Stop Self-Service Electric Car Charging

A specter is haunting Oregon. One of two states that prohibit self-serve gasoline, Oregon is now caving in to the electric vehicle lobby by allowing owners to plug their cars into commercial charging stations all by themselves. They can even plug into personal charging stations and their own wall plugs at home. All this activity is taking place away from the protective eyes of our friendly, helpful state safety regulators.

Don’t these rogue individualist electric car owners know that they’re likely to electrocute themselves? What training do they have to safely charge anything? None. What about the innocent children and inquisitive neighbors who might be leaning against their cars when the power surges and turns their sleek metal machines into death traps? Don’t they know that it rains in Oregon, and rain and electricity don’t mix well at all?

NO. Not in Oregon. Oregon is for dreamers, not electric charging schemers. This travesty must not stand.

The Electric Vehicle Safety/Plug Jockey Jobs Act has just been introduced in Salem to require all commercial charging stations to be manned (or womaned) by state certified plug jockeys who must earn the state minimum wage.

The legislation further requires that if you want to charge your electric car at home, you must make an appointment at least 48 hours in advance with a state certified plug jockey who will arrive at your home within a specified four-hour window to plug in and charge your vehicle. He/she must stay at your home until the car is fully charged (which will average four to eighteen hours). Offering milk and cookies to the plug jockey is encouraged, but shall remain voluntary during a trial period. Once the car is fully charged, your plug jockey will unplug the vehicle and leave your home. You will be billed for his/her time to the nearest minute. To ensure tax compliance, these charging bills cannot be paid in cash to the plug jockey. Payments may be mailed to the State Department of Anachronistic Regulations, or may be deposited in special Plug Jockey Drop Boxes strategically placed throughout the state.

Oregonians know that they’ll set themselves on fire if they pump their own gasoline, and they know that low-skilled minimum wage workers will lose their jobs and form roving bands of disgruntled youth if we were ever to repeal our self-service gas ban. They now must recognize similar dangers associated with allowing the elite electric car owners among us to charge their own vehicles. We must stop this madness before it spreads to the general gasoline-car-owning population.

Call your state legislator now. Demand that they protect us against ourselves and create some unneeded jobs by voting for the Electric Vehicle Safety/Plug Jockey Jobs Act. Remember, it’s for the children.


Steve Buckstein is Founder and Senior Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. He is also, occasionally, its Satirist-in-residence.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Energy, Individual Responsiblity, Oregon Government | Tagged , | 117 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Ronglynn

    Steve: You obviously are not a native Oregonian. My birth certificate is stamped NO SALES TAX AND NO SELF SERVE GASOLINE. Oregonians apparently do not think that they have to be like the rest of the states. You made a nice attempt to make fun of the stupid plug in stations, but you brought in No self serve gasoline which is apples and organges.

    • Steve Buckstein

      Sorry Ronglynn, I am as native Oregonian as they come.  Never lived in other state.

      My birth certificate is stamped “Oregonians have the pioneer spirit” meaning in part that we live our lives and let others live theirs. I don’t like to pump my own gasoline, but that doesn’t give me the right to prohibit my neighbors from pumping theirs. I understand that Oregon voters have done just that, but that doesn’t make it right; simply legal.

      • 3H

        Exactly!   And what gives my neighbors the right to prohibit me from operating an inpatient surgical clinic without a medical license?  What gives them the right to prevent me from opening a salvage and used car business in my back yard!   If I want to store toxic waste from chemical companies in my basement, they have no right to stop that!

        • Ronglynn

          Yes, what give others the right to keep me from making moonshine whiskey on my own property for my own consumption.

      • Ronglynn

        Sorry, our laws are set up by the majority. Making it right is in the eye of the beholder. I say No self serve is right according to the will of People.  

        • Matthias Clock

          Sorry Ronglynn, but if we take a look at history we find that the “will of the People” is at times notoriously stupid, which is why we have a republic and not a democracy.

          Democracy has its drawbacks – like making people think that they’re too stupid to pump gas, or feeding into their laziness. 

          • Ronglynn

             Sorry, you are wrong. The right to pump gas is not in the Constitution. The legislature along with the governor, the republic’s leaders, could change the gas pumping thing. We have a democratic republic. That is where we all have an opportunity to vote for our representatives. Sometimes, the process turns out badly when the voters vote for stupid socialists and greedy capitalists. Alas, is there a better system out there?

