Interesting piece, Pat, thanks. I think it's an overstatement to say that urban and green interests have "sold [the rural interests] down the river."

The urbans and greens have been there to fight against the larger forces that led to unemployment in the rural areas -- that is, exporting jobs oversees, replacing humans with machines, big box retailing, etc. The green press was full of stories about the corporate timber owners who bought up companies only to outsource and replace workers with machines, even with record timber cuts and record timber profits.

And the greens have been the backbone of support for land use planning, which does its best to keep those nasty wine-sipping liberals from converting productive farm and forestland into tract housing. There are groups like 1000 Friends of Oregon or Pacific Rivers Council, who opposed Measure 64 (the clearcutting ban) in 1998. Both 1000 Friends and the Oregon Environmental Council have farmer advisory groups, and have worked to create partnerships with cattlemen.

And then there are progessive groups like Oregon Rural Action, Rural Organizing Project, and others, who are NOT based in Portland or Eugene (to be fair, 1000 Friends has six offices around the state, and other groups have offices in Medford, Klamath Falls, etc.)

Instead, I think that the media (and others) have been attracted to the areas of conflict between certain urbans and greens and the value-driven rural folks. There are certain folks who HAVE worked hard to pass measures that would significantly change current farming and forestry practices, via initiatives, legislation, lawsuits, etc. And apparently those folks have managed to drive away a key constituency of progressivism.

But in the end, the rural and the urban areas aren't as different as they are similar. In each place, out of any three people, one's a conservative, one's a liberal, and one's in-between. We would do well to remember that person in the middle, who, as you say, can become an ally if we take the time to work together.

I'm of mixed feelings about this piece.

On the one hand, one of the things I want most out of the State Leg. this election is to see some well-thought out Democratic care paid to rural issues, so that we can bridge this alleged divide between the Valley (and it really isn't just Portland) and the rest of the state, and so that we can help each other out. I'd like there to be non-chain places to eat when next I go to Roundup, and trees to ride past for when next I set my fat ass on horseback.

It saddens me to see farm after farm have to sell out to Simplot or IBP just to get out with any money, or get sued by Monsanto because Monsanto can't control its SchwartzenCorn from cross-pollinating nearby fields.

But pointing the finger at progressives and "greens" for this alleged "divide" is asinine. It takes two, Pat. I guaran-damn-tee you no one from Portland forced your neighbor's lips against the Koolaid pitcher.

Urban progressives also didn't put a gun to the head of your local lumber baron and tell him to replant Douglas Fir with Lodgepole Pine, or send all the unfinished logs to Japan, or lay you guys off so he could make the payment on his Bayliner.

But we HAVE been sending good people to the legislature. We're also trying to buy regular rural food, not this genetic crap for which farmers have to buy seeds to grow every year, and make sure EVERYBODY'S public school has enough money.

The country folk, in turn, sent... Gordon Smith. Greg Walden. Ben Westlund. The institution of social ignorance and public financial drain that is Homeschooling. Mabon. Those stupid fucking signs along the freeway. If that's not gross abandonment of the high ground, I don't know what is.

Anyway, we'll keep fighting for everyone in Oregon, and we'll see our rural progressive counterparts when they get together and send one to the Leg., I guess.