2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal 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 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 portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Companies should not have the right to regulate our lives outside the workplace. There are limited exceptions to this (and I stress limited), but too often we accept that workplaces can act as our own personal dictators and that we should be grateful for having a job.  There is a difference between gratitude and pure subservience.  You go to the place and do what you are supposed to and get paid for it.  Beyond that, there should be no employer control.  This includes what one says or what opinion one has among friends and even in public to a limited extent.

Some may believe employers are doing workers a favor to hire them.  Actually the reverse is true; employers should be grateful to have workers who help them function.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I listened to the end of the discussion this morning.  Certain speakers and callers seemed to think that making this list public would be such a violation of privacy, even claiming that making the list public would encourage criminals to come steal from them.

I don't believe it.  Bankruptcy petitions list everything that the filer owns.  This information is public record.  I have never once heard of a bankruptcy filer having criminals come ransack their homes or steal from them because of this public list of what they own.

And as for privacy, bankruptcy petitions list everything owned and owed.  The right to this "privacy" is eliminated in exchange for eliminating debt.  By the same token, those who want to carry a concealed weapon give up the right to have that secret in exchange for carrying the weapon.  This exchange is part of the right.

These complaints are a lot of hoopla about nothing.  Gun advocates need to stop thinking like they should have complete unaduterated freedom in their right.  All rights come with limits.  Why does their right to "privacy" trump my right to know who could be hiding a weapon? They have more freedom than most and a lot more than they deserve.

The list should be public.  I want to know which houses my children cannot play at.  I want to know who to avoid if I have a problem in the middle of the night and need help.  The reality is that someone is more likely to shoot someone accidentally than they are going to shoot someone breaking into their home.

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context