SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
There have been a number of interesting (and well-attended) hearings in the Capitol this week. On Monday, the House Rules Committee heard testimony on the subject of sobriety checkpoints. The last time Oregon police officers randomly stopped drivers to check their sobriety was 1982. That's when the ACLU of Oregon brought a lawsuit against Lane County. The case was eventually decided in the Oregon Supreme Court, which found sobriety checkpoints to be unconstitutional. In order to bring back the checkpoints, lawmakers would need to pass a Joint Resolution that would put the issue before voters in 2012. This issue has been raised many times, most recently in the 2010 special session, but has yet to pass out of committee.
A hearing on another high profile issue took place on Tuesday. Students, administrators, University of Oregon's president and others traveled to Salem to discuss two proposals that would affect the U of O. Senate Bill 559 would allow the university to be an independent public university with its own governing board. (All public universities in the state are currently governed by the State Board of Higher Education.) Senate Joint Resolution 20 would put a constitutional amendment before voters in 2012, asking them to decide whether or not universities could use bond money to fund their endowments. These complex proposals are part of a larger effort to restructure Oregon's higher education system. The University of Oregon proposal has met with a mixed response from legislators even before the session got underway.
On this show, we'll also continue our Capital People feature, where we meet interesting people who work in the Capitol building but are not elected officials. This time it'll be Kevin Boyles, the manager of the Cafe at the Capitol. He's met some interesting customers over the years, including his wife, who also works in the Capitol building.
Have you ever eaten at the Cafe in the basement of the Capitol building? What would you like to ask someone who works there?
Are you a student at the University of Oregon? Do you work there? How would SB 559 and SJR 20 affect you? Have you lived in a state that uses sobriety checkpoints? How effective are they?
GUESTS:
- Chris Edwards: Democratic State Senator representing Oregon's 7th district and sponsor of SB 559
- Marc Nisenfeld: Development engineer at Portland State University, president of the Portland State University SEIU Local and chair of the SEIU Higher Education Council
- Rod Monroe: Democratic State Senator representing Oregon's 24th district
- David Fidanque: Executive director of the ACLU of Oregon
- Chris Lehman: Reporter for OPB News
- Kevin Boyles: District manager of The Sassy Onion, which operates the Cafe at the Capitol
Tagged as: 2011 session · legislature · university of oregon
Photo credit: Kate McMahon / Creative Commons
-
Opposed to HB2228. Bans bike baby carriers. -- trurl9 — Fri Feb. 25th 11:30a.m.
It also bans the trailers that some moms & dads use to transport the kiddies once they are too big to ride in a "baby seat" on the back of the bike, but not yet big enough for a bike of their own. Not only that, but it bans the "bike plus" that lots of families use -- you've seen them -- these are the things that attach to the back of mom or dad's bike and have a bicycle seat and handlebars for the little ones.
This bill goes contrary to the goal of reducing carbon emissions and greenhouse gases and discourages families from getting good-quality exercise while getting out together and running errands.
-
These faith healers and all others who believe in the healing powers of some all supernatural entity ought to be allowed to rely on prayer and snake handling etc. for cures. Darwin spoke to the issue about 150 yrs ago. If we just leave these people alone they will cease to exist in a few generations.
The catch is! The Nosy Parkers and bleeding hearts will NOT leave them alone, but will endeavor mightly to protect these nincompoops from their own folly. This is wrong and goes against nature.
-
Faith healing.
If children were being denied food for the purpose of religion it would make sense for the powers that be to interfere, but medical care is different. There is certainty that food is required to keep us living, food is the fuel of the engine. Medical care does not provide the same certainty, medicine may, or may not work, and includes its own complications. Medicine is often a renovation, or if it is a physical injury, you might call it a repair. And it seems like there may be a difference between medicine that attempts to heal a sickness or a disease, versus fixing something like a broken leg, injured in an accident. How can parents be ‘neglecting’ their children if they actually believe that faith heals? These parents are not sitting by and doing nothing to intervene out of disinterest or irresponsibility. They are willfully deciding to take another course of action. And that other course of action is either fully protected by the Constitution or it isn’t.
