2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal 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 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 portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

By the way.... if a giant corporation truly can not afford to contribute $150 instead of $10..... believe me, they're ALREADY in trouble..... "losing jobs" isn't the issue.  Any business that is so in the red that $150 will put it under was destined to be "put under" very soon anyway....

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

The campaign against Measure 67 self-righteously calls itself "Oregonians Against Job Killing Taxes," threatening economic harm if the measure passes.  Absolutely not true!  What about all the teachers, service providers, community college instructors and more who will be laid off if it fails?  Your first guest, Dave Lundhal, says the small increase in taxes will not adversely impact his business, nor his hiring practices... even in a recession.  How can anyone possibly argue that if Measure 67 passes, corporate giants will lay people off in droves simply because they will now pay more than $10 a year in taxes -- when we KNOW for certain that HUNDREDS in the public sector WILL be lost?  As taxpayers, we end up paying even MORE if that happens, because of increased unemployment costs, food stamps, and assistance to laid off public employees who will be left in absolute poverty? 

I do NOT work for the government, and I never have.  But we need to think through this to the end.  Do we really want the long term pain NOT passing these measures will cause to our state?  Higher class sizes, more unfilled potholes and deteriorating streets, more unemployed public section workers, higher fees to offset the loss in state revenues, massive tuition hikes at public universities and community colleges - in the midst of slashing course offerings? 

As a low income individual, I made $16,000 last year and paid $817 in state income tax.  And I don't mind doing that.  My taxes help to fund the QUALITY of live I believe in, so that all Oregonians can have access to education, parks, roads, and desperately needed care for low income seniors.  But what I DO have a problem with is that I paid 800 PERCENT MORE than the average big corporation, which only paid $10.  THAT IS SIMPLY WRONG, and completely out of balance.  We all need to contribute our fair share - and that especially includes Corporate Giants who can AFFORD to contribute more.... but may not want to.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Alcohol use has reached epidemic proportions on college campuses.  Robert Eisinger is clearly a right-wing Republican, and since "nobody's perfect," I can forgive him for that... 

If he's going to offer money to students who quit smoking, why not also offer money to students who abstain from alcohol?   No one has ever killed anyone on the road because he was driving under the influence of nicotine - not even long time smokers - and yet a first-time binge drinker can go out and take more than a few lives the first night he takes a drink.  Isn't that just as much of a threat to public health?

Yet Big Alcohol is free to advertise in ways to promote alcohol as being fun and a great way to meet beautiful women while having a good time.  It's no wonder that binge drinking has skyrocketed among our youth.  How many millions of dollars will we be paying for their treatment later on - and how many unnecessary deaths will continue before we realize it's time to change our public policy? 

OPB, how about a show on alcohol use?

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Why have we focused so much on tobacco as "the big evil" while completely ignoring the greater evil of Big Alcohol?  The alcohol industry has virtually no limits on advertising, and Oregon has among the lowest beer and wine taxes in the nation.  Yet alcohol kills thousands of innocent victims on the road each year.  If we're going to have prescriptions for tobacco, why is no one proposing prescriptions for alcohol as well?  Or at the very least, increasing the tax on alcohol to equally discourage its use, and provide resources for alcohol treatment.

By the way, Mitch Greenlick, the tobacco industry CAN'T advertise to kids, and, in fact, is mandated by law to provide anti-smoking advertising and resources under the Master Settlement Agreement. 

And how many dollars have you taken from the alcohol industry to fund your campaigns for reelection?  Tobacco  may be impolitic now, but Big Alcohol is a MAJOR contributor to Oregon politicians.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Nathan Dahlin said his kicker check was for $130, and that he was a student at PSU.  PSU is a public university, and as such, it is ABLE to charge less tuition - making higher education more affordable to lower income families and individuals - precisely BECAUSE the state has made an investment in public education with state revenues.  If the state had NOT provided that money to help keep tuition low and affordable, Nathan would have had to pay much more.  The ACTUAL COST of his education at PSU, without any state investment, would be more like a private college - somewhere between $12,000 and $30,000 a year. 

Why would anyone want $130 in "loose change" from the kicker, in exchange for slashing our investment in K-12 education, road repair, parks, open space, and PSU?  If it weren't for the investment of tax dollars in education, he would be paying THOUSANDS MORE in tuition - well BEYOND the mere $130 he gets in a kicker.

