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

As a resident of rural Oregon, I have a mounting concern for the great divide of urban Oregon governing from a perspective of rural ignorance which is stifling the initial appreciation of this region which drew people here.

How would you suggest the conversationalists, who want use of natural resources to simply be observation, and the entrepreneurial agronomists, who are trying to make a living and a lifestyle on the land, can work together?

So much of rural America/Oregon is vanishing not from lack of resources or even people who long for such a life, but from political and ideological regulations that makes this cultural asset into abandoned liabilities. Communities, business people and families are all struggling with the dream of yesterday that is today all but malnourished if not dead.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context