If the first amendment does not protect faith healing, what sort of free exercise of religion does it protect? What is the point of this freedom, if in practical terms, its freedoms are limited to the freedoms defined elsewhere? I don’t support, or find this explicit religious freedom necessary, and if we are not willing to stick to this freedom, then it would make sense to remove it or refine it. These specific and separate attempts to remedy the harms caused by this freedom are palliative and help to enable its continuation in current form.
Doesn’t supporting this issue also potentially make things problematic for the pro-choice movement because it says that the state can interfere to save the life of a child? Of course a fetus is not necessarily a life, but doesn’t this blur the line regarding the choices that parents can make and conceivably puts us a degree closer to allowing the state to interfere in these sorts of decisions?
-
if they called 'faith healing', 'placebo healing' it would be more accurate, and the results would be the same
so...perhaps one might be allowed to practice this sort of 'healing roulette' on oneself and oneself alone, but should not be allowed to make that same rash decision for a child, or anyone else
and...there should be no question then if a 'death with dignity' law is sensible or not, if placebo healing is allowed -
...and the practitioner will always remain a shady character, a charlatan who takes unfair advantage of someone who is in distress
which is worse? to believe one has been so 'healed'? or someone who believes they have a nonexistent talent, which they would then use to gain recognition, at a minimum, from others?
'rain dance', anyone?
a 'faith healer' meets the basic definition of a person who commits a crime, whether for personal gain or not - a faith healer is a liar, whether a self-deluded liar or a calculated liar -
***
let's consider not referring to political terms as if they were sports terms, it's a bad mix. a better political landscape is not going to be achieved by using stupider terms - the end result of dumbing down is that someone who just lost the last election for governor might win the next time
people couldn't understand the term "conditional rebate"?
-
i feel like i just read something charlie sheen wrote
-
deafened, i think that likely is what you feel quite often and i'd like to suggest you see a doctor about it, if i may - i 'd hate that you'd have a seizure while reading something that didn't match your deluded shoutings
-
Not on the agenda (obviously) session after session after session is "something" very urgently needed which I will again respectfully point out. It is very simple, this "something." What IS this "something"? Why, read on if you dare or if you even care. Caveat: not all state employees do this. In fact, most likely do not do this. But enough seem to..... The State of Oregon is broke. The State of Oregon should be willing to investigate fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer monies. The State of Oregon needs to start with the Oregon University System. If even a small percentage of the fraud, waste and abuse happening in the Oregon University System (not the campuses, OUS) is found also in other State of Oregon agencies AND STOPPED, Oregon could balance its budget sooner rather than later. Just sayin'....nobody seems to be listening....
-
There is no fraud there is no waste your government and mine is fiscally chaste.
How dare you think if even in satire that any in government could even possibly have a felonious flair?
So many times these fine people meet and they manage to spend more then we lay at their feet.
In-deed dear soul surely you jest for Oregon has the very best. . .
That money can buy.
-
Concerning "lolo"
What makes this person think they have a right to come on the board and insult and put down and in every other way imaginable make fun of other's views? His/her own contributions are usually hardly worth the effort of working through her insults and incomprehensibly hateful and offensive messsges. At first I thought it was only me she was insulting, but I find now that it is everybody!
Why someone as bitter and unhappy as this person even bothers to post here I can't imagine. Surely they would get just as much satisfaction from their malice standing in front of a mirror and spewing this stuff at her/his own image.
-
really G, why not just admit you are irrational?
if you could stand back and look at yourself and the hatred, self-importance and other discreditable things to be found in what you put up here, you'd be more shocked at your own behavior first
you are among a few who continually post ridiculous, unverifiable, more than insensitive opinions and expect others to just take it without questioning you - what gives you that right? - you can, of course write what you like - but if someone questions the statements' veracity, validity, et c, and you attack the other instead -what do you call that?