  • Bob Clark

    As Ma Sheela of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh infamously put it, “life is full of inconsistencies.”  The Oregon legislature is generally one incoherent governing body which seems to measure its importance by how many new laws it can impose each session no matter how duplicative or inconsistent with existing laws, which are seldom re-visited for elimination. 

    Fun joust here by, Steve!

    • Ronglynn

      Would you rather have a dictatorship?

  • Matthias Clock

    Speaking as a native Oregonian myself, it pains me to say that our self-service gasoline ban has made Oregon a laughing stock throughout the nation. It was also pretty embarassing to realize in New Jersey two years ago that I didn’t even know how to pump gas. 

    The truth is, pumping gas is not dangerous. It is as easy as tying your shoes. There is no statistical information that I am aware of, or even anecdotal evidence, that suggests otherwise.  
    The saddest part of it all, however, is that so many Oregonians (typically liberals) feel like we’re doing a service to the poor by creating thousands of jobs at gas stations.  This is a failure of imagination. Those workers could be doing other jobs that are much more productive, thereby adding more to the economy and for all we know bringing prices down for the rest of us (including the poor). 

    And Ron, your birth certificate is stamped “no self-serve gasoline?”  You’re telling me that of all of the issues that our state and nation face, the argumentative hill you’re willing to die on is… self-service gasoline? 

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    • David Appell

      > Speaking as a native Oregonian myself, it pains me > to say that our self-service gasoline ban has made Oregon a 
      > laughing stock throughout the nation.

      Speaking as a non-native Oregonian who has lived in several other states, I am sorry to have to tell you that other states don’t really care what Oregon does in this regard, let alone laugh about it.

      And, yes, I’ve gotten gas on myself more than once in my life while self-serving, once quite a lot. Stuff happens. Not to mention dirt and grime. Try pumping gas in a white button-down shirt, tie, dress pants, and dress shoes. I am happy not to have pump my own gas here.

    • Founding Fathers

      “It was also pretty embarassing to realize in New Jersey two years ago that I didn’t even know how to pump gas.”

      Except that New Jersey also bans self-service gas.

      Perhaps you were in New York. Or Pennsylvania. But not New Jersey.

      • Matthias Clock

        Eh, you’re right. I was on something of a roadtrip and must have been in PA or Vermont. 

    • Ronglynn

      What a bunch of hogwash! America is a vast country with over 300 million people. I doubt if very many people in America know that Oregon has No Self Serve Gasoline. Let me make a wild statement. People in other states yearn to have someone else to pump their gasoline.

      I lived in Portland, Oregon for 24 years and spent considerable time in Vancouver, Wa. It was my observation that there was no real real difference in price.

      I am a rock hard conservative. What other jobs?

      Get real. I did not say that I was willing to die for No Self Service gasoline. Are you willing to die to get Self Serve? Of course not! Go ahead and cry.

  • Kathleen W.

    Good catch, Steve!  No self serve electricity!  A 9 year old boy died near a house boat after being electrocuted while swimming near a boat that was being repaired.  No joke, this truly is hazardous.

    We’d save time by having self serve gas.  If they plug in their Volt, then I should get to top off my tank!

    • Ronglynn

      Self Serve states have more gasoline station explosions than Oregon and New Jersey. Seems a lot of idiots do not know that you should not pump gasoline with cigarette having from their lips.

      Also, people who top off their tanks are destroying the atmosphere!

  • Edwardio

    Look we have a bunch of John Kitzhabers, Sam Adams, Rex Burkholders and Kate Browns running this state. 

    There should be no expectation of anything but insanity, dishonesty and chaos as long as they are running things.

    All of the verbose tallk about better ways to do things will lead to nothing but more talk as long as the unethical lunatics are in charge. 

    The CRC is the ultimate poster child for the problem we face and how it is only getting worse.

  • valley person

    The reason Oregonians have hung onto a prohibition against self service gas pumping is because of persistently high unemployment. Most of us would rather that a few more of our neighbors had jobs than we had the freedom to spill gas on our own shoes.

