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 language 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

Did I just hear Emily Harris say that public employees "don't pay anything towards their health benefits and pensions"?

It is exasperating to hear the perpetuation of anti-union rhetoric on TOL. Health benefits and pensions are part of our negotiated PAY.

I was recently asked by my union how I wanted to prioritize part of my compensation for my job : on wages, health insurance, or penions. It is not an "extra"!

I feel lucky to have the choice to divert some of my wages into a group health insurance plan, etc.  Why are we not talking more about giving these group health and retirement options to ALL of our citizens, not be taking then away!

I get paid SIGNIFICANTLY less now than what I earned in the private sector. I left to serve the public, and agreed to less pay in exchange for these "benefits."

An op-ed blog on Forbes better explains how benefits work  than I can: http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I'm struck by the historical and cultural ignorance of arguments such as Mrs. Gallagher's. I read Helen Fisher's book, The Anatomy of Love, years ago and she provides compelling evidence (as do many others) that our life-long concepts of marriage are recent, for example.

Further, human cultures reflect many different ways of taking care of the needs of children, and that our narrow nuclear family approach isn't the only "natural" way. (Indeed, the extended family, which is defined differently in different cultures, appears to be the most important human protection for children.) So the whole "natural" argument has been really simplified in this debate.

And finally, I was stunned at how summarily the caller's question about the parallels of parental responsiblity with adopted children was dismissed. I didn't catch the whole show, but I don't see how Gallahger's views can hold without addressing the larger notions of family as a unit caring for children vs. mere biological/sexual responsiblity.

I won't even attempt to address the whole "hate" debate. When I start hearing reports of hate crimes against heterosexual couples because they're straight, then I might listen to her sob-story about all the hate directed at her.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context