KRBN Internet News Talk Radio

09/04/2026

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about a change coming to the Selective Service System, and I think a lot of people don’t fully understand what’s actually happening.

Under the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, the U.S. government is moving to automatic registration for the draft. That means instead of young men having to sign up themselves at age 18, the government will now register eligible males automatically using existing federal data.

This is expected to start around late 2026.

To be clear:
This does not mean a draft is happening. The U.S. hasn’t had an active draft since 1973, and bringing one back would still require Congress to approve it.

So this isn’t about people being sent off to war tomorrow—but it is about responsibility.

Right now, that responsibility still applies only to men. If you’re male, turning 18 comes with a legal obligation tied—at least in theory—to being called to serve in a national emergency.

But here’s the question:

If this system is going to exist at all, why shouldn’t it apply equally?

In today’s world, women can serve in nearly every role in the military, including combat. And even beyond combat, national service has never been limited to the front lines. During World War II, for example, women played critical roles in building ships, manufacturing equipment, and supporting the war effort in countless ways.

Other countries already take a broader approach—requiring national service or registration from both men and women, sometimes in military roles and sometimes in civilian or support roles.

So even if no one is being drafted right now, and even if not everyone would be placed in combat roles, why not at least require everyone to be registered?

What people are called to do could depend on the country’s needs at the time. But the baseline obligation—being part of the system—could be shared equally.

Curious what others think.

Should Selective Service remain male-only, or is it time to update it to reflect modern expectations of equality?

17/02/2026

look at this and tell me why this is good!

By Taxpayers Association of Oregon OregonWatchdog.com • KICKER THEFT #1: HB 4125 manipulates the formula on how the Kicker is determined. Please contact your lawmaker on this bill. Go to the Legislature front page here. Click on Find-your-lawmaker feature at the bottom right of the webpa

17/10/2025

Flock Safety cameras - when I was investigating, I stumbled upon the fact that Eugene police have some permanent cameras that are mounted and to their credit at least they're labeled.

(4/18/2023) Today, Eugene Police rolled out the three new cams in several areas around town and will soon place a fourth. The primary purpose for the security cameras is to help deter crime through a visible, well-marked presence. Eugene Police installed cameras today at W. 8th Avenue and Olive Street, Broadway and Olive Street, and Broadway and Willamette Street. EPD will soon add one at E. 8th Avenue and Oak Street. The cams will not only serve as a visual deterrent but assist officers and detectives in investigating crimes that occur in the downtown core.

The project was sent out for bid on December 6, 2022, and the winning bid was awarded to Overwatch Solutions in January 2023. Each unit cost $9,495 and was paid for through a Justice Assistance Grant.

Officers will be able to access the cameras using a desktop computer or mobile device. Should a crime occur, EPD will have the ability to obtain footage for use in identifying and apprehending suspects.

09/10/2025

The Eugene City Council has decided to pause the use of Flock Safety cameras, postponing discussions on their future use to a later date.

"When it boils down to it, is I'm not sure I can trust this company, they seem to have a track record of violating, of contracts being violated, multiple jurisdictions have found that their data was being used in a way they don't want it to be. So I'm not sure I can trust this contract," said Jennifer Yeh, City Councilor, Ward 4.

The Eugene City Council has paused the use of Flock Safety cameras, with future discussions pending.

09/10/2025

Upcoming Measure 20-371: Another Property Tax Decision for Springfield

Earlier this year, Springfield voters approved Measure 20-351, a $20 million street repair bond. This measure focuses on fixing several key roads around town, including Harlow, Aspen, G Street, 36th, Daisy, and 58th.

To pay for it, property owners are now being taxed at an estimated $0.74 per $1,000 of assessed value for the next five years.

A home assessed at $300,000 pays roughly $222/year.

A home assessed at $500,000 pays about $370/year.

Now, this November, Springfield is asking voters to approve Measure 20-371, a five-year fire levy renewal to maintain funding for firefighter-paramedics and emergency response. This measure is not new — it replaces an existing levy — but it still continues the added property tax burden for another term.

The levy rate is $0.53 per $1,000 of assessed value.

A home assessed at $300,000 would pay about $159/year.

A home assessed at $500,000 would pay about $265/year.

When you combine the street bond and the fire levy, many Springfield homeowners will be paying hundreds more per year in property taxes on top of what’s already due for schools, county, and other special districts.

My take: I’d love to support every community project, but the reality is a lot of us are already struggling just to keep up with rising property taxes. Instead of pouring more money into projects like Glenwood, maybe it’s time to focus on the core necessities first.