    How we have managed to survive without this freedom, and why it hasn’t led to full blown totalitarianism remains a mystery.

    • Matthias Clock

      Valley Person,

      The problem is, mandating by law that a business employs people for a useless task does not, in fact, help many of our neighbors.  What it does, in reality, is push gas prices higher, and make transportation more costly for our neighbors, particular the poor. 

      Want to know who sets prices at the pump? It isn’t the refineries, it isn’t the oil companies, it is, in fact, the local owners of gas stations. (ref: https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/04/11/good-question-who-sets-the-price-at-the-pump/ ) 

      What does that mean? It means that if Oregon gas station owners didn’t have to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars paying people to do the equivalent of drying their hands for them in the bathroom, they could either drop their gas prices to outcompete their competitors, or they could invest in opening other gas stations where they hire people for real jobs like standing at a cash register. 

      I don’t dispute that Oregonians have good intentions. But what could be worse than harming our neighbors with all of the good intentions in the world? 

      Reminds me of a beautiful quote by C.S. Lewis:

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C.S. Lewis

      • valley person

        Pumping gas is not a “useless” task. No more or less useless than thousands of retail jobs.  And given that our economy is about 70% service, eliminating all the “useless” jobs, from Wallmart greeters to burger flippers (why not fry your own?) would eliminate a lot of wages. You think 9% unemployment is bad, try 50%.

        The owners of service stations set the prices at the pump? Sure, after you factor in the price of delivered crude, refining, and delivery, they get to decide how much mark up if any to add. But the “price” is 95% factored in already, so the dude with the handle and the tattoos is a very small part of the cost of a gallon.  

        So we eliminate X pump jobs and increase them by X new cashiers?  That accomplishes what exactly?

      • Ronglynn

        Baloney! I lived in Portland, Oregon for 24 years and spent considerable time in Vancouver, Wa. There was no real difference in the price of gasoline in the two locations. On a cold and rainy day, I prefer to sit in my car with my latte and let someone else pump my gasoline.

    • Steve Buckstein

      Valley, did you ever consider that such laws aren’t so much a response to “persistently high unemployment” but that they actually help perpetuate such conditions?

      Requiring business owners to hire people they might not hire otherwise raised their costs and distorts the marketplace. Creating jobs, and creating productive jobs are two different things.

      As to spilling gas on your own shoes, why not propose a law requiring gas stations to provide free plastic booties for customers? Not good enough? Then require them to provide complete rain gear, or even hazmat suits for customers? The fact that such laws might not lead to “full blown totalitarianism” is not the point.

      • valley person

        I’m not passing judgment on  whether the law that prohibits self pumping is net good or net bad for Oregon. I don’t know whether it ends up creating more jobs or not. I suspect it is probably a wash. The number of jobs in question is probably pretty low, and any difference in gas savings either minimal or pocketed by the retailer. I was simply stating what I think is the real rationale behind it. Its not about safety, its about jobs, however humble.

         “Distorting the marketplace” is a concern I don’t share. If a policy is good for society but distorts the marketplace, then fine….distort it. The clean air act distorted the marketplace, but lets us all breathe better air and live healthier lives. We could have let pollution continued unabated and waited for the free market to start selling portable oxygen tanks. That would have created jobs, not to mention more jobs in health care and lung transplants by the way. And jobs are good right?

        My theory is that “the marketplace” is a useful servant to society, but a lousy master. 

        For the record, I am supportive of self service plug in car stations, but not because of any market question. I just don’t see any advantage (to society) in requiring plug attendants. 

        • Steve Buckstein

          Valley, we agree that the gas pumping prohibition rationale is really about jobs, not safety.

          As to your indifference about requiring plug attendants, I think this will get you in big trouble with the public employee unions. They’re salivating over the prospects.

          • valley person

            Don’t fall prey to believing stories that you made up Steve. Its not healthy.

          • Steve Buckstein

            Thanks for the reality check. You’re right, the public employee unions have no interest in expanding their membership into the plug jockey arena. Even if they did, I’m sure they won’t hold it against you for questioning the societal need for such positions. I was just hoping against hope that you could divert some of the public union heat away from those of us who believe in limited government.

