2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election 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 international 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

In the last few minutes of the program, Todd Simmons showed his true colors--and it was not a pleasant sight. Unable to answer Maggie Gallagher's principled defense of the institution of real--i.e. heterosexual--marriage, he resorted to a personal attack on the messenger and thereby lost the debate.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Your guest mentioned the words 'population policy', shorthand for government coercion in the area of whether or not people choose to have babies. Now let us suppose that some generous couple chooses to have a large family. Will the 'population policy' penalize them? This would seem to violate elementary notions of equal justice. If push comes to shove, would such a 'population policy' come to resemble that in China, where untold numbers of women are forced to have abortions? Or does 'saving the planet' justify just about anything the would-be saviors want to do?

Just wondering.

Bob Harper

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context