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

The other reason I'd like to see public unions be more like trade unions is about the process description I'm listening to now. When the union is all about bargaining, and not also training and acreditation, it creates a structure that is inherently adversarial because that's where you "prove" your worth by "winning" something instead of creating a valuable workforce and getting them fair compensation.

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I would like to see teachers unions, and all other public sector unions, work more like the trade unions. In a trade union you start as an apprentice, go through journeyman, and eventually reach the master level. At each level you put in time and continuous learning. The union takes dues and provides pension, acreditation, AND TRAINING, not just bargaining for pay and benefits.

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I applaud any non-violent protest, even when I am on the other side of the issue, and especially in places and situations where there is no other recourse (BTW, implied or psychological violence is still violence, even if you don't actually shoot anybody).

It is all fascinating to watch. Especially where the usual  attempts to demonize and/or marginalize the protesters seems to have stopped working.

But in this country, the big problem is voter apathy and disengagement. Voting seems to have become an optional, unimportant and seemingly ineffective right/responsibility. WHY? If you don't like what your elected leaders are doing, why did you let them get elected?

The Democratic walkout in Wisconsin is an effective, creative, and important tool for getting this story in front of the public, and I applaud them for it. However, it is NOT a way to legislate or govern.

I think the Governor of Wisconsin is gifting his state with a hostile, and resentful public workforce that will have an adversarial, bunker mentality against the very public, and the agencies they are there to serve. Which will make them less effective in their jobs, and reinforce the public attitude against them. It is a tragic downward spiral, and creates an environment that may take years if not generations to change, but that is apparently what the voters want in Wisconsin.

But, thinking forward, I do not see that this action is an effective long term strategy and they have gotten their message heard. Now what?

It will be interesting to see if voter turnout is up in the next Wisconsin election and which direction it goes. But in the same way that I do not respect the national Republicans refusal to bow to the will of the voters in 2008, I will not respect the Democrats, nationally or in Wisconsin, for not bowing to the will of the voters in 2010. I think the results will be tragic and potentially devistating, but maybe that's what we need to wake us up. Like it or not we ARE a stable democracy and we are in charge of our own political destiny, either through our action, or our inaction.

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I have come to believe that we need to separate wellness care from illness care.

It disturbs me that we've somehow become a nation where the people managing our health care have a vested financial interest in keeping us chronically ill or in ongoing "management/intervention" rather than completely well.

I want a system where my primary care team profits most when I am vibrantly healthy.

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I'm a regular volunteer at WebVisions, a local conference that has been going on for 11 years and I think it would be a great topic, especially for people like me that have to run full tilt just to keep up with the changes and challenges in communication technology.  So here's my pitch:

WebVisions - three days in May (25, 26, 27)

From the literature in front of me: WebVisions is a nationally recognized event that explores the future of web design, technology, user experience and business strategy. It helps attendees to discover the trends and agents of change that will shatter our assumptions about the web and how we communicate. It is also a place to network, share ideas and be inspired.

From me: Way before they became mainstream, it was the first place I heard about usings phones as mobile devices, twitter, apps, tagging, real life touch screens, Facebook, UTube, wiki-anything, the agile development process, and lots more. Plus, it is a way for ME to sort through the hype and the barage of emerging technology to find what I think will endure and develop.

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context

This discussion hilights the reason that, even though I am highly pro-education, so far, the PPS has not convinced me that the upcoming levy/bond we will be voting on is worth it.

They have not shown me that the money they want will go toward preparing our kids for the world they are facing, rather than propping up a school system that is fast becoming not only obsolete but actually obstructive.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

The Portland police a stretched pretty thin right now. Would the FBI be paying our officers

Also, I just don't like the divided loyalty of officers who are Portland Police, but not accountable to the police department for all that they do.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

You just never know.

I was doing a crossword puzzle once and could not remember Adam Sandler's name, so I went to google and, without thinking, typed in the title of his then current movie "Men Behaving Badly." It was an eye opener when I clicked on the first site listed. I did it deliberately, but NOT for the reasons that the site was created. On the up side, I have no trouble recalling his name now.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I think the governor is right that this is an historic opportunity, and that what he suggests needs to be done, but my experience in trying to actually make these kinds of changes is that inertia, resistance, internal turf wars, special interests, etc., etc, etc. means that the status quo has an AMAZING elastic resiliance, even in the face of disaster. People all want and need change .... for somebody else. They will resist mightily if you try to change them or theirs.

The most difficult and traumatic way seems to be the most effective, because nothing less painful works. Start fresh. Close the departments we have entirely and replace them with the new ones. It is a horrible, painful solution, that should be unnecessary, but it is what has worked for the car companies and other private sector businesses in the face of ruin.

By planning ahead, the state has the chance to do it less painfully. Design a new system, set timelines, and then disolve what is there now, department by department, restructure them and then let people apply for the new positions in the new structure.

