2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 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 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

Two Points:

 

1) The larger question here, worthy of a show or two, is how and why government is consistently playing catch up with common modern day circumstances. 

 

2) I think it’s very interesting that the attorney who won the case spoke about being proud of herself - getting to argue in front of the state supreme court, how the case was decided correctly by the court, etc. But she did not address (and was not asked to address) whether the outcome was moral.

 

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context