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

Apologies.

Broad please.

Oregon rivers.

Thanks Charlie 77.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

Feel free to share a resource. I would like to learn more as this is a topic I have not heard mentioned in salmon discussions.

I'll be surprised if my worries will be alleviated. But there is hope, if not for the salmon, for me.

Thanks.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I would like to hear some discussion of the impact that industry and fishing has had on natural selection.

I have theorized for some time that fishing for example, removes the strongest fish from the stock. We do not have the means to determine the best genetic stock. Over time the quality of the genetic pool drops unnaturally impacting the survival of the fittest, and the passing of the strongest genetics to future generations.

Natural selection allows for the strongest to survive. Man's capabilities to deplete the stock is just so far ahead of what nature can do to keep up.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

If you wish to discuss "The Clintons" and reference power and money... it is FAR outweighed by the Bush Clan years before Bush Jr.'s presidency. Their family influence and power extends far beyond our borders and into the middle east.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

My support for Senator Clinton was based on an analysis of both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. I found that Senator Clinton by far had what we need going in to the fall to both beat Senator McCain, and turn our country around following a disastrous Bush Jr. presidency. We need a president who can take action immediately, get results, has worldwide respect, and can reach across the isle.

For the first time in my life I find that I cannot support the democratic nominee. Why? He is the weaker of the two final candidates, and frankly despite strong effort I find little substance in his rhetoric.

Unfortunately my lack of support for Senator Obama will be chalked up as either racism or anger for Senator Clinton's loss. It is neither.

It is recognition that Senator Obama is the weakest candidate for the office of the presidency post Bush.

I would like to add the following in response to a comment made by one of the guests in referring to Senator Clinton's candidacy as The Clintons.

I believe that this was a large issue during the primary season which was a subtle way of reminding voters that there was a connection to Bill Clinton, or to imply that a vote for Senator Clinton was a vote for Bill Clinton.

The candidacy was that of Senator Clinton, and Senator Clinton alone. Not of The Clintons, or of Mrs. Clinton, but of Senator Clinton. Implying that The Clintons were running for the nomination discredits Senator Clinton and what she brought to the table. And unfortunately for those who support Senator Clinton this type of subliminal suggestion swayed undecided voters, independent voters, or progressive republican voters from voting for Senator Clinton.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context