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 terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

As an independent (but registered Dem so I can have some say in primaries), I voted for both of these measures very reluctantly.  The folks in Salem - and those who want to get there this Fall - need to be very careful of what lessons they take from this result ... Oregonians do NOT necessarily want higher taxes - but they are willing to put public education first.  That was the very effective message that pro 66/67 supporters got across.  But unless our elected leaders - and more importantly citizens who vote on ballot measures - can change the billions we spend on prisons instead of education AND change our state funding base from primarily the highly volatile income taxes to something that looks, feels, and smells like a sales tax (even though it can't be called that) we are going to face these situations again and again.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Response to gbrist635 - I'd be much more supportive of this bill if there was a HIGHER hurdle for the undocumenteds than the OUS existing admissions process.  I would like to see stronger incentives for undocumented children to PROVE through their hard work and intelligence that they are the cream of the crop.  As Dr Wiewel (President of PSU) said, all you need is a 3.0 GPA to get admitted.  That is fine for US citizens and non-citizens who are here legally.  But not for those who are not living here legally.  I want a higher hurdle to make sure those such as Jennifer who really are intelligent and willing to bust their behinds to succeed have an opportunity to get an education and stay here - these are exactly the kind of knowledge workers we need as a society to succeed in the globalized economy of the 21st century.  But for those who are not smart enough or willing to work hard, they do not deserve the same educational privileges of citizens and legal status aliens.  They already have the right to get a high school education - let them earn the privilege of a tax-payer subsidized higher education by dint of their hard work.    

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Why not put in a performance based hurdle to allow the instate tuition for the undocumented students?  We DO want to keep the best and brightest.  The young lady known as "Jennifer" on this show is clearly someone who can and should be allowed to contribute further to society.  Making the instate tuition only available to those who score say in the top 25% of the SAT (or pick your metric) and graduate from high school in the top 25% of their class (again, pick your metric - these are just examples) are those who would seem most deserving.   But don't make it a blanket offer to any undocumented student - instead, give them an incentive to work harder in high school.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

To skeptictank and slewis et al - Look, venture capital is not an industry that funds good ideas or good technologists per se. Let's be clear - VC firms back great business plans being driven by great management teams attacking REALLY big markets ($500M+) with protectable and leveragable technology. There are MANY profitable and successful businesses that CAN and SHOULD be created without venture backing. The reality is that most Portland start-ups fail on one or more of those critriea. I have been doing venture capital in Portland for 13 years and have done 18 deals over that time ... but only one was in Portland. I would LOVE to do more deals in Portland, but I just don't see the quality of deals here. The good new is that the Venture Northwest lineup of presenting companies has at least 5 companies I am very interested in investing in. This is the best lineup of start-up Northwest start-up companies presenting at Venture Northwest I have ever seen - and I've seen hundreds of them. Believe me, there are tons of entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley who bemoan the stupidity and shortsideness of VCs who don't back their "brilliant idea" - it is no different down there in that regard than up here. What you need to do (and much easier said than done) is come up with a great business plan that can attack a huge market executed by a stellar managemeent team and you will have well heeled investors beating at your door. Just look at Jive Software - they nailed it. And don't be fooled by their recent headcount cutbacks. They did EXACTLY the right things at a time of economic uncertainty. As a VC, I see their RIF as a rapid response to current conditions, and the right moves to create a long term sustainable business and not a flash in the pan. Net, if you are an entrepreneuer who has been told "NO" by a VC, you probably think VCs are stupid - you're an entrepreneur who is by nature overly optimistic (and that is what we both love and hate about entrenpreneurs!). Sure, maybe we are stupid, but please understand we look at MANY entrepreneurs - each of whom thinks his or her idea is the next big thing - and that we have our fiduciary responsibility to OUR investors. Approaching a VC as a charity is a recipe for failure ... give a VC a great business plan which can be executed by a great managmement team and you'll get funded. Failure to be "great" on either criteria is a reason to pack your bags.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I have been a VC since 1995 and have lived in Oregon all that time. As I see it, there are 3 issues / challenges for growing the emerging technology company ecosystem here:
1. Lack of successful "poster children". Start up companies that end up with "home run" success (either big M&A or IPO) do several things - they demonstrate to other local entrepreneurs how it is done, they create wealth in the community that gets reinvested (look at all the angels in Seattle), and they show to others outside Oregon that they need to come here to get the next big deal. We have had pitifully few if any home run exits in the last 8 years. Ask Gerry how he responds to Silicon Valley VCs who ask him "tell me again what was the really good deal in Oregon in the last X years that I missed"?
2. Wrong core strengths. Oregon's (or at least metro Portland's) biggest strengths have been semiconductors, digital displays, and EDA. These are all TERRIBLE sectors for future growth. No one person or decision is to blame here ? it's just what it is. There has been hope in recent years that open source (I'm glad to see Stuart Cohen of CSI on the panel) and nanotech would be the "next big things" but still too early to tell.
3. No Stanford or MIT. And last time I checked, they weren't looking to move to Oregon.

