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

I would like to hear a comparison of the bonuses given to top executives of national banks, local banks, and credit unions.  I find it hard to accept that the executives receiving those top bonuses in the news are really adding that level of value to their organizations.  I'm told that some local banks are trying to match that kind of environment for their executives (relative to their size).  I'm not aware of the compensation environment of credit unions.  (They're organized as non-profits, but I don't know how that affects compensation.)  Any comment?

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Indite Sam for one month of "grooming behavior"? Are we inditing people for thought crimes now?

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Every person, officer and civilian alike, queried on this assumes that use of a video camera includes audio recording. As long as the video camera is visibly in use, isn't that a de facto announcement that audio recording is occurring?

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

My understanding is that, although many states outlaw recording of telephone calls without both parties consent, Oregon allows a telephone call to be recorded even if only one party is aware of the recording. Is that true? Why should this be different in this situation?

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Why do you CARE what Slate thinks? Go listen, play, dance!

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context