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

What is astonishing about the election is that the majority of people when polled nationally a couple of weeks after the election didn't even know that the GOP had taken control of the U. S. House of Representatives, which was a really major deal.

I am afraid the majority of voters vote based not even on the information in the voter phamplet, but using such shallow criteria they don't even know which candidate supports their own best interests let alone who actually won.  For example I no longer subscribe to The Oregonian, and I paid no attention to which party won which governorships.  I tried to find that information a week after the election and it was such old news that I couldn't find it.

Probably no more than one in one hundred people in the bigger towns and cities could accurately answer who all the people they voted for were when all the lesser offices, etc. are included.  I can't tell you who won in each race in my city, county, or the state outside of the state level representatives and senator.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Decent joke!

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

You have indirectly touched on what is predicted to be a huge future problem--the migration of people with climate change.  Right now the developing world is outpacing the developed world in the speed of economic growth.  This is in part due to the outsourcing of jobs through the relocation of manufacturing plants kick starting some economies.  But, another factor has been better decision making.  Brazil was a very early user of alternative fuels.  It produces a huge amount of ethanol for use as fuel from sugar cane.  Without the balance of payments problems created by large oil imports it was able to better grow its own economy running behicles on ethanol. 

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Your concern is well founded.  It was predicted that the future wars of this century will be over water--its availability, drinkability, etc.  I believe the prediction was in Business Week, but it might have been in Newsweek.

in college more than four decades ago a book titled Moment in the Sun stated that the United States had already reached its peak standard of living, and in many ways that was true.  Back then one worker could support a family.  Now both parents often have to work to earn enough to support a family.

As a child I visited Yellowstone National Park and sat on wood benches to watch Old Faithful.  What was the park road back then is now a boardwalk which is the closest point visitors are allowed to approach Old Faithful.  The boardwalk was built not just for public safety but so enough people could find a place from which to watch each eruption.  And, a small shopping complex is right next to Old Faithful, which spoils the effect.

In Denver, CO, water is scarce enough now that tertiary treatment is used to treat sewage water so it can be reused as grey water for watering Denver's parks.  Basically some of the Metro Water Water plants outflow is sent directly to the Denver Water Department for further treatment and reuse.  Global warming is likely to make Denver even drier.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

My oldest son recieved B. S. degrees (two bachelor degrees so he could take more Physics courses to be a better candidate for graduate school) in four years going continuously (plus a year of full time college during High School).  That education was not much more expensive than any other degree, but he would not have had time to also take teaching courses, an essential for a career in K-12 teaching simply to relate to modes of learning, maintaining fairness and classroom discipline, etc.  He would have been an excellent teacher with another year of just teaching courses worked into his education.

My son then went on to get his Masters Degree and a Ph.D. from UCLA before going to a Max Planck Institute program in Germany for two years of Post Doc work.  After the Masters Degree he could have taught in a community college (and did to earn some extra money one year) or he could have taken a better paying $70,000 a year job in industry and commerce.

He wanted to do experimental research and continued on to get his Ph. D. in Physics, which is the minimum credential for teaching in a four year college or university.

To teach in a University or get a position of consequence in a National Laboratory or equivalent he needed to go on past his Ph.D. and do some Post Doc work, which he is now doing at the Max Planck Institute for at least two years.

In graduate school one of the Post Doc's gave up Physics for Wall Street and a $250,000 a year salary.  My son's collective earnings over the last six years as a teaching assistant, research assistant and now Post Doc are less than that one science drop out makes in a year.  The reason is that the U. S. govenrment sets a low pay scale for graduate student and Post Doc researchers.  (He is making more in Germany.)

It is easy to ask for more and better science education but delivering the same is not easy or quick.  My son would have to work in an Eastern U. S. high school to earn the minimum kind of pay teaching high school science that would meet his and my earnings expectations.  (Those controversial, temporarily  laid off high school teachers in Ohio were earning twice as much as high school teachers earn in the State of Washington.)

My son had the chance to get a $70,000 a year job easily after his Masters Degree in a business closely related to his first research assistant job.  He is not going to be available for a staring pay of $30,000 a year, a typical entry level teacher pay in the Western U. S.

One of the Post Doc's during his graduate studies gave up a career as a scientist for a Wall Street job with a starting salary of $250,000.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

The average person will have four careers before retirement, so your point of view is wise.