          • valley person

            Everyone believes in limited government except for a few diehards in North Korea and Saudi Arabia. We just have different ideas about where to draw the line on what those limits should  be.

            Public unions represent the interests of their members, teachers, fire fighters, police, etc. They don’t have members working in gas stations, so you seem to be picking on the wrong body here.

          • Steve Buckstein

            SEUI here and nationwide is trying to organize in the private sector. They’re doing so in hospitals, among mental health workers, adult day care owners, etc. The fact that electric car charging stations are in many cases being funded or subsidized by government is the perfect “in” for public sector unions to demand unionized workers man those stations. As government grows it will be harder and harder where to, as you say, draw the line, beyond which public sector unions cannot encroach.

          • valley person

            I’m glad to hear that. They need to be helping organize the private sector, including those you mention (although many care workers are already organized) as well as WallMart, MacDonalds, hotel maids, and down the line.

            Lots of things are subsidized by government, including your own hydro electricity if you are on the grid anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. But again, don’t fall victim to your own stories. Since there aren’t any people working at charging stations there isn’t anyone there to organize. Not even enough straw to construct a straw man out of.

            We have a 70% consumer economy Steve, and declining wages ought to be something you conservatives should be concerned about. We have been on a downward spiral since at least 2000 wage-wise, after a very brief uptick in the 90s. This decline in wages, in spite of ever increasing productivity, is dragging the entire economy down. It had a lot to do with the housing bubble, since many people borrowed against equity to finance consumption they could not finance with stagnant wages. If Americans can’t buy stuff, companies can’t sell stuff, and down we all go.

            One of the best ways to keep wages up is unionization. You should be encouraging this if you really care about economic growth and prosperity.

          • Steve Buckstein

            Ask school districts in Oregon, who are seeing their PERS contributions DOUBLE to fund teachers who aren’t teaching if unionization has been good for education.

            I have no problem with employees and employers in the private sector voluntarily agreeing to any collective bargaining or employment negotiations they wish. In the public sector it’s another matter. And, as you say, with lots of things now subsidized by government, this is a recipe not for growth and prosperity, but for disaster.

          • valley person

            I never said unionization was good for education.  I said it was good for the economy.

            Sure, government services would be cheaper without unions. Lots of things are cheaper without unions. Lots of things are cheap in 3rd world countries too, though the economy sucks. A modern economy needs a well paid middle class to maintain itself. Well paid teachers and retirees are part of that middle class.  Don’t beggar thy neighbor. It won’t make you one cent richer.

          • 3H

            I’m curious – why do you think people who accept public sector employment are required to have fewer rights than those in the private sector?   I’m somewhat surprised because that seems like a non-libertarian stance: some citizens having more rights than others.   If it is based solely on economic considerations, doesn’t that, in effect, mean you are attaching a price to liberty? 

          • Steve Buckstein

            I don’t agree that accepting different working conditions, bargaining rights, compensation, etc. in different jobs gives anyone more or less rights or, as you suggest, puts a price to liberty.

            No one is forced to accept any employment. The employer is free to set the terms of employment, and the prospective employee is free to accept or reject those terms.

            Public sector employers are creatures of the voters and taxpayers, who either directly or through their elected representatives set the terms under which they will hire public employees. No one’s rights are violated when someone voluntarily accepts those terms and goes to work for a public employer.

            In my comment above I’m arguing that public union power has been bad for the state, not
            that public employees have no right to what private sector employees
            have if they came by those benefits legally. I prefer that public union power be decreased, and if it is then public workers will be free to accept the new employment terms or not.

          • David Appell

            > I prefer that public union power be decreased, and if it is > then public workers will be free to accept the new employment terms or not.

            This sounds like it would leave state government with the dregs of the employment pool–all smart and competent people would go where the benefits are, with the incompetent and uninspired left for government jobs. 

          • Steve Buckstein

            Only something like 7 percent of the private sector is unionized. Does that mean that 93 percent of private sector employers only hire “the dregs of the employment pool”? Of course not.

          • 3H

            The right of public employees to unionize is legislative then, not inherent.  Public employees do not have the right to voluntarily associate and elect someone to speak and negotiate for them.  That would apply to private sector workers as well?  Laws that require a private business to recognize a union (upon a majority vote in favor of the union by the workers) should be repealed?   

