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

I like this idea of a different youth license that would allow children to sell low-risk foods (such as lemonade) at public events. Sounds like a win-win to me — helps youths learn about the realities of running a business but makes it much more accessible to them than it would be otherwise.

But, of course, it might also be unfair to adults running businesses. At the McMinnville Farmers Market, for example, there is a woman who actually makes and sells lemonade as a living (she attends many markets in the summer). So, should she have to do more work and spend more money on a license than a child down the row? These are complex questions.

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context

Also, we as parents can help facilitate our children's failures. If we give them the message that it's "not fair" that they failed, then we give them a victim mentality, which gets them nowhere in life.

Again, instead, maybe the message in such a situation should be: "Ok, now what? Perhaps we should sell lemonade in a less public venue. Or, perhaps we shell something different?" Etc. We can rage against the "unfairness" of the situation with our adult peers, but children need to be taught how to learn from mistakes rather than wallow in them. Just my two cents.

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context

I called earlier sounding a bit like a grinch about this particular issue, but I wanted to point out here that the girl DID learn an essential lesson about business with her shut-down lemonade stand -- namely, that things don't always work out the way you intend.

The real success in business is accepting your failures and saying, "What should I do differently next time?" You get back up and try again -- maybe it's a different venture next time, or maybe you go through the existing hoops and get licensed, whatever. But you do NOT give up. That's real life.

Part of why I think kids in public should "play by the rules" is because that's how they learn the reality of business. I don't personally think all the existing regulations are ideal in all situations, but they exist. To deny that is to shelter our children and limit their learning potential.

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context

But, I should add: would I choose homebirth in a complicated birth scenario (twins, breech, VBAC)? Not sure.

Honeslty, I'd at least want to have the opportunity to try to have my baby (or babies) vaginally, and there is evidence that this is POSSIBLE to do this safely if the care provider is trained well. However, the vast majority of hopsital care providers will NOT permit vaginal births in these cases, and OBs are no longer being trained to do anything but c-section in such scenarios. Given that, I feel that hospital providers are in a sense forcing women who want vaginal births to go outside the hospital. We can't ignore the c-section epidemic in this conversation. It's a big reason why women are choosing out-of-hospital birth for any kind of pregnancy and birth situation.

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Two certified professional midwives provided my care during my pregnancy, birth and postpartum period last year. My son was born at home on December 11 after a long but calm and healthy 42 hour labor.

The midwives' care through all of it was excellent — it was thorough, holistic and empowering. All the prenatal visits were at my own home, and each lasted at least an hour, during which time my husband and I talked at length with our midwives. The focus was on me as a future mother, and yes that included medical care (checking baby's heartbeat, testing my urine, taking my blood pressure), but it also included checking up on me emotionally, educating me about healthy choices during pregnancy, and talking with my husband about his role in the birth.

The postpartum visits were equally wonderful. I didn't have to leave my home for a week, because the midwives visited us there and were able to provide gentle, attentive one-on-one help with breastfeeding and baby care. Everything about the experience was conducive to my husband and I bonding with our new baby.

And, of course, the birth itself was MAGIC. Being at home, surrounded by loving women and my husband. Gentle hands. Christmas music playing on the iPod. Christmas lights on the tree. Birthing my son in my own bedroom and cuddling him on my own bed. Taking a shower in my own shower afterward. Eating my own food. I strongly believe that the familiarity, love, and warmth of the experience played a significant role in my long labor staying healthy and straightforward. In a hospital, I'm sure I would have had more difficulty staying calm after hours and hours of labor, and certainly there would been medical interventions to "speed things up" -- which clearly weren't necessary.

There is NO QUESTION that I will choose midwives again for any future pregnancies and births. I felt extremely empowered during the entire experience, and since baby and I were healthy throughout, it made no sense to be in a medical environment at any point.

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I use our local McMinnville library constantly. Because I'm a county resident and don't live in city limits, I have to pay $60 a year for my card, but it's worth it. I use the library website to look up books I want to read, and then I request them through the Chemeketa system. Once they've arrived at the Mac library, I can just stop by and pick up my books. I check out hundreds of books this way each year and feel so grateful that I have access to a wide selection of books as a rural resident. I do, however, wish that Yamhill County residents could get a card without paying -- I know that it keeps many people from appreciating the benefits. But, in this day and age I'm just happy that our library is open!

