pp. 7-9.
Note: You see how long it takes to dispel these silly little myths? I would defend Obama from the anti-same sex marriage crowd but I already agree with same-sex marriage. Pro-choice or pro-life? I wrote something about that years ago. Back when I could hardly even write. Now, I at least suck at this point. :)

Oct 23, 2013

Something that Annoys Me

I have noticed recently that if you're against the government intervening in every possible fashion, then you're completely against anyone getting help, according to a liberal. Not every liberal. There are those that have that compassion like the rest of us to help others but are understanding that holding people accountable is the best way. Unless of course they're disabled in any way or cannot provide for themselves. The difference between these two ideologies has battled since Plato and Aristotle. No wonder why there's such controversy.
Why do conservatives donate more of their money, blood and volunteer, when liberals want government to solve such social issues?  (Source 1.) Even this guy makes a good argument for both sides (Source 2)

Even then, there is heavy criticism that the study was wrong to begin with. For example, asking someone if they're Very Conservative, Conservative, Moderately Conservative, Middle of the Road, Moderately Liberal, Liberal or Very Liberal could have a very different meaning.

Read that again. A very different meaning. Hence why the study wasn't so good in the first place. As it turns out, liberals donate to secular non-profits and conservatives donate to religious-based organizations. Even then, there are far less liberals than conservatives. Conservatives a greater in number, giving them the win of donations (because of greater numbers).

I am considered middle of the road when it comes to my politics but for those that don't even care to know the rest of what I believe in, they assume I'm "very conservative" which is not true.
Nor am I "very liberal."

Update November 2nd:
This still surprises me every time I see that ridiculous bumper sticker "Republican Healthcare Plan: Don't Get Sick" couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, the GOP and a better half of the country agree that people should be held accountable for their actions but also agree (with the other half) that there needs to be a social safety net. Not a permanent safety (unless disabled, etc;) but a temporary fix. Instead, what systems were in place are no longer actually helping people in the manner that was intended.



Oct 21, 2013

The Affordable Care Act and It's Website

The infinite wisdom of the Blue Party, for the last 4 years, really came shining through. Not that I want peopel to get sick or anything. I just simply disagree with some of their views. Despite my views on the Affordable Care Act, I am actually sad that the website is giving people too many problems. The goal was that our government would provide equality for those uninsured but instead, our Federal government simply makes it a law that you must buy health insurance. A law? What is so "equal" about forcing people to buy a crappy deal called health insurance?
I'm sorry, but isn't this a problem to begin with? Our government is appealing to the ideals of crony-capitalist's (the lobbyists) under the premise that it will create "equality." 
This same pressure from lobbyists were one of the many causes of the last recession....(the housing boom and bust). Yes, banks were given quotas to give the underserved home loans when they couldn't afford them, under the guise that these mortgages would be secured from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Same story!!!!
Sure, there are great ideas in the ACA that a lot of people thought of several years before but some of it's parts are potentially disastrous.

But forcing people to buy health insurance?  (I will only dive into few flaws, despite there are more) (Also, there are plenty of GOOD things within the ACA, which a lot of the GOP had something to do with. Yes.)

What's worse is the proponents suggest that the younger crowd should opt in this program, so they can help pay for the elders with the worsening diseases. The idea is that the younger crowd pays into the "risk pool" and it helps pay for the rest. First flaw is that rising healthcare costs are unavoidable until you fix the root of the problem, instead of subsidizing it. Second flaw....

Contradiction: the ACA also imposes a law that 26 year olds and under remain on their parents plan. How can we get the younger folds (er uh, force them to buy insurance) when they're already able to be on their parents plan? So, how are we to pay for those attached to the newly formed Medicaid programs when tax revenue is getting lower and lower? How are we going to afford to pay for our elders under this new exchange when so many of our younger crowd refuse to pay into such a program (because of how expensive it is).

Now their government website is down for the health care exchange? All of these millions spent on advertising the ACA and the website is down? I thought this was supposed to help, not hinder.

America is need of healthcare and particularly, preventive medicine. How can we get there if our government is forcing people to buy something they can't afford?

Also, if you believe socializing is better, get this: the healthcare costs will remain the same and continue to grow.

And if you still disregard that last statement, then please do not vote for "fixing" the prices of healthcare costs. Keep in mind that it causes shortages which absolutely result in a lack of equity because only the rich could afford the actual services.

And if you still disregard the last two statements, don't forget how inefficient the government is with your tax dollars....

And if you disregard anything that I say then...ah never mind. 

