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 language 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

I think the issue of why teacher's unions were formed is the same as for coal miners, factory workers, dockworkers etc.:  low pay, poor working conditions, benefits, retirement, political hiring and firing. Unions did not solve all those problems, but they improved many. The problem with teaching is that it can not be quantified like a factory worker's job: do this and do it right, do it again. That said, where teacher's unions have gone awry is not staying involved with the issues that do separate teaching from factory work. Training for workers is an even bigger issue for teachers. Looking at other college degree required professions, its obvious that the American education model did not allow for private practice as for lawyers, doctors and engineers who work with publically funded resources, but may not be public employees. Following the guild model, teacher unions needed to promote professional development, promote evaluation models that are not one size fits all  (i.e., a PE class and a 3rd grade class need different assessment features) and duh, promote administrator training to do fair assessments that promote quality learning not only quality teaching. Instead, teacher unions got way too involved with defending bad teachers, and blaming everyone and everything except their lack of leadership in improving the learning of students. Time for game change, or let's move on to voucher based education with teachers working  in a private practice model.

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

From another veteran of the ERA effort: Certainly there have been enormous gains in the opportunities available to women today. That said, I truly don't think the majority of men (and too many women) believe in equality for women.

This is demonstrated in the workplace, in the media, in the government, and countless interactions everyday. But it is very subtle. Hence the complacency of women to put the issue back into the national spotlight. Making a molehill out of a mountain is what too many of us  think. "Let it go", "whatever", or "that's the last time I'll go there/do that", etc. 

Here are two examples: Technology:  In your workplace, if the business uses a networked, how many women are in the IT department as network administrators? When you wait to talk to the Geek Squad, do you wonder if the woman will be able to help you as well as the man?  

Shopping: If you are with a male partner in a store, restaurant or any commercial interaction, who does the sales person look at most of the time she/he is talking to the two of you?

It goes on and on. It takes women speaking up and calling attention to subtle but pervasive behaviors that reflect lingering attitudes about the equality of women.  You don't have to be mad as hell, to stop taking it anymore.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Your guests neatly stepped over the topic of SPORTS programs equating them with PE. By referring to the needs of the less fortunate, they indicated that there is only hope for them if they have PE. What they really meant to say is the hope of all football and basketball players to get college scholarships. So, fine. Let the Universities pay fees to recruit athletes. Or let Nike, the Blazers, the major contributors or sponsors of local high school sports pool their money for "sports program fees" outside of the school day. I am frustrated that school districts will cut instructional days for all students, but not consider or discuss cutting sports which is optional for a fraction of students. Consider, elementary schools do not have sports programs but thhose same kids from less wealthy families are imacted even more by the lack of instructional time.

Second, changing the school calendar to a four days saves transportation costs. The fifth day can be used for sports, assemblies, field trips etc. currently taking time away from the instructional day. As for child care, consider the high unemployment rates indicating there are parents at home. While not optimal, hard times call for hard solutions.

Finally, I agree. Its time Oregon faced up to the financial realities. Funding schools by property taxes when homes are in foreclosure? Are the banks paying the taxes? It's time to call forth that terrifying phrase:  sales tax.

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

"Fiscal responsibility"

Both the representative of the tea party and the representative of the Oregon Republican party, used that phrase frequently.

My question is:  how can you expect the government, "...OF the people, FOR the people and BY the people..." to be fiscally responsible when the people are not!

The financial institutions that corrupted the mortgage process, were not handing out those sub-prime loans to martians! Who was it signing their names on those mortgages that they either could not afford to begin with, or who made no effort to adjust their spending to align with that commitment, let alone put money aside into savings.

Who was it gladly playing the stock market,  while that market convinced us stock price was the only valid measure of the quality of a company?

It seems to me that the political parties of all sides can point their fingers easily to the, "big bad government". But no political party is going to point fingers at the "Uber greedy", the "spend whatever it takes to be  cool", or the, "buy now pay whenever" members of those parties.

We truly have the government we deserve.

posted 3 years ago
view in context

I wonder why there is such resistance about government involvement in  health care. There is little or no objection to the health care provided for military (and I am not objecting), and who wouldn't want the congresssional health care plan. But for those of us who PAY the taxes that fund all of that, us citizens who are, THE PEOPLE as in the phrase, "...for the people.", there is a powerful myth that it is "unamurican" for citizens to expect they will always have access to health care no matter their financial status.

Having lived overseas for many years, it always amazed me that even in  totalitarian states,  citizens were guarranteed health care. As soon as politicos or those leaning the right hear that, the argument switches to the quality of that health care. No, the point is they had guarranteed health care.  Then the issue of corruption comes up, no the point is....

Quality and corruption are different issues that can only be addressed AFTER there is health care for all citizens.

The point I have not heard in all of this, maybe because I've been busy supporting the economy by Christmas shopping, is the percentage of profit the average small business would no longer allocate to health care plans,  if employees had access to health care independently of the work place. How much could small businesses or any business improve their product or service if health coverage for employees was reduced or even made redundant by government health care plans? 

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context