I call it Hollow" on your part - if you have opinions, you should have reasons to back them up - if you can't produce that, then why should you be allowed then to insult someone who asks why or how you could believe such a thing - especially when you seem oblivious to the social consequences of the dissemination of such poorly thought-out statements -
why not just admit you are irrational?
truth gives birth to truth - lies give comfort to further lies - that's how i see it
You?
-
It is apparent that faith healing has not been proven effective, which is not the complexity, or the crux, of this issue. A religion could simply put forth that medical care goes against ‘god’s’ will and children who receive medical care will not get to ‘heaven’---which would force us to go back to the actual issue of whether it is okay for parents to restrict access to medical care for religious reasons. And we still have the complexities of things like specific treatments that a religion may be against, such as is the case with Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. I suppose in certain situations it is possible that a blood transfusion might save a child’s life, and may be shown to be more effective over alternative therapies. In the event that the child received an alternative medical therapy which did not work and the child died, would the parents be guilty of criminally negligent homicide, even though they tried a less effective medical therapy? Are there degrees to this alleged negligence? How blurred and thin are these lines?
-
Unfortunately, it's not going to work out for us to discuss faith healing on this show, but we hope to get to on a future show when we're live from the Legislature.
-
Sobriety Check Points
Not only unconstitutional but a waste of time and resources. Are we at a point of diminshing returns? How many drink drivers will slip through sobriety drag nets? More concerned by drivers talking on cell phones than drink drivers. Every day I encounter drivers who violate driving laws and they're most likely abusing drugs other than alcohol.
I will accept more risk and responsibility to keep the state out of my business. Today we seem hell bent to replace personal responsibility with excessive legislation. We don't want to pay for the government we have so why are we talking about adding another expensive and unnecessary government yoke?
-
Agreed... they would also be ineffective in an era of mass mobile communications.
-
Sobriety Checkpoints, Faith Healing, and Child Bike Carriers? Sorry these are not pertinent issues when Oregon and America are facing the LARGEST FISCAL CRISIS IN HISTORY.
Salem is either trying to distract the citizens or are essentially paralyzed for any new initiatives because THERE IS NO MONEY!
I have a zero cost legislative proposal: Make the Toupe, the Official Hairpiece of the State of Oregon. And if my memory serves me we still have no official State of Oregon Tattoo, despite half our citizens being marked.
Nero played his fiddle to while a way the time while Rome burned. I wonder if Justin Bieber can play a fiddle-Jazz fusion concert for eager music listeners?
-
on at least one point you are wrong - there is money - a lot of money - enough money to pile it up and reach outer space, at least the closest part of it-
and where is it - all this money which seems to have 'disappeared'?
it's in the bankers' vaults, unused but counted - every day counted - you've heard the tales of Midas?, or is that so old even you've forgotten it?
the bankers, the industrialists, those who showed a certain rather anti-social sort of incentive - ah! incentive - the american bait -
our form of government is only as corrupt as you or i allow ourselves to be bought out, or terrified into a corner, by those who have corralled the money into their corner where they hold it hostage, as if we would harm it and they are saving it
and they reward themselves handsomely for their carrying out of this duty which they arrogated unto themselves - and this is what they mean by 'american incentive'- and they proffer it as if they would let you into their club -
not even by the backdoor, buddy
makes one feel real included, don't it?
makes me just want to hug a banker or industrialist to death
- that's a slangy phrase, isn't it?
-
Has there been any coverage of Senate bill SB555 and House bill HB2214? These are identical bills with bi-partisan support in the House requiring medical insurance to cover autism spectrum disorders. Right now most medical insurance plans in Oregon don't cover autism instead directing their patients towards state and public school system services or providing very limited coverage of some services (OT and speech). Almost half of the US states have similar mandates. The public testimony in the House on HB2214 was held on 2/8/11, with many medical professionals, researchers, providers, and parents (including legislators) testifying in support of the bill. The public testimony in the Senate on SB555 was held on 2/16/11 for supporters of the bill. Senate also held testimony on SB555 on 2/28/11 to give insurance industry a chance for their testimony. One of the insurance companies stated their support for the bill (they just lost a federal case requiring them to cover ABA treatment for autism in Oregon, they are the only provider right now in Oregon that has to cover ABA). The audio for all the hearings is available on-line. This is a very important issue for Oregon since the number of people living with autism is growing. At the House hearing on 2/8/11 one of the legislators mentioned that 20 Oregon legislators have family members with autism--from children to grandchildren, nephews, etc.