The Glenwood Project is Springfield’s long-term plan to transform the Glenwood area—between downtown Springfield and Eugene, along the Willamette River—into a mixed-use urban district with housing, businesses, parks, and riverfront access. The city is using public funds, mainly through urban renewal (tax increment financing), to pay for major infrastructure like roads, utilities, and site preparation to attract private developers. Supporters see it as a way to grow the local tax base and revitalize underused land, while critics worry about the high upfront public cost, slow timeline, and whether the project diverts attention and resources from more immediate community needs like roads, fire protection, and schools.

28/09/2025

Commentary on Flock Safety Cameras in Oregon

In recent months, cities across Oregon have begun installing Flock Safety license plate reader cameras with the help of state grants. These grants come from the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission’s Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Grant Program, a funding stream the Oregon Legislature set aside in 2023 as part of a budget bill to address rising retail theft and related crime.

Cities Using the Grant

Springfield: Installed 25 cameras with about $93,000 in ORT grant funding.

Eugene: Received a much larger award, $391,000, to roll out 57 cameras across key arterials.

Other Oregon communities, including Oregon City, Florence, and North Bend, are also adopting this technology through similar funding sources.

What These Cameras Are For

Identifying stolen vehicles, vehicles tied to organized retail theft, or those linked to Amber Alerts and serious investigations.

Assisting police in building cases by providing reliable license plate and vehicle image data.

Serving as a crime prevention tool at major roadways and commercial corridors.

What These Cameras Are Not For

They are not designed for general surveillance of residents’ daily activities.

They cannot capture faces or people — only vehicles and plates.

Eugene, for example, has pledged not to share data with immigration enforcement or outside agencies beyond specific criminal cases.

Data is typically retained for only 30 days before automatic deletion, unless tied to an investigation.

12/09/2025

COMMENTARY: Oregon Weighs Revenue vs. Tax Relief - Lawmakers to block some of Trump tax cuts

When Congress passed the 2025 federal tax bill this summer, workers and small businesses were promised a break. Overtime pay and tips would no longer be taxed at the federal level, and companies could fully deduct the costs of new equipment.

But here in Oregon, those same changes create a problem. Because our state tax code is tied to federal law, the cuts automatically flow into Oregon’s income tax rules. That means less state revenue — an estimated $800+ million over the next two years.

Rather than letting Oregonians enjoy the full benefit of those cuts, lawmakers are already talking about pulling them back. Sen. Mark Meek (D-Gladstone), who chairs the Senate Finance & Revenue Committee, says the Legislature will explore “disconnecting” during Legislative Days (Sept. 29 – Oct. 1). Disconnecting would keep overtime, tips, and business deductions taxable at the state level — protecting the budget but shrinking the benefit for taxpayers.

This debate doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The 2025 Legislature already raised taxes, fees, and tolls, and now a $1 billion gas tax/wage tax package is waiting in the wings. To many Oregonians, it looks like revenue protection always comes before taxpayer relief.

Supporters argue the state can’t afford to give up that much money without risking cuts to schools, healthcare, and public safety. Opponents say Salem is more interested in keeping its own coffers full than letting people keep what Washington, D.C. promised them.

The bottom line: Oregon’s leaders could use a refresher in Econ 101. President Trump — someone who has actually signed the front of a paycheck — understood that when you put money in people’s pockets, they spend more, and that spending grows the economy and tax revenue. By taking more money out of people’s pockets through things like the CAT tax and now potentially blocking federal tax relief, Oregon is pushing families and businesses to cut back or move to states where they can afford to live. Oregon has already shown itself to be unfriendly to business, and people like me struggle every year just to keep up with rising property taxes. We’re forced to cut back — it hurts. Maybe it’s time for Oregon to learn to do the same.

11/09/2025

NEWS COMMENTARY — SEPTEMBER 11, 2025 | MORNING UPDATE

PROVO, Utah — Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, 31, was shot and killed during a public event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday, September 10. The shooting, which unfolded in front of a live audience and was captured on video, sent shockwaves through both the campus and the national conversation.

Authorities confirm that two individuals were initially detained but later released after investigators determined they were not involved in the attack. The search for the suspect is ongoing.

For those who saw the video — myself included — this was no distant headline or statistic. It was real. One moment Kirk was speaking mid-sentence, the next moment blood sprayed and his body went limp. That image strips away the abstraction we often feel when we hear about “another tragedy” in the news.

