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

I am confused about what is recommended for H1N1 vaccine. My insurance company says that they are recommending that all members of my family get the H1N1 vaccine when it is available, and my doctor's office is saying that only those in the age range of 16 to 24 years are recommended to get the vaccine.

My husband and I are both 42, and our kids are 7 and 11. What's the best course of action here? Why might the MD be recommending that such a narrow range of ages get the vaccine? If the idea is to keep as many working people from getting the virus as possible (in order to keep industry going and not have massive absenteeism due to the illness), why would they not be recommending that only these young people (who do not make up the majority of the working population) get the vaccine?

Or perhaps the real impetus behind the vaccine is to simply prevent the most severe cases?

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Sam is a grownup -- he can make his own decisions about his private life, but as a grownup he should also know that [i]lying is never the right approach[/i]. As I tell my elementary-school aged kids (who, by the way, look up to Sam very much), lying will always get you into more trouble than you would be in if you just tell the truth.

Now, I don't think Sam needed to go into great detail about his legal relationship with Breedlove. We don't need those kinds of admissions--we just don't need that information. But he certainly should have said, "Not an issue...moving on."

The unfortunate result of Sam's lies is that this "scandal" is hitting us just at a moment of great hope in our country. At the very moment -- literally! -- when Portlanders were watching our new president take the reins of our country, here come Sam and Willamette Week to destroy that hope.

The fact that he felt pressured into making a false statement about his relationship, and that he lied in that statement, shows that he is short on wisdom and maybe lacking good judgment. And what Portland needs most is someone we can trust to act in the best interests of the City and in the best interests of himself.

Further, the fact that he and his staff decided to hold his press conference on Tuesday, January 20, at 1:30pm -- at the very moment when President Obama and the First Lady bravely and joyfully stepped out of their armored limousine to wave to the crowd in the Inauguration Parade -- shows bad judgment in itself. Bad timing. Please, wait until a day or two after the inauguration. Don't hold a press conference that humiliates the entire city of Portland right during this moment of great progress for the country.

Two steps forward for the country, one giant step backward for our city. Thanks, Sam.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context