-
I have serious concerns about the bonding portion on the UO New Partnership proposal. If we allow the UO to have a $800 MILLION bond, it would nearly max out our debt capacity and prevent Oregon’s other public universities from erecting a building for 5-10 years. Also, as we have seen through the last couple of years, the endowment market is quite unstable. The average endowment is down 25-35% from 3 years ago. That means that if the New Partnership had gone into effect as recently as 2007, it could have already LOST $240 MILLION - or more - of the taxpayers’ money on a high risk investment. This proposal is too large of a risk!
-
I'm the son of two UO graduates and was on the faculty for eight years.
In these times we need to work together more as a community and as a state - not let the more affluent segments split off to curry their own separate success.
UO regularly behaves like an 800 pound gorilla. At the same time, it has thrived on the slender leash of OSSHE oversight. Please don't let the spoiled gorilla off the leash.
-
What I haven't heard addressed:
How can the UO buy out 140+ years of equity that taxpayers have paid into the institution?
Also, Phil Knight was quoted in the Oregonian as saying the change would first allow UO to charge Oregonians more for tuition -- they're not paying enough, he said -- and would allow it to operate as a private university. So, how is this good for Oregonians?
-
Concerning the Sobriety check points. Fortunately, I have complete confidence in Oregon voters on this one. We have consistently voted down attempts to infringe on the state constitution. Fine, put it on the ballot, but it is going down. I would have hoped that Senator Monroe would have been a little more insightful about this.
And enough with the statistics, figures lie and liars figure.
-
These "studies" this pro-checkpoint apologist quotes, are what a bunch of uninformed folks think, not what really happens -
Checkpoints - something reminiscent of an occupied land - occupied by armed forces, stopping people in the night without cause -
what does that remind you of - Utopia, big-brother, the over-lords, a chance for a bribe to be exchanged? Which does it remind YOU of most?
-
Sobriety checkpoints
We already have enough of a police state, we don't need to take it any further.
Invading everybodys' privacy to catch a few who are doing wrong is offensive to the rights of the many.
-
I tend to think that it is better to address this problem through education towards prevention.
-
Sobriety Check Points -
I am proud to live in a state that protects our individual civil liberties. While drunk driving is a terrible social scurge, we should use tools to combat the problem that don't encroach on our constitutional rights. While it might sound boring, education, social pressure, and enforcement are all acceptable ways to reduce the problem without reducing our rights as citizens.
-
Recently the Supreme Court defended the rights of bigots, fueled by religion, to have the right to voice their sickened speech in the most unfortunate of circumstances, because we believe these rights are just that important regardless of their hurtful nature or the hurt they cause. There are all sorts of ways that we could potentially give up rights that are essential to our free democracy, that might make things safer, that might save lives, that might make things more pleasant and convenient for certain people, but these rights are fundamental and supersede other concerns.
-
RE sobriety checkpoints: The proponent of this bill has not yet stated anything resembling hard data proving that a relinquishing of rights under the STATE constitution would reap a benefit not otherwise available. His reference to an unspecified "survey" from Arizona is useless: in case he hasn't noticed, Oregonians don't view things the same way as do the more conservative Arizonans.
In Oregon, we have--thank goodness--a separate constitution from the national one. This separate guarantee of rights allows us to provide a higher level of protection for our state's citizens. The people of Oregon do not believe that sobriety checkpoints are a vaild use of governmental power, as they are not based on probable cause (actually "reaonable suspicion" for a police stop). Were we to allow one "little" infringement on our separate, greater rights, we would have no excuse for preventing any others. As Ben Franklin is reputed to have said, "Any nation [state] that gives up a little liberty for a little security will lose both."