          • Steve Buckstein

            The federal Taft-Hartley Act allows states to prohibit or accept closed shops. Those that prohibit them (22 states, I believe) are called right to work states. The rest (including Oregon) are currently closed shop states where unionized employers must require that all employees join the union. So, yes, the right of public and private employees to unionize and require membership is legislative. 

          • 3H

            Accepting or rejecting closed shops is different than the point I’m making – I believe that if a majority of employees vote for a union, the business must accept the union, right?

          • 3H

            Accepting or rejecting closed shops is different than the point I’m making – I believe that if a majority of employees vote for a union, the business must accept the union, right?

          • 3H

            Accepting or rejecting closed shops is different than the point I’m making – I believe that if a majority of employees vote for a union, the business must accept the union, right?

          • 3H

            Accepting or rejecting closed shops is different than the point I’m making – I believe that if a majority of employees vote for a union, the business must accept the union, right?

          • 3H

            Accepting or rejecting closed shops is different than the point I’m making – I believe that if a majority of employees vote for a union, the business must accept the union, right?

          • Steve Buckstein

            I’m not an expert on labor law, but I believe that in right to work states employers cannot recognize unions if those unions require all employees to join and pay union dues. I assume that if union membership is voluntary the employer is free to recognize or not recognize the union at its discretion.

          • 3H

            I don’t think you’re going to answer my question.  And since you noted the Taft-Hartley Act, I’m pretty sure you know about the general provisions of the Wagner Act – which requires an employer to recognize and bargain, “in good faith”, with an employee selected Union.  The employer does not have the discretion to recognize the Union and refuse to negotiate.

            Do you, as a Libertarian, believe that it is a Right that workers can voluntarily form, or join, a Union and ask it to negotiate in their behalf?  

          • Steve Buckstein

            I believe the Taft-Hartley Act overrides the Wagner Act in right to work states when it comes to employers being required to recognize labor organizations. If that’s wrong, I would appreciate a source.

            Personally, I believe workers should be able to form labor organizations that can bargain with their employers, but I do not believe that a majority vote of workers at any one firm should compel the rest of the workers at that employer to join the union – unless the employer makes that a condition of employment.

          • 3H

            No, it doesn’t.  It simply allows States to adopt “right to work” laws, which is not the same thing as recognizing and bargaining with unions.  Once a union is established, it can’t make everyone in the workplace either join or pay dues.

          • Steve Buckstein

            OK, thanks for the explanation.

          • 3H

            Your noting the Taft-Hartley Act also brings up an interesting question – Libertarians are split on the issue of “Right to work” legislation.  How do you and/or the Cascade Policy Institute feel about the issue?

          • Steve Buckstein

            I’d prefer repealing all such federal labor laws and let employers and employees bargain any way they choose. Employees would be free to form unions, but not to compel other workers to join – unless the employer made that a condition of employment.

            Barring such across the board repeals, on balance state right to work laws seem to be a good approach to protecting everyone’s employment rights.

          • 3H

            However, shouldn’t the Union bargain be allowed to bargain with the employer to require that all workers either join or pay dues?  If you don’t want to have a law governing union/employer relations, then lets not have any laws:  State or Federal. If a union negotiates a closed shop contract with an employer – that is between the two of them and the government shouldn’t get involved.

            And what employment right are you talking about?  If a union negotiates a closed shop contract with the employer, and the employee doesn’t like it, they can quit and find another job, yes?  I believe you said: ” The employer is free to set the terms of employment, and the prospective employee is free to accept or reject those terms. ”  That, I assume, remains your view.

          • Steve Buckstein

            I think we’re going around in circles here. Yes, I prefer repealing all these laws. Given that the federal laws remain, then right to work is one way to preserve some freedom for employees who prefer not to join a union. It does, I believe, prohibit the employer from letting the union require all employees join, and I wish that wasn’t the case, but untying the gordian knot of intertwining labor laws is difficult.

          • Founding Fathers

            “where unionized employers must require that all employees join the union”

            I’m calling B.S. on that one. In states like Oregon unionized companies MAY require all employees to be a member of the union, but they are not required to require that. That’s usually something that’s determined in collective bargaining.