Oct 6, 2013

Government Shutdown From Lack of Objectivity Not Compromise

        Many people in our country are blaming one political party or the other.  Many are blaming Republicans because their wanting to defund the ACA. This is true. However, what people forget is what happened oh….about since 2006. Many of those on the Republican side were advocating for healthcare reform, many of these reforms backed by economists who heavily research such policy. Well, the other party said “no” every time. Then passed their own with a new president in charge.

        However, this bill (it’s now a law) is still being researched and its effects are only known from a historical standpoint from economists (If you want to know their opinions, research that). Mainly because there’s so much in it and that is hard to really know what will happen with so many different, even contradicting aspects, in that bill. However, there are numerous parts that probably should have happened years ago. Guess what? These ideas have been on the table for a while from both parties….but that’s a different subject.

So, if anything, this is simply the straw that broke the Elephant and Donkey’s back.

Both had a common goal

Both had a different means.

Both were wrong completely wrong because they lacked something very important with such issues: objectivity.

What ever happened to the 17 government shutdowns because the Democrats didn’t want to compromise? (years ago) No. It’s more like this: where was EVERYONE and why aren’t thinking clearly?

Politics should have never been about “winning.” Clearly, every political party believes that their side should “be that party that passed healthcare reform” when the other party tried a half-dozen times before hand and “won” against the other. It should have never come to this.

I mean, how many people still believe that everyone will magically get healthcare, when it mainly makes it a law that you have to buy health insurance?

The Affordably Care Act has another name to it. It’s called Romney-Care.

Sep 28, 2013

"Elysium" is the best movie in the world!

My movie review: Elysium. 

This review is completely unbiased in every way. In this movie, it depicts one of the best actors in modern history and sheds light on what income inequality does in real life…like really real life:  only the top 1% have health care, all the rights, all of the jobs, pay no taxes, hate everyone else on earth and view them as “illegals.” This is totally true. Rich Americans hate everyone else. In real life. Also, this movie has nothing to do with any recent healthcare laws that have been passed in the last few years. Nothing to do this at all. In fact, the makers of the film firmly denied that this movie has absolutely no political influences of any kind. None. You know what? I believe every word they say.  Also, it has nothing to do with immigration policy, healthcare legislation, income inequality and invigorates thought to those bigots. 

Will Hollywood ever make a film that is not politically motivated?

Even the Avengers was!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jul 23, 2013