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I find it terribly difficult to swallow any of Steven Pigeon’s hypocrticial arguments regarding the petition signers’ RIGHTS when the goal of the petition itself was to take away important, life-altering RIGHTS from a vast number of Washington citizens. Stop playing the victim Steven Pigeon! And harassment? ... this petition ITSELF was a form of harassment!

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Neither my husband nor I grew up in a farming family or even in agricultural regions. I grew up in the suburbs of Seattle and he grew up on the Oregon coast. Yet, as young adults we felt called to an outdoor, active vocation. We worked for two seasons on an organic farm in Bellingham, Washington and then took the plunge and moved to Oregon to start our own small farm in Yamhill County when we were in our mid-20s.

We’re now in our fifth season growing organic vegetables for our CSA. We own our land and make our entire income off of the farm. Given that the majority of American farm families rely on off-farm income for at least a portion of their livelihood, we consider our small but stable farm income a big success.

But it’s been a lot of hard work to get to this point. At a time when our peers were getting seemingly stable jobs at companies offering salaries and benefits, we stepped out on our own and took big financial risks by becoming self-employed. We went without health insurance for a long time and still only have a major medical plan, which is scary with a new baby in the house. However, now many of our friends who went the ‘traditional’ professional route have since been laid off while we’re still chugging along and growing our farm. It’s a ton of work and we have to motivate ourselves to work through challenges, but it’s been worth it. We love our work and lifestyle and have learned that we are tougher than we ever would have imagined.

When we were starting out, we wished longingly that we had grown up on farms or had land in the family. We had so much to learn and build. We’ve since changed out mind and become grateful to be first-generation farmers. Even though we had to start from scratch with knowledge, skills and resources, we also started our farming career free from baggage. We didn’t have to inherit our parents’ farming mistakes or debts. We were able to start small, at a scale we could handle, and then grow bigger as our income and management skills allowed. I think that taking over an existing farm is a huge challenge for a young person. I admire folks who are able to do so, and I hope that more step up to the plate as our current generation of farmers ages and retires. Oregon needs farmers!

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I worry that as the living survivors from these terrible events pass on, it will become increasingly easy for younger people to turn them into political references or symbols rather than remembering them as real tragedies and important historical lessons. Case in point: the American political far right has recently taken to calling Obama and other politicians "Nazis." Could they have gotten away with this highly misguided reference several decades ago when Holocaust survivors were still alive in great numbers in this country? I don't think so.

When I was a child, I watched "Schindler's List" in the theater sitting next to a Holocaust survivor who lost his daughter and entire extended family members in the camps. He himself survived only by jumping from a moving train and then hiding in a small village where kindly people took him in. For me, this historical event is still real in my mind thanks to the stories he and others have passed on. I find the casual use of the word "Nazi" highly disturbing, and I worry that it will just become worse as time passes.

posted 3 years ago
view in context

The difference is that these trade apprenticeships usually last much longer than an internship (several years) and often lead directly into a journeyman position with the same company. Also, the final pay for journeyman union jobs is often much higher than the final pay in other industries that offer unpaid internships. Apprentices also usually do exactly the same work on the job site, unlike interns, who often do support jobs or observe and help coordinate work.

While internships and apprenticeships share some similarities, they are not equivalent.

posted 3 years ago
view in context

No, there are not usually scholarhips for internships, but internships also have no tuition or fees. Besides, there are very few scholarships available today that cover ALL the costs of higher education (the costs being: tuition, fees, books, living expenses). And, given the exceedingly high cost of college these days, an unpaid and stipend internship can still be a more feasible endeavor for a low-income invididual. Plus, it is often more likely to naturally lead to a paying job than formal education does because the goal is usually to gain actual practical job skills.

posted 3 years ago
view in context

This is a complicated issue. I believe that minimum wage is an important part of a fair functional economy. However, I also believe that there should be flexibility to allow people to enter new fields when they don't have prior experience and are probably not working at the same capacity as a fully trained worker doing the same job. Unpaid or stipend internships can be a great low risk way for an employer to offer individuals the opportunity to 'try out' new occupations and learn on the job.

My husband and I are organic vegetable farmers, and we started down this career path with a stipend position at a small farm. We were looking for a very specific work experience and yet we had little to offer an employer beyond our willing bodies. That first year, we definitely worked slower and sloppier than more experienced workers -- we were learning everything from scratch after all. It was nice to feel that our mistakes and slowness weren't an undue burden on our employer that year. Our second year working for the same farmer, he paid us over minimum wage, and we definitely performed at a level consistent with his higher expectations.