In most community colleges a Masters Degree is the minimum credential to teach, but in High School it is only a Bachelor's Degre with enough coursework in science to teach science.  To teach in four years colleges and universities requires a Ph. D.

I favor all high school students getting a better understanding of both how our government works from the local level to the international level.  That is essential to gain the public support necessary for long term projects.  I also strongly favor more science education from Kindergarten through college.

People though should not underestimate the costs of quality science education.  When I went to high school I had four years of science in grades 9-12, but in those days a lot less was even known let alone taught.  The knowledge served me very well even though today it might be considered archaic.  I still follow development in science closely by reading sciencedaily.com for free on the Internet, etc.

The number of scientists educated should match the number of job openings expected and not be an abstract number.  It costs more to educate scientists than humanities graduates and it takes a special way of thinking to be a successfuly K-12 science teacher, since there is some science in teaching itself.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

An unpaid internship is the first thing a person should do who is considering starting their own business in an industry they are not familar with.

Otherwise internships should be paid unless they are affiliated with a college or university and include a very specific curriculum that specifies what tasks will be done and for how long and what makes the experience worth the tuition.  An internship can be a valueable mentorship opportunity, but more often employers see it either as a way to try out prospective employees at no cost or to get work done for free in return for just a little bit more liability and extra supervision.

What is the most disgusting to me is when internships or volunteering are a de facto requirement for full time employment.  I have talked to park rangers who were working as unpaid volunteers solely because that is a requirement as a condition of being considered for career employment, and it puts individuals who have no means to support themselves at extreme disadvantage.

Likewise, my oldest son is applying for Post Doc positions in sub field of  Physics only because he believes such positions are an expected part of the resume for positions he does want for a career.  Yet, it is unfair since he has already being doing research now for six years and forgoing pay that he could have gotten in industry.  Now he is being offered less pay as a Post Doc than he could have gotten in Industry with a Masters Degree.  He is very tempted to leave Physics entirely for other opportunities that simply pay 30% or more than the maximum pay available as a Post Doc, since that pay is set basically set arbitrarily by national governments who pay lip service to science but then reward people for grant application work rather than science work.

If a worker isn't even worth the minimum wage with a high school education and more with a college degree, they are entering the wrong career and should take up being an electrician or plumber.  The federal government itself needs to stop expecting unpaid volunteer experience for even highly competitive positions in the park service and forest service.  It is a form of economic discrimination that is in most cases also racial discrimination.

posted 3 years ago
view in context

What religion a President is makes no difference to me as long as the person has empathy, sympathy, a well formed idea of what is right and wrong, and at the core believes in the separation of church and state.

I am a Roman Catholic, but like most Catholics I give little weight to the non-Biblical views of priests and bishops. For example the current Catholic teaching that life begins at conception is absurd, since 80% of fertilized eggs are naturally aborted with the vast majority showing up as heavier than normal periods. I am not prepared to believe that the majority of those in heaven were unborn. Also, the Catholic teaching has varied over time. It used to be more reasonable--life begins at the quickening, when the fetus starts kicking and moving independently. If the bishops were that influential 80% of fertile Catholic couples would not be practicing artificial birth control which is also prohibited by Catholic teachings.

Even above religion, I firmly believe that the political stability of the USA rests primarily on the separation of Church and state. The USA is one of the most diverse nations in terms of religions at peace here. I though see no harm in not discriminating against religious organizations in advancing public services when they can do it cheaper or more effectively for a section of the public, don't discriminate against non-believers, and receive only performance based public funding. After all the largest hospital care provider in the United States is Catholic hospitals. Seventh Day Adventists have a very effective and health oriented program to quit smoking that worked extremely well for two of my past co-workers. President G. W. Bush was able to use a born again faith oriented approach to quit being an alcoholic. Similarly other faiths have nitches in providing public services that should be eligible for performance based funding. The harm only comes when public funding is not performance based and arbitrarily given.

The USA has no one majority faith. Lumping all Protestant Churches together and with Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, and Mormons to call Christianity a majority religion defies logic given huge differences in beliefs amongst these groups and a virtual certainty of never reconciling differences. Also, although I practice my faith many people just give themselves a religious label based on family history without practicing any faith, so the USA is even less religious that the Census reports.

As Americans we should be able to work together and compromise on all public policies to minimize the conflict in our single nation. If not, what hope is there for ever obtaining world peace and universal prosperity?

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context