          • Steve Buckstein

            Technically you may be correct in that workers with unionized employers in Oregon may choose not to join the union, but they must pay union dues for collective bargaining. They can get out of the political portion of the union dues, but those are often defined as a very small percentage of the total dues.

          • Ronglynn

            No, it is about service. Once I was helping my daughter and son in law move from Texas to Oregon. I stopped the Uhaul truck in LA to get gasoline at a “station”. There was a person in a bullet proof glass cage running the operation.  I had to urinate real bad and asked the dude where the restroom was. He said, “There aren’t any!” I ended up pissing at the side of the building. So many of the self serve operations in the big cities of California are like that. You could not get a person at one of these “stations” to give you any help except for them calling 911.

        • Steve Buckstein

          Valley, we agree that the gas pumping prohibition rationale is really about jobs, not safety.

          As to your indifference about requiring plug attendants, I think this will get you in big trouble with the public employee unions. They’re salivating over the prospects.

      • Ronglynn

        Yes, to free plastic booties, but no to plastic grocery bags!

    • Ronglynn

      Personally, I like to spill gasoline on my shoes. It helps clean them up nice. This is especially nice right before a job interview.

      • valley person

        You should just keep a gas can with you then. No need to make the rest of us join you. 

        • Ronglynn

          Now, what am I going to do if I leave home without the gas can? Also, I do not actually spill the gasoline on my shoes since Oregon is a No Self Serve state. I have the attendant do it for me and then I tip the attendant.

          • valley person

            OK. Try therapy then.  In a non smoking setting.

  • Sam

    If I get one of these cars you better believe I will have only a union thug plug it in. Plus, the floor might be wet, too.

    • 3H

      Hmmm.. you mean like gas station attendants?  Who must, through their union thuggery, earn at least 60K a year?

    • 3H

      Hmmm.. you mean like gas station attendants?  Who must, through their union thuggery, earn at least 60K a year?

  • Nogasfiller

    Only a highly trained professional should be able to dispense volatile liquids. Union or not – the training is the key.

  • Ron Swaren

    Y’know I bet those charging cords would have a switch or some other device to prevent accidental electrocution. Ever hear of Underwriter’s Laboratories?  I don’t know if this is a general screed against electric vehicles, which should in the long run be a lot more cost-efficient to produce.

    I may even buy one of the Ford Focus plug in hybrids; have you seen what they look like, plus they’re made by a US company:
    https://www.ford.com/cars/focus/

    • Steve Buckstein

      Ron, yes, hopefully the charging stations will be safe. UL is a great example of a private sector company testing all kinds of products for electrical safety so consumers can buy and/or use the tested products with confidence.

      No, this is not a “general screed against electric vehicles,” it’s a satirical look at the hypocricy surrounding Oregon’s ban on self-service gas stations.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    This is absolutely brilliant. I would advocate at the very least that no self serve be required at all public electric fill up stations.

    I say “I would” rather than “I do” for one crucial reason – The entire electric car industry is built on the rest of us subsidizing the those who buy the vehicles.

    Therefore I am quite sure, were there no self serve for electric cars, the leaches who buy them would insist we all pay for the attendants. After all, they already force us to subsidize their purchase of the damn things.

    • valley person

      And we all know you are an expert on leeching off of subsidized electricity. 

      • Steve Buckstein

        That’s a cheap shot, valley. By your definition, virtually everyone in Oregon is an “expert on leeching off of subsidized electricity.” The difference is, some of us oppose such government subsidies. That doesn’t mean that we will sit in the dark rather than use that subsidized electricity.

        • valley person

          Yes, it was a cheap shot. But an accurate one. Rupert  has stated in the past that his business uses a lot of electricity. He lives in Springfield, which has a public utility that gets the most favorable rates from the federal power agency that sells power from dams built by the  government. I have seen him complain time and again about subsidies, but never about his own subsidies. And for that matter I have never seen Catalyst complain about our cheap subsidized federal electricity. Why is this? Its not a mater of sitting in the dark. It is a matter of being hypocritical.

          From my perspective, I’m happy we have a subsidized federal hydro power system.