-
I severely disagree with Sobriety Checkpoints. I moved to Oregon from the state of Georgia 5 years ago, where the police force uses Sobriety Checkpoints. In my opinion, they don't actually work as intended. They are a huge pain in the rear for ordinary citizens, take up a lot of time and they make me feel like I live behind the iron curtain (where I had a job for a short time). The points are usually easy to spot from a distance away, even if you don't have friends that can let you know where it is -- so that if a drunk driver, for example, is aware of their state they can turn around and avoid it.
I feel that Sobriety Checkpoints are lazy policing and pick apart normal law abiding citizens for things like break lights out and other silliness. I realize one should have a car on the road in good working order, but having lived in an area where Sobriety Checkpoints ARE used, they seem grossly ineffective and border on harassment. If the state legislature is looking for something to use to improve crime rates further, perhaps they can look into implementing courses for the police force that promote better communication skills, since Portland police are especially infamous for shooting first and asking questions later or not at all.
Thank you.
-
It is concerning to focus too readily on whether sobriety checkpoints work. It is certainly possible that they have some effect, and perhaps there are reliable statistics to show that they do some good. But, if they work fantastically well, are they then acceptable to us? The issue is not whether they work, it is whether we want to have our liberties infringed upon in order to allow them. If they are statistically shown not to work, this knowledge can certainly be a useful fact to combat their legalization, because they would be found unnecessary. But this is not the place we will most likely end up. We will probably arrive at a gray area that will require us to defend the central issue of whether they are in opposition to the rights we value.
-
I am against these check points> all they are is a device to keep cops, lawyers, judges , social workers, prison guards and tow truck drivers flush with money.
I would love to see Oregon take the lead with a bill requiring proof of eligibility for the office of president and vice president >>Oregon can put this matter to rest >.the poineer spirit of Oregonians is not afraid to seek the truth no matter where it may lead.
“There is no truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world”. Thomas Jefferson
-
so now, look above at who's channeling some television lunatic- a glen beck wannabee
SO, how is Joe Biden suspect? He's catholic or something else you don't like? - your list is just too big
you're a barrel of monkeys, deafened - keep it up - you entertain more than you frighten, now that we're more used to you
-
If anyone agrees to have roadblocks, they are insane. I have lived in a state like that and it's like living in a police state.
Additionally, you're just paying policemen to stand around and be lazy. I'd much rather them be out patrolling.
-
Comments are now closed.
Faith healers should be allowed to follow their practices even if they perish in the process. As long as faith practioners don't impact the state or others with their practices, the state should butt out. Yes, people are going to die unecessarily, but that is a choice we should have has individuals.
Let's abolish the kicker. It doesn't kick in enough to warrant further use. We're in a deep hole and digging deeper while the kicker hasn't done much to offset the pain. Instead of messing around with kickers lets stabalize the economy.
The state's ability to determine what revenues will be available from an unstable system riddled with loopholels, and subject to the vagaries of man-made and environmental influences, will always behave unpredictably.
Somehow we need to disabuse ourselves that we can grow our economy or print enough cash to get out of the boom-and-bust cycles that create more harm than benefit.
E.F. Schumaker's book, Small Is Beautiful, offers ideas on how we might design sustainable economic systems that work for people and the environment. Revisit concepts like: oil is not income, it is capital.
We spend irreplaceable captial by harvesting oil. We are too slow to develop new sources of energy to replace oil. Oil will run out and we won't be able to produce more. Oil running out will particularly affect the U.S.A.
Support SB525. Decrease waste caused by unwanted phone books.
Opposed to HB2228. Bans bike baby carriers.
Most important. Insurance companies that raise health care premiums 10% per quarter without having to validate increases cause immense harm to society. Senator Chip Shields works to put teeth into the state agency that approves insurance premium rate increases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ0pUYZHYYk
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/02/experts_tell_senate_committee.html