Oregon's Transitions through World War II

                       Oregon’s Transformation throughout the World War II Era
      Ingrained in Oregon culture prior, during and after World War II has changed the identity of Oregon numerous times. Unfortunately, many people endured the back-lashing fear of racism against African-Americans, Chinese and Japanese-Americans and women. Several movements happened to advocate for their rights before the war and the progress to ensure their rights from the constitution came to no avail, even after the war. In some ways, unfortunately, there were others who had equally powerful voices who intended to do harm and revoke the rights of others. Those behind these powerful voices led groups and organizations to influence the political arena to their liking, even if modern day citizens view them of not being favorable. Some of these include women’s rights, the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Exclusion Act, land fraud, wealth inequality and prejudice against multiple races and women.
The pre-World War II industrial revolution and the formation of the railroads leading to Oregon led to a massive influx of people moving from the Eastern States, bringing along with them, large equipment for construction and technology (Robbins, “Transforming through Steel Rails”). The acquiring of this capital to build these railroads was invested by many from the timber industry and required a great deal of labor. Some of this labor came from Chinese Americans, that proved a valuable role in the making of the migration westward (Robbins, “Importing Asian Labor”). This pre-war influx of foreign labor also was a determining factor of racism against the Chinese Americans, including provisions and laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act. The belief that the Chinese and their fairly cheap labor caused reduction in employment for European Americans was reactionary at best. This time of the railroads bringing diversity and racism along with it, was not only subjected to the Chinese but Japanese as well.
While there was racism against the numerous ethnic groups, there were several other changes prior to the war. During the time of immense European immigration, many of them found their separate niches within the Oregon economy, before the early 1900’s (Robbins, “European Immigrants”). Those among them include of those from Scandinavian-descent, Germany and Great Britain. The railroads certainly helped bring a lot of these citizens from the East coast. This helped move people from the rural areas into the urban landscape and it was as if where ever the railroads laid their tracks, people would too. This influx of new population of people was coming at a time right after slavery was abolished and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was in place, ensuring citizenship if you were born in the States (Robbins, “Oregon’s Political Landscape”).  During this era, from the 1870’s through to the 1920’s, Oregon voter would tend to vote per the issues and focused less are partisan (political party associated) politics.
With the economic recessions and depression through the late 1800’s and along with the political turmoil that followed them, strong voices emerged from the political landscape. These people were considered the voices of dissent from the long-held status quo against people’s rights. These rights included the Women’s Suffrage movement for several decades, led by a tenacious voice of from Abigail Duniway (Robbins, “Protestors and Reformers”). Other ideas emerged the notion of Populism and Progressivism which were firmly against land fraud from very large businesses, minimum wage standards, child labor laws, workmen’s compensation and politician/business fraud reduction.
While the reformers tried busily to stop some of these social ills, several industries thrived in Oregon. The constant demand for timber left some parts of industry striving for other parts of Oregon to harvest. This increased production but also gave some incentives to investors from the railroads not only to speculate into the timber industry, but to help transport much of these goods. Those involved in the mining industry also found many aspects of this profitable and thrived along with the other markets (Edwards). The new salmon markets flourished and shipped many of their goods nationwide, especially with the new technology produced for their canneries. This also allowed a modest working class that included over 50 canneries in the lower Columbia River (Robbins, “New Salmon Markets”).
While some people in these industries certainly prospered, the nature of this duality is represented by how unfairly the natives were treated during this time. Before World War II, the natives had multiple parts of their lands and hunting rights taken away, even going so far as President Grant’s “Peace Policy” that promoted Christianization and assimilation of the Natives, even by the use of boarding schools. By the early 1900’s, the “kicking” out of these natives helped paved a way to use this land for irrigation projects for later wheat farming throughout area (Robbins, “Against Indian Cultures” & “Reclaiming the Land”). These main ideas for this pre-depression era were meant for future farmers, even if some of the local would-be farmers left the area entirely.
Even with these issues occurring, there was a technological revolution in several industries. This included the conversion to steam-powered vehicles from animal-power. This revolution also brought in other forms of energy, including gasoline-powered engines which with all of these combined, might have caused a reduction in manual labor jobs available. Prior to this happening, much of the labor industry constituted of young, single men, working in these numerous industries. This allowed a great deal of the reallocation of wealth amongst the workers, giving them fairly decent wages. A large part of these reasons for decent compensation were the result of the several unions, advocating for them (Robbins, “A Work Force of Young Single Men”).
This was a prominent time for Oregon as many men were earning a great deal of money but many of the industries were mostly seasonal, leaving some unemployment in the off-season. For women, on the other hand, were barely making it into the workforce. During the suffrage movement, some women found fairly decent occupation. Some of these include jobs in nursing, school teachers and telephone operators (Robbins, “Women in the Work Force”). This pre-war era, where women predominantly worked less than men, changed with the war build up and the military production that was needed.
While women advocated for themselves, there were other organizations that would seek the means to prevent the rights of others. For women, their later success came fairly slowly even as the first of the Suffrage movements had trouble gaining traction (Jensen). Other examples include that of the inherently racist groups like the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), which not sought the means to end many people’s rights but actively achieved many of these goals. Not only did they disregard the rights of any other race than a “white” race, they also shown anti-Catholicism and had several politicians’ votes bought and paid for (Horowitz). Like many organizations, the KKK also appealed to some people and even adopted the ideas of progressivism but in very different ways. In the context of this time, progressivism appealed to many people that even included those groups of people we would never categorize them into such ideals in modern times.
These movements would have not happened without another case of suffering. On a nationwide level, the Great Depression started. With several of Oregon’s industries already on the decline, the Federal government stepped in and helped produce some government jobs for (mostly) single men. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and Works Progress Administration (WPA) were large, government-funded programs to help alleviate the poverty in the nation (Robbins, “Hard Times” & “The CCC Experiment”). With mostly white, single men benefiting from such programs, the Natives had glimmer of hope for themselves, which many people actively sought the means to help the tribes in Oregon. This is an example of this back and forth, love and hate relationship people had with many races, including the Native Americans.
The turning point for Oregon resulted from the start of World War II. This caused a major change in the demographics, economy, culture and utilization of its resources. This required a great deal of Oregon’s natural resources to be used and to extract such resources required a massive influx of labor from all over the United States. With the start of the war effort, and military production jobs in enormous demand, it caused a shift of the population from the Eastern states into the Western states. From this point, the government had to help with housing infrastructure to accommodate the immense needs (Robbins, “War Production”). One historian noted this shift was similar to tilting a board game full of people from the one side to the other.