    • David Appell

      > After all, they already force us to subsidize their purchase of the damn things.
      What you are paying to “subsidize” electric cars doesn’t begin to make up for the damage your gasoline-burning car is doing to people’s health and to the environment. Health damages from such vehicles is at least 1.2 cents/mile, according to a 2010 study by the National Academy of Sciences. That’s $144/yr if you drive 12,000 mi/yr. Your subsidy to electric vehicles is a tiny fraction of that.

  • Dean & David will love this.

  • Anonymous

    Somehow I’ve managed to get self-serve gas in other states without some dim witted attendant to do it for me. And I was usually done in about half of the time.

  • Native

    How do you even add gas to your own car by yourself???
    I never travel out of state because I don’t know how to do this as a native Oregonian.

  • conservatively speaking

    Much like WA dwellers shopping in OR to avoid paying sales taxes, OR shoppers used to find WA self serve fuel prices low enough fill up over there.

    Alas, after WA’s vehicle license racket was taken to a halt by initiative,  Gregoire’s ‘governmentium squanderum’ managed to elevate fuel taxes enough to cull the banality! 

    Suffice to say, today, the tight WA’ds likely not above thinking an OR sales tax would be just plucky for them as well.

  • conservatively speaking

    Much like WA dwellers shopping in OR to avoid paying sales taxes, OR shoppers used to find WA self serve fuel prices low enough fill up over there.

    Alas, after WA’s vehicle license racket was taken to a halt by initiative,  Gregoire’s ‘governmentium squanderum’ managed to elevate fuel taxes enough to cull the banality! 

    Suffice to say, today, the tight WA’ds likely not above thinking an OR sales tax would be just plucky for them as well.

    • Ronglynn

      Portlander:” I saved 2 cents a gallon by going to Vancouver to fill up while I was shooping over there!”

      Another Oregonian in reponse” Great, how much did you spend to drive over there and how much did you pay for sales tax?”

      Portlander:” It does not make any difference as I saved money on the fillup.”

  • Anonymous

    I find it difficult to follow your argument because there is no relationship between medial license, operating a dump or a “store toxic waste from chemical companies in my basement”; furthermore, self serve is available in 48 out of 50 states with very little ill effects. The idea of prohibiting self serve gasoline doesn’t follow any logical argument.

    • 3H

      Hyperbole..  pure, plain and simple – reaction to the “what right do my neighbors have…..”

  • John B.

    alright, I’m sold: Valley Person for State Rep! We need them in the mix in Salem, Dem or Rep. She/he is as or smarter than the author & that would be welcome

    • eaop

      ‘Moore’ entertaining might be Valley Person on TV placing his Brain Storming power in JEOPARDY.  Perhaps, Founding Fathers and David Appell conjoining him.   

      • Ronglynn

        Here is my final comment: Death to the Electric Car!

        • 3H

          Or maybe… Death in the Electric Car.  I think we could have a whole new Genre – Eco Mysteries.

    • eaop

      ‘Moore’ entertaining might be Valley Person on TV placing his Brain Storming power in JEOPARDY.  Perhaps, Founding Fathers and David Appell conjoining him.   

    • eaop

      ‘Moore’ entertaining might be Valley Person on TV placing his Brain Storming power in JEOPARDY.  Perhaps, Founding Fathers and David Appell conjoining him.   

    • eaop

      ‘Moore’ entertaining might be Valley Person on TV placing his Brain Storming power in JEOPARDY.  Perhaps, Founding Fathers and David Appell conjoining him.   

    • eaop

      ‘Moore’ entertaining might be Valley Person on TV placing his Brain Storming power in JEOPARDY.  Perhaps, Founding Fathers and David Appell conjoining him.   

  • 3H

    Steve –   

    While I’m thinking about it…  we do, and probably will continue to, disagree about a great many things.  I do appreciate, however, your willingness to address comments to your post.  And to the way in which you do so.  I think you deserve a lot of credit for that.  

    I have been guilty (shock!) of being overly sarcastic and flippant.   I’m not always happy about that, but I sometimes react before thinking it through.  I find it refreshing that disagreements can discussed in a cordial manner and that the Talk Radio model of discourse can be set aside.  

    • conservatively speaking

      Hokey dokey or will we continue to be galled?

      Alas, much of what 3H declares swill still be founded in the KPOJ voice of  620 AM or BluecoupOregon.