Tax revenue is an investment in the future, enabling education to be accessable to all.  I could never afford to go to the community college without it - and neither could thousands of other Oregonians who are unemployed (like I am) and desperately NEED that access to AFFORDABLE education and retraining.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

WAY too much pro-drug focus OPB!!!  I'm a young person who has seen the affect of so called "harmless" drugs like pot, and witnessed the mind-slowing, mind-numbing, delayed-reaction impacts of marijuana.  Medical pot is just an excuse to use it while snubbing the police.  I've known WAY too many so called "medical" users who said "I can't use as much as I want, I've got a card!"  There's no dosing, no follow up from a qualified medical professional, and no maximum use amounts.  Would we do the same thing for painkillers like Oxycontin or Moraphine?  Can you picture a doctor signing a card and saying "take as many pills as you like?"  And yet we do the same thing for pot, and call it medicine.  At the same time, we have so heavily demonized tobacco cigarettes (while de-emphasizing pot) that we are actually reaching a point where tobacco use is shunned, but you can use marijuana all you want.  Absolutely rediculous!   Studies are indicating that nicotine actually has thereapuetic benefit for conditions like Parkinsons, breast cancer, and Attention Deficit Disorder.  Yet we would laugh at considering the use of "medicinal tobacco."  At the same time, no one has EVER killed anyone because he was driving under the influence of nicotine.  By contrast, people HAVE died in train accidents because the conductor had used pot in the last 24 hours.  Medical nicotine?  Don't look for campaigns to promote it anytime soon.  Yet we actually SUPPORT the idea that "everyone should be a pot head" - first by trying to pretend its medicine, then by getting full legalization and selling it at convenience stores to minors - when pot slows the brain and is basically like drinking booze.  It simply doesn't make sense.  Please, go kill your brain cells in the drug infested jungles of Central America.  The terrorists will thank you.

And by the way OPB, please STOP the pro-drug mantra.  Today's program was WAY TOO HEAVILY SLANTED toward the "lets all get high" mentality, with precious little counterpoint to the pothead from Seattle.  It would have been much more fair to have BOTH sides of the pot debate represented.  I'm appalled at your lack of consideration for the destruction these substances cause in families everywhere.  All while everyone naively thinks its harmless.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

In response to Jim who called in to the show, how can anyone possibly suggest that transgender surgery shouold be illegal, suggesting it was no different than asking a surgeon to cut off your arm? Oregon is built on progressive values, and I am proud to live in Portland, which should really be called "the other San Fransico." While I am not gay, nor transgender myself, I believe strongly in the inherant value of the indivual, that we are each CREATED by a loving God to be unique, beautiful, and worthy as a person. Every one of us DESERVES to be treated with respect, love, and dignity, no matter who we may be, BECAUSE we are EACH unique and wonderful in who we are inside. NONE OF US would want to be treated differently or shunned, or put down, or ostrisized, for any reason, and words and feelings can be just as hurful as anything else. How we are treated MATTERS, and we as a society - and as individuals - should strive to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us," and in so doing, to love each person without any judgements or assumptions. I applaud the courage of these indivuals to be themselves, and I am proud to live in Oregon, where they can.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Bill Sizemore is at it again! Doesn't he know the voters have had enough? This time, he's bringing back the SAME ballot measures we already said "no" to before. Why is not respecting the will of the voters? Like a bad meatloaf coming back with heartburn, here he goes again, wasting taxpayer dollars by forcing the Secretary of State's office to count and verify signatures — despite his court conviction on fraud — and adding further time and expense just to count all the votes. Sizemore is known for writing his proposals so INEPTLY that lawmakers have been forced to correct his mistakes for him, as in measures 47 and 50, delaying the rule of law and wasting our scant public resources even more. Furthermore, in a time when unemployment is up, Wall Street is collapsing, and many Oregonians are struggling just to meet their basic needs, Sizemore insists on hijacking the electoral process by letting ONE out of state millionaire, Loren Parks, bankroll his entire operation. Democracy should come from the people, not ONE MAN living in Nevada who can afford to dictate the political process with his millions.

As for measure 64, I am not a teacher, nor a public employee — but I CARE about the future of our beautiful state. The reality is that paying teachers based on merit means forcing them to "teach to the test," rather than teaching to the hearts and minds of our children. We should be encouraging them to grow as individuals, not turning them into sterile test-taking robots. Furthermore, no teacher, no matter how gifted, can FORCE anyone to do well on a test. Sadly, there will always be a handful of unmotivated students who do not care about school and could care even less about flunking a test. Measure 64 gives way too much power to these few unruly, disruptive students who may intentionally fail their tests, simply to lower the pay of teachers they do not like. By contrast, a well rounded education should encourage students to do well by fostering a love of learning from deep within, rather than harnessing them with the undue burden of passing or failing solely for the sake of their teacher's pay.

After all, if we base teacher pay on test scores, who will want to teach the students who need our help the most? It's the students with learning disabilities or those from abusing homes who need our best teachers the most. But these are the very groups who tend to perform the worst on standardized tests. By linking pay to the tests, we discourage our best and brightest educators from being willing to work in the worst parts of town, or in the classes where their help is needed the most. Do we really want a system where no one wants to work in special education, or at an alternative school, simply because the kids may not perform as well on tests? If anything, it is those very teachers who have sacrificed the most, and they are the ones who should be paid the best. As usual, Sizemore got it backwards again.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context