This influx of people also brought those from afar and minorities within the states, that led to several examples of people being prejudice towards these other races. There are several examples of citizens becoming increasingly harsh towards this influx of people that include many Japanese Americans and African Americans. Even though African Americans were declared as free citizens several decades before this, numerous people involved with the shipyard unions discriminated against them and would hardly allow them into one of their unions.
For the Japanese-Americans, it was even worse: they were forced into internment camps. These reasons were thought to stem from the politician’s standpoint which was due to security reasons when most historians realize it was due to sheer racism against the Japanese. Even before the camps were started under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, there was already a premise of racism towards their ethnic group. There are several examples in which Japanese Americans were discriminated against, even if they were extremely valuable to the economy. These examples were as if people were blinded by this idea of patriotism for the war when many didn’t realize they weren’t being patriotic for people’s civil liberties (Robbins, “Anti-Japanese Sentiment”).
Though the African American community was not forced into internment camps, their demise was still dreadful because racism was still running rampant against them. There was such hostility against them and even to the horrible point that some Caucasian Americans had signs posting awful terms like, “We cater to whites only,” which can sum up this racism perfectly (Pearson). There are those that could justify, in the context of that era, holding the Japanese Americans in camps for security reasons. However, this was not true by any means because many Americans were also racist against the Japanese and these camps were a simple “solution” to keeping them away. As for the racism against the African American community, it just proved that many Americans were hardly ready for change.
During the war, the Native Americans, once again, suffered from their lands being taken away for the building of dams. Full employment had its benefits for some but it left Oregon’s natives and its natural resources in turmoil from the war production. The natives’ homelands were partly destroyed to later build such infrastructure and for the returning veterans of the war (Robbins, “Reconversion”). We can see here where a possible turning could have been made in their favor but once again, the Native Americans were pushed aside. This reconversion was not meant for the natives but for the housing boom for everyone else.
Even with all of this horrible news against minorities, women gained a foothold in the American war production effort with many of them earning decent wages. Of course, much of these wages were from the Federal government’s effort to increase the power and size of its military, but it proved a turning point for women to realize how important they truly are in society and the economy. This turning point has been ingrained into the American culture and provided an ample example that women are to be respected and to longer be “forced” into the older social norms. It also proved that women can work just as hard, if not harder than men. These examples of women in the war effort and other industries, with all of the strenuous work, allowed women to earn wages they have never earned before (Robbins, “Women in the Work Force, 1925-1945”).
After World War II was over, many people started to return home and some went back into their typical social niches as before but some things did change. There were other drastic changes that included the major increases in technological advancements and these helped build immense dams and waterways for future farm usage (Robbins, “The Onset of the Modern Age”). Several parts of the timber industry and agriculture flourished but slowly dwindled over time from the over-utilization of Oregon’s resources. These changes and use of technology also helped the Oregon economy shift from the heavy resource-based economy into something of a technological forte (Mayer). During part of this transition, Hood River County became a tourist attraction and became known for its excellent water-based recreational activities.
During this time, numerous tribes in Oregon were set to be completely abolished. The main term used by politicians was “termination” and its main ideas were to assimilate the Native American culture by first not recognizing them as a tribe (Robbins, “Termination”). Some of the reasoning behind this included to get rid of their lands for the agricultural sector (“agri-business”) and for the returning veterans in need of homes and land. The building of these dams would also prove to be a large dispute against numerous tribes as these were their fishing locations and where many of them earned fairly decent wages fishing. Eventually, several decades after the post-war era, some tribes were fully recognized during the Reagan Administration.
The pre-war movements also have paved a way into the American culture adopting more women and African Americans into the work force. Although this was incredibly slow, and numerous problems still existed, this turning point in history proved that Oregon’s racism was slowly drawing to an end. An excellent example of this social tyranny slowing down was when women were starting to be employed in politics and the school systems. For African Americans however, it was a lot a longer: the first Oregon state official, Treasurer Jim Hill, was elected in 1993. For Oregon have such a harsh nature towards the African American community, the election of this man proved to be a turning point for the entire state. This would still take time for Oregon to adopt some of these ideals to accommodate people of different races.
As the culture changes throughout the 1950’s, so do the numerous variations of the politicians. From the strict culture of Oregonians voting for Republicans, the post-war politics changed into voting for largely the Democratic Party. With a mentality for progressive ideology and new culture, some Republican politicians would fit into the Oregon political culture. Senator Tom McCall is an excellent example of the unusual voting characteristics of the voters in Oregon: he was fairly “liberal” compared to a lot of other Republican politicians. This is true even for Senator Morse that was known for his political independence compared to much of the rest of the political parties. This post-war transition of politics is only one of several examples about the atypical behavior of its political arena.
Moving from the 1960’s and through the modern era, Oregon changed a great deal. Now largely labeled as “liberal” within its Portland borders, much of the rest of Oregon remains fairly conservative compared to the big cities. There was a large transition from a resource-extractive economy into a technological & service economy but there are still some of these large timber companies left in Oregon. The suffrage movements proved to make their mark and pave the way for the rights of others and a good example of this is the acceptance of homosexuality in Oregon. Though slowly moving forward to the advancement of the legalization of same-sex marriage, it continues to have such ideas on its local ballots within the major cities.
With all of these examples of changes for Oregon before, during and after the war, it is no wonder how confused a newcomer to Oregon history could be when noticing its past, mainly because of its had numerous transitions. During the context of the pre-war era, there are several examples of movements for civil rights and equality while most coming to no avail. During the war, there is a massive transition in all parts of Oregon and the entire nation. As the demographics changed, so did the influx of new ideas, races and culture get thrown into Oregon’s “melting pot.” After the war, some of the movements for civil rights came to benefit many women and African-Americans but hardly any justice was served for the Native Americans until much later. From these powerful voices against the status quo, advocating for their rights and the transitions they faced during the war, some of the rights and footing in the economy were answered. The call to advocate for the minorities is proven to take time, decades even, in order to change the minds and influence others. Oregon, like much of the nation and rest of the world, proves how long these transitions can take.

