2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college 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 marriage media 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 president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I am an Oregon fan as a by-product of being a student of excellence. Over the years that has led me to follow such sports teams as the UCLA basketball team under John Wooden, the San Francisco 49ers under Bill Walsh, the LA Lakers with Magic Johnson, and now, the current Oregon football team. Of particular interest for me, with respect to the Oregon football team, is Chip Kelly’s “Win the Day” philosophy.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

It seems that almost every time there is a shooting by police, the investigation shows that the officer “perceived” himself to be in mortal danger and responded by shooting the suspect in the chest, killing the suspect. Since that almost always is what happens, it must be policy to shoot to kill. Why is that? Shooting to kill makes the officer judge, jury, and executioner. Isn’t it possible to shoot to wound rather than shoot to kill?

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Two things I don't understand: Why do you need public investment if Paulson is going to guarantee the bonds? And if this public assist to the financing is no risk and no cost to taxpayers, as Paulson claims, what is the reluctance of the government to participate?

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

A great example of the benefits of high speed internet can be seen in the comparison of the depressing, hopeless news coming out of the current economic crisis with an interview Charlie Rose did with Marc Andreessen, which was about all the possibilities he sees and is investing in, most based on a foundation of high speed internet.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

The rationale for the $700 billion bailout is that if the financial system is not stabilized immediately by rescuing the financial firms that created the problem, then the whole system will collapse, hurting everybody, in particular middle and lower income people. This reminds me of ?trickle-down? economics - let?s call it the ?trickle-down? bailout - help those at the top in the ?hope? that those at the bottom will benefit. Why not let the markets do their thing, collapse (if they will), forcing at least some of the people who benefited from the risky investments and practices to pay for their mistakes and greed, and use the $700 billion to directly help those at the lower end of the economic spectrum who may be adversely affected by such a collapse if and when that becomes necessary.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context