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

It was very discouraging to hear the criminal defense attorney on the radio assert that the federal definition of terrorism is too broad and should not encompass threats or acts which target property destruction. Does this criminal defense attorney feel that the book should be thrown at those arsonists who intentionally torch a forest? I would like to ask this criminal defense attorney how many acres of forest would need to burn before intentionally setting a forest fire could and should be charged as terrorism under the federal statute? Even if an arsonist guesses right and nobody is in the building (or forest) when the fire is set, firemen called to put out the fire could be hurt or killed. Non-human animals could also be burned. Setting fires or vandalizing medical or research facilities or making veiled or other threats to harm scientists is not the right (or left way) to peacefully make change. I suspect that many of us in the Northwest believe that logging should be limited to private lands, that sacrificing animals for food is reasonable (despite any choice to personally be a vegetarian--biologically humans are omnivores), and that sacrificing animals for medical research is absolutely necessary and saves and betters human lives (humans are complex organisms and you can't test human medical treatments on simple bacteria---we can?t make humans into big guinea pigs to protect the cute little furry ones). Do any of the animal rights extremists let their house cats (an invasive species) roam free and prey on pretty native songbirds? Do they know that letting their house cats roam free heightens the risk that their cats and pregnant women will be infected with toxoplasmosis and that this causes human birth defects and mental retardation? Perhaps they should read about toxoplasmosis on the March of Dimes website and then they might consider a peaceful alternative to ecoterrorism, namely keeping their kitty inside for its health and for the sake of native songbirds and human mothers and children. In general it seems that science in America is under attack from the Right (e.g., the creationists who try to degrade scientific education, the Bush administration for its distortion of science in managing the forest and discharging its duty to protect the environment, the USDA which won't let slaughterhouses test each cow for mad cow disease) and from the Left (the animal rights extremists who threaten plant and animal research facilities and workers). Decisions should be based on best available science. Hug a scientist as well as a tree. Both wonderful and both deserve and need a hug. And keep kitty inside the house for mom?s and baby?s sake and to make Spring a little less silent.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

While Oregon's marine ecosystems may not be as damaged as those in some other parts of the US, I was surprised to hear some people talk on the show about how good things are off the Oregon Coast. it was surprising to hear and read that only 2 of 8 species studied are in trouble. What about the numerous doomed runs of Salmon--they spend much of their life in the ocean? Sea Otters gone; rock fish crashed; dead zones off the Oregon Coast growing; shore-birds dieing of starvation; seas warming and rising; and what about that floating island of trash in the Pacific that is estimated to be twice the size of Texas. I say don't mess with a growing, warming, rising double-Texas of trash on the horizon, just ignore it and race to extract resources like a faithful Bush Republican. Its a complex system, so expect responsible parties to hide in the fog when convenient. The perhaps aptly named Pew Oceans Commission, described the marine ecosystems as in collapse and in a massive May 2003 report recommended a National System of Marine Reserves. Where is the recommended National System of Marine Reserves? Do the extractors have too much influence on the management of the marine environment? In the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (championed by one of its namesakes, Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska) Section 2, Article 7 in part describes the Act as: "A national program for the development of fisheries which are underutilized or not utilized by the United States fishing industry, including bottom fish off Alaska, is necessary to assure that our citizens benefit from the employment, food supply, and revenue which could be generated thereby." Yeah many of us like jobs and seafood, and our demand for these puts pressure on the fisheries. In this regard, you may want to check out the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch guide for consumers. It lists environmentally sensible seafood choices (there may be other lists like this too). Take care little fish and stay in schools.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context