Edwards, Thomas G. “Town Boosterism on Oregon’s Mining Frontier: James Vansyckle, Wallula,
             Columbia Riverport. 1869-1870.” Oregon Historical Quarterly. Spring
Horowitz, David A. “Inside the Klavern: The Secret History of a Ku Klux Klan of the 1920’s.”
Southern Illinois University Press. 1999. P. 17 & p. 21
Jensen, Kimberly. “’Neither Head nor Tail to the Campaign’: Esther Pohl Lovejoy and the Oregon
Woman Suffrage Victory of 1912.” Oregon Historical Quarterly. Fall 2007.
Mayer, Heike. “Planting High-Technology Seeds: Tektronix’s Role in the Creation of Portland’s
Silicon Forest.” Oregon Historical Quaterly. Winter 2005.
Pearson, Rudy. “’A Menace to the Neighborhood’: Housing and African Americans in Portland,
1941-1945.” Oregon Historical Quarterly. Summer 2001.
Peirce, Jason. “The Winds of Change: The Decline of Extractive Industries and the Rise of
Tourism in Hood River County, Oregon.” Oregon Historical Quarterly. Fall 2007.
Robbins, William G. “Transforming Through Steel Rails”  Political and Economic Culture, 1870-
1920. The Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “Importing Asian Labor.” Political and Economic Culture, 1870-1920. The
Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “European Immigrants.” Political and Economic Culture, 1870-1920. The
Oregon History Project. 2002. http://
Robbins, William G. “Oregon’s Political Landscape.” Political and Economic Culture, 1870-1920.
The Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “Protesters and Reformers.” Political and Economic Culture, 1870-1920. The
Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “New Salmon Markets.” Political and Economic Culture, 1870-1920. The
Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “New  Assualts on Indian Land.” Political and Economic Culture, 1870-1920.
The Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “Against Indian Culture.” Political and Economic Culture, 1870-1920. The
Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “Reclaiming The Land.” Political and Economic Culture, 1870-1920. The
Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “A Workforce of Young Single Men.” Political and Economic Culture, 1870-
1920. The Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “Women in the Work Force.” Political and Economic Culture, 1870-1920.
The Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “Hard Times.” Oregon in Depression and the War, 1925-1945. The Oregon
History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “The CCC Experiment.” Oregon in Depression and the War, 1925-1945. The
Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “War Production.” Oregon in Depression and the War, 1925-1945. The
Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “Anti-Japanese Sentiment.” Oregon in Depression and the War, 1925-1945.
The Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “Women in the Work Force.” Oregon in Depression and the War, 1925-
1945. The Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “Reconversion.” Oregon in Depression and the War, 1925-1945. The
Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “The Onset of the Modern Age.” People, Politics, and the Environment Since
1945. The Oregon History Project. 2002.
Robbins, William G. “Termination.” People, Politics, and the Environment Since 1945. The
Oregon History Project. 2002.