I fear, however, that what we get will simply be more and bigger patches on top of the broken system we have, but maybe the budget issues will be the prod we need for real change. We'll see.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

If Maggie feels that marriage is and should be about children, how would she feel if heterosexual people who were infertal, too, old, or had decided not to have children were not allowed to marry? If couples who had children together were forced to marry, "for the good of the children". Or if married couples with children were not allowed to divorce until the children were of age, "for the good of the children"?

Because it seems to me that the arguement falls down on the details. The only people she wants to exclude are homosexual couples, so it can't be based on the good of the children, no matter how she says it. She wants an exclusive club that is more "special" because she can keep some people out.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

The problem for me comes down to the fact that we have confused and  conflated two different concepts, marriage and the recognized contract of a civil union. Originally, it was probably for convenience because, for a long time, the two things lined up pretty well. Now it is time to ditch the conflation.

Marriage is about a religious and social covenant. If your community recognizes it the good, go and get married and adhere to the strictures therein, be it obedience, subservience, equality, partnership, whatever. Every sub-group defines "marriage" differently.

The state should get out of the marriage business all together and focus on civil contracts for the world we live in today - permanent partnerships, temporary partnerships, child rearing, etc.

Personally, I would like these civil contracts to be irrespective of sexual involvement as well. My grandmother and great aunt lived together for 30 year after my grandfather died; I also had a single friend moved back home to take care of her ailing father and lived with him for 10 years until he died; in both cases a civil partnership would have made a lot of complex decision easier

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

As humans, we have a nasty tendancy to fracture a big problem into little issues and then only focus on one or two of the issues at a time. I'm way past climate change because it is only a small portion of a larger whole. I talk to people about overall sustainable living.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Also, bus vs rail - I think rail makes more sense for routes that won't change (to the airport, city center to city center, around downtown) and the bus for routes that need to be more flexible. That is more or less what I see in the Portland area.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I guess I just use a different Tri-Met. I am a zip car member that has not owned a car for 12 years and I get around mostly using bike and transit, only using a car or truck a couple of times a month.

I find the Tri-Met drivers generally friendly and helpful and the "transit tracker" and "trip panner" functions amazingly useful. But then I have used transit in several other cities and have experience in just how bad/difficult/unhelpful it can be.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

My problem is not with wind power it is with wind farms. In fact, it is with the "grid" as a primary provider of power over all.

I would like to see a more distributed and decentralized system over all where a much higher % of anyone's power is produced locally and can still function if the larger grid were to go down.

As far as I can see, wind farms are a product of the control and sell mind set that we need to move away from.

posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I worked for the county in a job I thought I would retire from when measure 5 passed it was the beginning of the reason I left that job. After measure 5 I saw an "us and them" attitude and a defensiveness about the service we provided that was not there before. It created an unacceptably stressful atmosphere and things got MORE expensive because everyone started double and triple guessing every decision.

posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I have come to believe that sustainability is an issue that will ONLY be solved from the bottom up. There are too many counter-influences at the top, with too much money and too much at stake to let effective top down solutions happen.

Like civil rights 40 years ago, the green/sustainability movement is largely bottom up. Government and business are busy scrambling to ride (or stem) the tide, but the real action is happening on the ground and is pushing rather than following our political and business leaders.

Collaboration builds communities and empowers people. Which is why so many work so hard to stop it (divide and conquer is not just a slogan, it is a very effective technique)

Innovative education like this is an excellent bottom-up activity. If you teach people how to do more, and better, with less, or less harmfully, then they can do it themselves, with or without other top down assistance.

So, yeah for OSU! yeah for Iraq! and yeah for the planet!

posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context

One topic I've never heard in the discussion of adoption and finding birth parents is traumatic circumstances.

How do adoptees handle it if they find out that they were born as a result of rape or incest? How do the birth mothers handle having these children show back up? How do the adoptive families handle it?

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

So, what you are saying is that the contract you signed, agreed to, abided by, and lived under for years should be nullified because new employees do not have access to the same terms

That is like saying that the home loan you got at 5%, should go up to 15% when the interest rate goes that high because new home buyers can't get then interest rate you got.

FAIRNESS is honoring the contract you signed and agreed to. Unless you want to tell people when you hire them, "It doesn't matter what we promise you now to keep your wages down, we have the right to take it back later on, if it works in our favor by then, and it will."

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

My annoyance over this is with the main stream media in general, who seem to be focussing on, and therefore helping to foment, hysteria. I see little about what IS being done, but lots of coverage of what isn't. I see continuous interviews with people who have unrealistic expectations, anger, dispair, etc. but little from, or with, practical people and what they are doing. I see a lot of dwelling (sometimes gleefully) in the disaster part, but little if any on the mundane responses, on what the long term plans are.

I see lots of blame, and calls for punishment, but little of the call to action we need. Basically, I see a complex and changing situation, brought down to sound bites and photo ops.

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context