But there are some promising things on the horizon:
1. The Oregon universities are getting MUCH better in terms of securing federal research dollars (Arun can elaborate) and in terms of commercializing the technology that comes out of the universities. At the conference, there are two VERY interesting companies that have spun out of OSU - NuScale and Wi-Chi. Both of these companies have gotten VC $ from prominent Silicon Valley investors, and show great promise for the future.
2. We are getting more out of state investment $ to come here. Klieiner Perkins did its first investment in Oregon a couple of years ago (Platial) and Sequoia did their first investment in Oregon since Pixelworks when they invested in Jive Software in 2007. Many elected officials have done a good job to put programs in place such as OIF, OGA, and Oregon Inc to help bring new investors to Oregon, foster what we have, and target state resources on the highest growth opportunities going forward. Success of these programs cannot be measured in a year or two - they will take much longer to pay dividends.
3. IMO, the best hope for the "next big thing" is green / sustainable industries. Many other regions are also targeting this. But Oregon has some unique advantages - a solar power industry leverages Oregon's semiconductor expertise, with Bonneville Power (and PGE / Pacific Power) we have the experienced managerial and technical workforce, and it is very aligned with Oregon's green / sustainable culture. Will all of those solar plants out off the Sunset Hwy eventually go the way of all the Japanese semiconductor plants that were built in the 80s and early 90s? I hope not.

As a VC, I am an optimist. While 2009 and perhaps 2010 will be very grave years for the global economy, this is actually a great time to start a company ? cheaper office space, easier to hire talent when big companies are laying off, it enforces fiscal discipline, etc. The glass remains half full.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

Rebuttal to a few of tpohara points: 1/ Fairness to parties is interesting considering that primaries are run under rules dictated by the parties and yet funded by public tax money. The parties could choose to allow independents to participate but they don't. Unless and until the political parties want to pay the bill for the primary election, why should they get to dictate the rules? While elections should never be "pay to play", logically those who pay for them should set the rules. And as long as the public is paying for the primaries, the public should set the rules - not the parties. 2/ Depending on how you count, somewhere between 20-30% of Oregon's legislative districts are so gerrymandered that the winning candidate is selected in the primary. Several districts in Multnomah County are heavily D, and several in Eastern Oregon are heavily R. For those districts, it means that about 1/3 of the registered voters have effectively selected the winner. Wouldn't it be better to have 2 Ds on the ballot in the general in a heavily D district than just one D and - no one else? Look at what we have for 2008 in 76 legislative races statewide (16 Senate and 60 House) - 27 of those will have only ONE candidate on the ballot! These are publicly funded political coronations rather than elections. And in at least 30, if not more, of the remaining 49 elections there is only a token D or token R opposition. Compare that with the recent Washington open primary where out of 124 legislative races there will be 5 DvD and 3 RvR in November. All of the DvD races are in districts in heavily D leaning King County, so this way the minority of R and independent voters in those districts will still get a vote. 3/ One improvement of Oregon's M65 over the Washington system is that parties CAN show which candidate they are endorsing. For many voters, this is valuable information. So the parties do still have influence and a chance to educate voters - just not the keys to the kingdom. 4/ As far as minor parties and their chance of winning under M65, it would actually be much higher. First, look at history. No minor party or independent candidate has won statewide office in more than 70 years. Now look at Washington's recent primary - out of 124 legislative races, 5 of those races are where one of the finalists is NOT a D or an R. Not a huge number, but 5 MORE situations (vs. Oregon) where a minor party or independent candidate actually has a meaningful chance to WIN an election, not just have a megaphone on a soapbox.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context