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

Sustainable is not just what fuel is consumed or whether materials used can be recycled. Its also about how we relate to one another as human beings. Auto bosses in Detroit have been treating the rest of the world like a door mat for decades: exploiting workers as much as they possibly could, ignoring consumer trends and desires for greater safety and higher environmental quality and they have tried to turn government into their personal house servant instead of partnering or cooperating with the public good or basic regulation. Their arrogant culture was nakedly exposed in the press recently but that is a culture that goes back generations now. I say, if we really want a sustainable manufacturing industry in auto production, get new leadership first.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Regardless of your error, your main point was an excellent one with which I agree.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

This is a super important topic and show. I really appreciate this story about how two parents responded to their son's developing psychosis. In my opinion, police are scary in pretty much any crisis situation regardless of whether there is someone with mental illness or not. It is only with mental illness in the mix that we begin to recognize the inhumanity inherent in these "encounters." We, the public are mostly responsible for this horrible arrangement and the regrettable outcomes because, we expect police to solve complex problems with force... often deadly force. Any one of us could find ourselves in crisis, acting "crazy" and end up a victim, because that is the situation we, the public set up for ourselves. To overcome this, we need to move toward a society that deals with our complex reality and complex situations by being as humane as these parents were with their beloved son. Their son should not be known as beloved only to them, but always in every situation even in moments of fear, want, hostility and deteriorating mental states, he should be beloved to all of us. In an enlightened society, He is our son as much as he is theirs and we need to create systems that demonstrate that. The police, therefore are obsolete.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

This "rapid computer verification" idea from Zia Mia is fabulous. I'm sure that there are ways it could also be corrupted, but it seems like a great improvement and vision. Why scrap the initiative process when we have no other way for people to be heard directly on important issues? I think our process needs to be improved and polished, not scrapped. And an improvement would be instant elimination of initiatives that call into question Constitutionally guaranteed protections and Human Rights.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I guess I will have to check out this book "Democracy Derailed" because I have a hard time believing that the initiative process is intrinsically flawed. I understand corruption and the pressures of high-powered interests, but it seems to me that the initiative process is a great way to bring democratic decision-making to the people. For me, the question is how do you insure that "the people" will vote in ways that advance society... in this case, vote for a fair and just State rather than the oppression of smaller populations or State-sponsored "superiority" (privilege) of one group over another.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I find the hatred expressed by those claiming to defend marriage disturbing, but at the moment I think I find our collective inability to distinguish between individual rights and equal protection MUCH MORE disturbing. I like thinkinggal's question because it at least approaches where I think our conversation should really begin... that is, can people "defending marriage" make the case that anyone's constitutional rights are being violated by domestic partnership OR extending marriage to lesbian and gay couples? As it stands now, marriage is a mechanism for one category of people (heterosexuals) to fain superior over another (lesbian and gay couples) with legal affirmation from the State.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context