      • 3H

        You will continue to be galled because I think you are truly part of the problem.  Rarely do you have anything of substance to add, and I think you are way too impressed with your own cleverness.  You shouldn’t be.  As you can see I don’t always hold to a better standard.  I truly hope that this will be my last response to you simply because you are a monumental waste of time and pixels.

        • conservatively speaking

          3H, your narcissism obviously ‘blands’ in with Valley Person, Founding Fathers and David Appell, et al. 

          Oregon Catalyst, is place for conservative Oregonians to gather and share news, commentary, and gossip, so expect some razzing if for no other reason than to remind you of where you’re posting.  

          Don’t like it, then lay out our your ‘deaconry’ in BlueOregon.

          Oregon Catalyst is NOT a ‘bulletin publication’ attending some secular left wing temple congregation.   

          • 3H

            It is a Conservative website and, believe it or not, I don’t need to be reminded.   I haven’t fallen THAT far into senility.  Yet.  

            I don’t think it is unreasonable, however, to hold you accountable for the tenor of the bulk of your postings.  If you want to hide behind “It’s a Conservative website so I can do what I want” then so be it.   If Liberal comments and debate is unwelcome then the moderators should make that explicit.  Are you a moderator?   Do you run or own this site?  If not, why have you taken it upon yourself to respond in the manner you have chosen?  Why have you decided that Liberal comments, even when serious and thoughtful, should be met with, well, silliness and borderline vulgarity?  Why don’t you contribute anything of substance to the debate?  You obviously don’t have to, but I’m curious why you have staked out the little corner of absurdity that you have and dwell only there?

            You’ll note that I have responded to this posting – but only because you’ve dropped the facade and decided to respond in a mostly adult fashion.  Do you really think it is narcissistic  to want to engage Conservatives in debate?  I can’t speak for FF or VP, but I don’t necessarily want an echo-chamber.  Perhaps you do.  If you truly think that Liberal comments are un-needed and un-welcome I would encourage you to talk to the Moderators and have them make that policy known. 

            I am, however, willing to discuss whether Liberals are welcome or not on Oregon Catalyst.  If they are not, and that is the decision of the moderators, I will be happy to leave.

          • Steve Buckstein

            3H and conservatively speaking, while OregonCatalyst is primarily a place for conservative, libertarian and free-market type Oregonians to post, discussions are open to everyone as long as they abide by the posting rules here: https://oregoncatalyst.com/about-oregoncatalyst-com.

            Speaking for myself, I appreciate the diversity of opinions expressed in the comments, and think they generally add to the discussions.

        • just doing the math

          Thank you 3H. You have the nerve to say to CS what I cannot bring myself to say
          (or write). I just think CS enjoys writing in another language that only he or she understands.

          And this little moderate (me) so enjoys razzing him or her right back!

    • Steve Buckstein

      Thanks, 3H. I don’t know who you are, but I always try to be civil in my blogging and responses here. I start from the premise that most of us have the similar goals, just different means to achieve them. Cascade’s mission is to advance policies that promote individual liberty, personal responsibility and economic opportunity in Oregon. To the extent these discussions can shed light more than heat on these topics, we’re happy to engage here and respond when we can.  

      • conservatively speaking

        Thanks for the woodshed trip, Steve!   Hopefully, some left wing termites observed foraging there might now leave-the-building and go ‘boring’ back into BlueOregon’s foundation.  

        • Steve Buckstein

          One of the posting rules here is “No personal attacks.” While we often attack the ideas of others, we shouldn’t be referring to them as “termites.” That smacks of the 11th of Saul Alinsky’s “Rule for Radicals.”  We should not stoop to his level.

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster()

  • Pingback: Click Here()

  • Pingback: fue.mobi()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: car parking()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: pay day loans()

  • Pingback: bottled alkaline water()

  • Pingback: electricians union philadelphia()

  • Pingback: j & e locksmiths brisbane()

  • Pingback: sneak a peek at this web-site()

  • Pingback: click here()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: industrial electrician jobs available()

  • Pingback: electrician 60657()

  • Pingback: ionizer loans()

  • Pingback: pay per day loans plan()

  • Pingback: water ionizer loans()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: learn more()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)