This event underscores a larger reality: words matter. As President Trump has often warned, when hateful rhetoric is normalized in media, politics, or everyday conversation, it risks fueling more hate — and sometimes that hate erupts in violence. Whether you supported Charlie Kirk, opposed him, or felt indifferent, disagreement should never be resolved with a bullet.

I didn’t agree with everything Charlie said, but I respected his courage to defend his views. He was sharp, articulate, and unafraid to face critics head-on. That conviction — rare in today’s public square — made him both controversial and compelling.

Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk. Your life ended too soon at just 31. The words you spoke, the debates you waged, and the presence you carried will echo beyond this tragedy. May your memory remind us to choose discourse over division — and respect over violence.

31/08/2025

Paying for Oregon’s Roads: Past, Present, Future”

When people hear about Oregon’s OReGO program today, most think of it as a flat, per-mile fee for certain cars — simple, voluntary, and not all that different from paying a gas tax.

But it’s worth remembering that the program didn’t start out that way. Back in the mid-2000s, when the Legislature’s Road User Fee Task Force was testing new ideas, the original pilot wasn’t just “pay by the mile.” It was variable pricing, tracked by GPS.

Drivers in the pilot had on-board devices that could tell when they were on congested roads, and the charge would change depending on time and location. In some cases, the fee was as high as 10¢ a mile during rush hour in Portland, compared to less than half a cent at other times. The idea was straightforward: make people think twice about driving during peak congestion, and give the state a way to fund roads as fuel taxes fell.

That was the bold vision — and it actually worked in the test runs. Congestion charges did reduce peak-hour driving. But the politics of GPS tracking, privacy concerns, and the complexity of explaining a “variable road tax” made it a very tough sell.

So when OReGO officially launched in 2015, it looked very different:

Voluntary participation.

A flat per-mile charge (about 1.8¢ today).

Credit for gas taxes already paid.

No GPS requirement — drivers could choose simpler reporting.

Fast forward to today: OReGO is still voluntary, but lawmakers are debating whether to make it mandatory for newer, high-MPG and electric vehicles starting in the next couple of years. The idea is to replace the big registration fees on efficient cars with per-mile charges instead.

What you won’t hear much about anymore is that early idea of congestion pricing. It’s not in the current proposals. It’s sitting quietly in the background — proven technically feasible, but politically shelved.

That’s the arc: from a high-tech, variable tax aimed at both funding and congestion relief, to the simpler flat-rate system we see today. And now, with the Legislature still in session, the next chapter may be whether OReGO shifts from voluntary to mandatory for certain cars.

ODOT is facing a $350 million budget gap. Lawmakers are in a special session right now trying to figure out how to keep the roads funded and services running.

Here’s what’s on the table:

Gas tax increase: 40¢ → 46¢ per gallon

Higher registration and title fees

Larger payroll tax for transit

Electric and plug-in hybrid drivers: must join OReGO (~2.3¢ per mile) starting in 2027 or pay a flat $340 per year

The goal is to replace declining gas tax revenue and keep Oregon’s roads maintained. But it’s already stirring debate about privacy, fairness, and how it could affect EV adoption.

22/08/2025

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025I1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/309800

2025 Special Session Draft..."Imposes a mandatory per-mile road usage charge for electric and hybrid
vehicles. Allows an annual fee in lieu of the mandatory per-mile road usage
charge..."
What the Act Does:

Raises and adds new taxes on roads, cars, trucks, and buses. It also explains how the money must be used.

Road usage fee: Instead of just paying gas taxes, drivers would eventually be required to pay a per-mile fee for using the roads. As an option, people could choose to pay a yearly flat fee instead of tracking every mile.

Audits: The state auditing division must review how the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is performing. The Governor would appoint the Director of Transportation.

Higher fees and taxes: Increases transportation-related fees to bring in more revenue.

Electric & hybrid vehicles: Owners would have to pay the per-mile fee too, but there’s an option to pay an annual flat fee instead.

Repeals the old toll program.

Fuel taxes: Diesel fuel will be taxed the same as gasoline.

Weight-mile tax: The formula for trucks that pay by weight and miles is revised.

Timing: The law would go into effect 91 days after the legislative session ends.

My alternative to the per-mile tax:

Why not just tax EV charging the same way we already tax gas? Add the road tax at the charger. Public stations are easy, and home superchargers could be separately metered.

As for trickle-charging on a wall outlet, that’s such a tiny slice it’s like filling a neighbor’s car from a gas can — not worth building a whole bureaucracy to police.

If every state did this, we’d have one consistent, fair system instead of complicated mileage-tracking schemes.