2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

I am white, female and no longer young.  I am frankly terrified about being stopped by a local police officer.  If I reach for my wallet will he pull a gun on me?  I can't get on my knees anymore due to arthritis.  What will happen if I am asked to get down on the ground and I can't?  Do you really want your local citizens to feel this way?

I thought this article was interesting: http://www.policeone.com/health-fitness/articles/1793270-Heart-rate-variability-and-police-performance-The-next-evolution-in-training/

This seems to me to be "hard" training.  You would want your officers to be able to respond appropriately regardless of heart rate change.

Also, I have a psychologist friend who says, "If you (the police officer) are that afraid, maybe you should get into another line of work."

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Perhaps that is true, that you are more likely to die if you are in the hospital.  But then, you are more likely to be extremely ill if you are in the hospital, true?  Maybe there is a connection-----

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I don't feel full of vitriol, just disgust.  Yes, you can find studies that show that someone who has faith is comforted by care givers who accomodate that faith.  However, I know if I have certain infections, what works is antibiotics, not faith or hope or belief.  Do you know someone who was "cured" by faith healing of an amputated limb, paralysis, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, brain injury?  Most of the so called "faith" healings are head aches, back aches, and other stress induced aches.  Anyone who has been "healed" of diabetes has to go back on insulin or die.  My grandmother-in-law died of a bleeding ulcer because she thought "faith" would heal her.

If praying for your child who is ill comforts you, I encourage you to pray away.  But don't refuse to attempt other treatments.  It is the refusal to attempt other treatment that disgusts me, not the prayers.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I don't buy the verdict. 

First, when does a parent step in and stop the neglect/abuse?  When the child is being beaten to the point of bruising?  When the child is being burned with cigarettes?  When the child has gained only six pounds in fifteen months?   When the child is choking on their own mucus?  How can anyone absolve the mother in this case?

Second, how can you deny this child was neglected?  Let's review an infant gaining only six pounds in fifteen months.  This was their third child, correct?  The other children are healthy?  How can they NOT have known that this infant was in trouble?  They knew what a normal, healthy, thriving infant looked like.

Lastly, I have yet to hear of god healing anyone of an amputated limb.  Find me someone who has grown a new limb after praying, and I'll start to believe there might be something to faith healing.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I found this article in the Scientific American to be very interesting.  Has Ms. McConnell seen the article?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hot-rocks-tapping-an-unde

posted 4 years ago
view in context

I work for a firm with offices world wide.  The firm is healthy though they have had a few projects put on hold, plenty of other projects are continuing.  They are laying off people in anticipation of losing more work, not because they are in any danger of going bankrupt.  Give them a tax break and are they going to hire more people?  What for?  They don't have the work for those people to do.  It may be that when there is a buyer, there is a seller.  But the corrollary is even more true - if there are no buyers, there are no sellers.

Give me a tax break of $20 a payday and I won't notice it.  Give me a tax refund of $1000 and I'll pay down my credit cards.

I have a single-mom friend who makes less than $10,000 a year.  Give her any kind of a tax credit and she will spend it - she has to.  You want tax breaks to stimulate the economy?  Give it to the poorest - they will spend it.

I read the article in the Orogonian Sunday about where the stimulus money would go in Oregon.  How is upgrading HVAC systems and school restrooms not infrastructure improvements?

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

You can have old growth and harvest it and have plenty of jobs. New rule: All timber harvest MUST be done with muscle power - buck saws and horses. Maybe hot air balloons as an exception to remove the cut logs from really hard to reach areas. This increases employment - not only for the lumberjacks (real lumberjacks) but also people who care for, train and supply the horses. This protects the forest by not trashing everything - roads can be smaller and less developed, horses and men will not completely remove or crush every stick of wood. It helps to protect the climate as there is less pollution - yes, horses release gas, but not at the rate heavy equipment does. It protects streams - even if they harvest right up to the edge of a stream, the horses do not deform the banks like heavy equipment does. It does mean that the fat cats at the top will make less money and the local people will earn more. So it will probably never be implemented, more's the pity.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

There is an old saying. "Where there is a buyer, there is a seller." But I think the corollary is even more true. "If there are no buyers, there are no sellers." Bailing out any company/institution will do nothing but increase the federal debt unless we do something to support the buyers of those goods and services.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context