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

I agree with those who say rodeos are cruel and that you shouldn't be celebrating 100 years of cruelty at the Pendleton Roundup.  Set aside your cultural conditioning for a moment, imagine the animals as conscious living things with emotions (they are), and tell me it isn't cruel to terrorize them for sport.  You should at least have been aware enough to recognize that many people have this perspective.  You should have represented it on your show instead of just pandering to the cowboys and trying to show how "fun" you are.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Raising and killing cows to feed people is an environmentally destructive practice no matter how you slice it.  The studies show a carbon output three times that of feeding people fruits and vegetables and water consumption about ten times higher.  The so-called sustainable and organic practices don't significantly shift those statistics.  Not to mention all the damage to riparian areas from grazing.  And I haven't even gotten to the cruelty issue yet or all the government subsidies (below cost leases, etc.).  Cattle ranching couldn't go away too soon for me.  Nostalgia (which is most of what I'm hearing this morning) is not a very good reason to keep it around.

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I come to this issue as a life-long Democrat.  I did seasonal government work in my youth but otherwise have worked in the private sector.  My opinions/perceptions:

1.  I hate the argument that public sector pay should be comparable to private sector pay.  The jobs aren't comparable.  Public sector employees don't have to justify their usefullness, expenditure of time or pay against a bottom line and have far more job security.  I seriously doubt that the workplace pressure and stress is anywhere near comparable.

2.  I am increasingly troubled by the power of public employee unions.  They seem to seek more, and more and more, without regard for the public interest, while people on the other side of the bargaining table are just spending someone else's money and don't seem to provide an effective counter balance.  I find it ironic that the only place where unions seem to remain strong these days is the public sector, where the traditional justifications for unions don't really seem to exist because the people setting the pay and working conditions are not purely profit motivated.

3.  Anecdotal evidence, which is all most of us have to go on, does seem to suggest that public employees are treated way too generously.  Everyone seems to know a public employee (a teacher, a wildlife biologist, etc.) who retired at 50 or so with nearly full pay, while those of us in the private sector are still sweating hard and worrying about building a 401k.  Some of them then continue to do their old job as "contractors" and collect both their pension and a paycheck.  Meanwhile, we can't get the laws enforced because the agencies all say they don't have enough money.  It's enough to get even a true-blue Democrat to join Oregon Taxpayers United.

Thanks for the forum to vent.

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I would like to hear some of the guests address the relationship between materialism/consumerism and age.  My impression from the world is that many people who believe strongly in minimalism discard that belief as they grow older -- because the "provider" instinct takes over or for some other reason.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

What bothers me about this whole discussion is the assumption that diversity of opinion, thought process, background, or whatever the heck it is we supposedly are seeking, is reflected in, and only in, diversity of sex, race and sexual preference.  That seems to assume that all white males think alike and that all gay women think alike, which I doubt is the case.  It also excludes all of the other demarcations one can make in society that seem equally likely to reflect diversity of opinion, thought, etc.  -- income, geographic origin, marital status, family size, pet ownership, hobbies, sports, reading interests, hair color, etc.

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context

Sen. Rosenbaum's comments are typical of those bringing me to the brink of frustration with the Democratic party (my party).  They talk about government benefits without any apparent recognititon that someone else has to pay for them and without expecting anyone to take responsibility for their own lives (e.g., saving money while employed to pay for education or living expenses after losing a job).

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

It is sad to hear the anglers -- especially the self-righteous "catch and release" fly anglers who consider themselves so spiritually in touch with nature -- chomping at the bit to stick their hooks in the mouths of some of the few fish that have been left in peace, even if only for a brief time.  Leave them alone please.  There are plenty of places to fish already.  Let's have a few, including Spirit Lake, where fish can exist in their natural state without humans harrassing them.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Even as a life-long Democrat, I fume every time government turns a "budget shortfall" into a "revenue" problem.  It's a spending problem.  Government spends too much money and saves too little because politicians just think about the next campaign and try to solve everyone's problems -- most of them self-inflicted by irresponsible behavior -- with government spending.  I say don't change a thing.  The recession is a great opportunity for government downsizing.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I agree it should be harder to pass a Constitutional amendment, but otherwise I think the initiative process is fine as it is. The Legislature is often too timid or beholden to special interests to enact certain policies that a majority of citizens clearly want. Death with dignity, medical marijuana and prohibitions on hunting bears and cougars with bait and dogs come to mind. I'm sick of hearing the political establishment bash the initiative process with what are really just veiled arguments that they know better and average citizens can't be trusted. I've been voting in Oregon for 25 years and I can only think of one thing that voters clearly got wrong (either by passing or defeating). (Measures 7 and 37 are the exception, in my opinion.) Thanks for the chance to comment.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I fished all my life and was an avid catch-and-release fly fisherman, believing like so many of that genre that I was connecting in some sacred way with the fish and nature. I gradually came around to the view that now seems pretty obvious: putting a big hook in a fish's mouth and dragging it to the shore against it's will is probably not a great experience for the fish. Even the "catch and release" anglers would admit if they are honest that they often significantly harm and sometimes kill the fish.

Among the questions in your introductory narrative is "what's best for the fish"? The answer to that question is obvious: leave them alone.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

As a taxpayer, I'm frustrated to hear about yet another program that essentially requires me to pay to raise other people's children. In my opinion, parents should be responsible (financially and otherwise) for raising their own children. Their children don't just fall on them out of the sky, and we are past the point where having children you can't afford is doing society a favor. I don't want kids to go hungry, I really don't. I just wish that somewhere amid all the government programs there was a least one promoting the idea that if you are not prepared (emotionally, psychologically and financially) to raise children, perhaps you shouldn't have them.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Well put. You can't say a job is a job that legal residents won't do without specifying the pay for that job. I'm sure that legal residents would do the jobs done by illegal immigrants if the jobs paid more. If paying that amount makes the end product too expensive to sell, that's just the marketplace saying that the costs of the product outweigh its benefits and that it shouldn't be produced.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Let's be honest. Everyone knows that almost all of the "day laborers" are engaging in criminal violations of our immigration and tax laws. Spending taxpayer money to facilitate and accommodate that activity on grounds the illegal workers will be there anyway makes about as much sense as a city-funded brothel or a city-funded drug market (the prostitutes and drug dealers also will be there anyway).

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I am a traditional Democrat who has been involved with the Legislature primarily on environmental issues. I have learned that the Legislative session is a time to just hold my breath and hope that nothing too bad happens.

I oppose annual sessions for a variety of reasons but there is one that I don't think gets enough attention: the cost imposed on the rest of society every time the Legislature meets. The cost of the session is not just the tax dollars paid but also all of the money and time spent by affected groups and people who have to monitor what the Legislature is doing and be willing to show up in Salem at the drop of a hat to try to deal with the latest crazy idea someone is trying to push.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context