On our farm today, we have chosen to pay our employees minimum wage and above. It was a hard financial decision, but we wanted to avoid getting into a possibly tricky legal arena. It also definitely puts more pressure on our employees to perform at a high level quickly -- this can be both good and bad, but ultimately works for our employees and our operation.

I wish there was a legally defined middle ground that would allow multiple options for employers and employees. It's important that employees feel that they have a choice in what they earn, can afford to pursue the work they enjoy, and are free from abuse. However, it's also important for individuals to have opportunities to seek out real new work experiences. Washington State is trying out a potential new model that makes stipend farm internships legal under very tight circumstances. Perhaps Oregon can adopt something similar so that farm internships can continue to exist?

posted 3 years ago
view in context

Professor Steven Strauss compared GMO contamination in organics to pesticide drift, but the two issues are not exactly parallel for many reasons. First of all, pesticide drift only potentially affects the immediately touched crop -- it does not have the self-replicating possibility that GM-contaminated seed does. One beet plant might test positive for a small amount of pesticide drift, but that situation does not inherently create any further problems for the future. One GM-contaminated beet seed plant, however, has a serious multiplying effect. Not only does that one plant produce thousands of seeds, which will produce thousands of contaminated beets for consumption, but GM-contaminated seed will affect future generations of seed production too! This is why the issue is being brought up by organic seed growers like myself -- we are the start of a long chain of genetic influence over what finally ends up on people's tables!

Also, right now in the U.S., all growers are legally liable for their chemical applications. If what one farmer sprays drifts onto another farmer's crop, it is called "chemical trespass" and is the grounds for a lawsuit -- this is true whether either farmer is organic or conventional, and it is important because an herbicide that is useful on one farm could prove lethal to a neighoring farmer's crop. However, at this point, the same liability system is not being applied to the use of genetically modified seeds and contimation -- in fact, the victim farmer has been held liable for 'patent violation' instead!!!

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Yes, the Capital Press even covered this issue last year -- many farmers simply refused to grow the GMO seed because of the crazy legal forms they would have to sign and the fact that they'd have very little real legal control over their crop. These were conventional seed growers who didn't want to participate in Monsanto's schemes -- it isn't just about organics.

I wish the Capital Press reporter had brought this up. But clearly that newspaper has a bias, as is obvious in every edition.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Also, I'm curious why Frank Morton (the organic seed farmer who started this laysuit) isn't going to be on the show today? He is incredibly articulate and can tell his story well.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

This is more complex than whether GMO seeds are "good" or "bad" -- it's also about agronomics. As a new organic vegetable seed grower in the Willamette Valley, I am grateful for the work that is being done on this issue. It's important to understand that the specialty seed growing industry in the Willamette Valley is perserved and made possible only by cooperation between growers -- vegetable seeds require 'isolation' distances to maintain 'true' seeds of the same type. Beets and chard are wind pollinated and require the largest isolation at FIVE or so miles between seed plantings -- this is a huge distance!

Speciality seed growers participate in a voluntary cooperative process where they agree to not grow too close to each other in order to make the industry viable. What the organic seed growers are asking for here is completely precedented. Right now it is not legal to grow canola in the valley because of pressure from the seed growing industry -- canola crosses with too many 'brassica' seed crops and also has the possibility of introducing brassica pests and diseases into the valley. The seed growing industry has been united in this controversial issue but less so on the GMO sugar beet issue. Similarly, an organic seed grower (such as myself), needs to be able to produce vegetable seeds that do not contain any modified genes.

The Willamette Valley is a very unique place for seed growing -- we have mild winters and dry summers. The climate makes it ideal for seed production of all kinds, especially organic crops which cannot be 'helped' along with petroleum based pesticides or fertilizers. The risk of cross-contamination between the GMO sugar beets and organic beets and chard is incredibly high -- I wish that the seed growing industry would embrace this issue in the same way that they have embraced the canola issue. We need to stand together in order to maintain the valley's unique position as a seed growing region.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I love the Willamette River. My husband and I live and farm on one the river's unique islands, Grand Island, just north of Salem. We have a park at the south end of the island where we regularly go swimming (including yesterday afternoon). The water is clean and clear, and we see large birds everytime we visit: osprey, herons, geese with goslings, turkey vultures, eagles ... it's a truly special spot and we feel blessed to spend time there every week.

For those people who haven't seen the beautiful parts of the river, I encourage you to spend more time there. I agree with the guest that LOVE for the river is crucial for its continued health. We need to value this amazing gift in our valley and work towards stopping the activities that pollute or harm it: namely pollution and aggregate extraction.

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context