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

For me, the father of a primary school daughter, is the ability of the educational system to provide my daughter with the knowledge based tools to be a successful member of our society. Parents are the primary teacher for their children. It is our responsiblity to educate our children - not the school.  We stand next to our children to guide and understand things in life they encounter and which my be confusing, difficult to understand, or emotonally stressful. This includes sex education.  If the school emphasizes something different from our values or expectations its our job as parents to help our children understand why.  Until we as parent become knowledgable and comfortable about sex education many of us will react with anger and fear about its open discussion in any format, but especially school.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

The reality is that politics rule.  Automobile drives have historically been the more powerful political groujp. Bike riders now exert more political power.  Therefore more bike lanes. Pot holes go unrepaired, enforcement of bike laws for bikers are ignored.  In the future the people who walk will rule once bikers reach their peak of power and become complacant as automobile drivers.  Such is the cycle of life.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I completely agree with you and recommend: The War Against Boys" by Christina Hoff Sommers.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

What can society expect from "....snakes, and snails, and puppy dog tails" ?  Its not the same message as "...sugar and spice and everything nice" for sure. Society is protective of girls but punish boys.

Whatever becomes of our children, boys or girls, society is responsible.  Read the "War Against Boys" by Christina Hoff Sommers who researched how feminism has harmed our boys. Read the works of Dr. Warren Ferrell and the evolution of his thinking about men in his books.  In the Liberated Male he underscores the feminist philosophy that men are the problem. In The Myth of Male Power he recognizes men as just as much a victim of society as women.  Then there is Herb Goldbert book The Super Male.

Then look at how men are viewed on TV and in the movies in relationship to women.  In TV commericals men are almost always the fool, dummy, brainless, sports nuts to the smart, wise, tolerant woman.  When is the last time you say a dumb blonde in a TV commerical ?  Even Bill Crosby's character as a father was something of a powerless dummy to his smart, decisive wife.

The single most damaging thing to our boys are the absence of an engaged, caring, supportive, limit setting, high expectations father in their life.  Robert Bly, a famous American Poet stated, a mother can raise a male baby to boyhood but only a man can raise a boy to manhood.  Most girls have their mother but few boys have their father.  In elementary school the vast majority of teachers are females. Females who have matured in the mist of feminist anger, philosophy and perspective. Is there any wonder boys struggle in every aspect of their developmental challenges  with such a stark absence of engaged positive males in their life? 

The problem with boys is that women rose up and continue to rise up in defense of girls; while men remain silent and absent while our boys are psychologically emasculated.  And we wonder why boys are angry, violent, and lost ? Where are the champions for boys ?

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

NEWS FLASH - Boys are significantly different from girls. Major societal systems are insensitive to and ignore the needs of boys. Frequently boys who have been sexually abuse or suffer from depression act out and schools respond with discipline.  Girls cry and get support and services. Boys are more likely to be the victim of physical discipline and/or physical abuse. Such boys frequently respond with physical aggression against others and are disciplined.

Our children are the birds in the cage in the coal mines (families) of society. They are the first to manifest the sickness in their family and in society in general. Shouldn't we stop focusing on the false dichotomy in this respect and put our focus, energies, and resources on why we deny our children, both girls and boys, the full opportunities to achieve their maxium potential.

Like the Republican echo chamber, an evolution of special interest groups have evolved, however unintentional or deliberate, who advocate for women at the expense of boys.  Are women only responsible for the welfare of girls and women and its the responsibility of men to advocate for men and boys ?  When it comes to children, why an exclusive focus on only one gender by any particular researcher ? 

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Well stated.  Men are required as boys to disassociate from their feelings. Especially to not acknowledge physical pain least they be viewed as less than a man; or show tears least they be considered less than a man. In my day it was become a medical doctor to earn lots of money to get a beautiful girl/woman. Be successful to attract a beautiful girl/woman. 

I always imagine how we as a society speak with horror and negative tones about the man who dressed up as a woman to escape a sinking ship.  He should have been willing to die rather than escape certain death that way.  The solider who will charge up a hill to certain death in combat rather than be called a coward.  Yes, men too have their burden.  And sometimes it really does kill us.  Being an emotional rack is far better than being dead.

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

This is true for both men and women. Its our schizophrenic and contradictory clash between sex and Christian ethics.  We really need to stop focusing on gender when the real issues are transgender and global in nature.  Enough with the victimhood of women. Its the victimhood of of everyone.

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

I do not understand the conflict. Allow people to designate on the petition whether or not they agree to have their names public. The issue is where you draw the line.  We have, until now, chosen to draw the line at the voting booth. It could just as easily have been drawn at the petition. Wherever the line is drawn it will be arbitrary.  Who you vote for is just as much a free speech isssue as it is a political statement.  Any argument for making petition signatures public apply equally to making voter preference for candidates and ballot measures public.  Its not an "either or" proposition. Given the ability to quickly create databases and use this information to challenge, intimidate, or even contact people, the public access law needs to be revisited.

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Rape is not rape when sex is consensual.  Rape is not rape when there is reasonable doubt it was not rape i.e. both individuals suffered from disminished mental capacity.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I completely agree with you.  Rape is a terrible crime. So is being charge with rape when its not altogether clear the person is guilty.  A person being assaulted by a stranger on a street or a situation where the victim is unconsciousness or mentally disabled is one thing.  Two people getting drunk and waking up in bed is a different story.  How can either person really know what happened, whether consent was given or honestly thought it was given.  Why is one person excused from accountability because they voluntarily had diminished mental ability while the other person who also may have had voluntarily diminished mental ability is held accountable.  In the absence of an admission, evidence of force or witness it comes down to one person's perception of what actually happened against another person's perception of what actually happened. 

I believe this proposed law goes too far by placing the burden of proof on the accused.  Simpley being accused of rape leaves a stain on the reputation of the accused not to mention the financial and emotional damage.  Creating another victim is not justice.

Given the lack of backbone in political leaders and the horrors of rape and the need to punish someone I have little doubt this law will pass.  No politician wants to be accused of voting against punishing someone for rape, even the innocent.

Ms. Herrman dismissive statement that only 2-3% of accusations of rape are false does not take into account the percentage of innocent accused who actually go to jail based solely upon the accusation of a victim.  Ms. Herrman asserts a perfect system of justice in which only the guilty are convicted.  But then, she seems to be on a mission and this little detail is unlikely to give her pause or prick her counscious.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

If memory serves me, most sex offenders are not caught, convicted, or punished. Even when a sex offender is caught research shows that such offenders have many, many, more victims than the few identified. There is no just punishment for a sex offender. This is reality. But for every day a sex offender spends locked away, is a potential day of innocence for some child somewhere. We can only take a sex offender out of circulation which is equal to "go to your room" for 5-10 years.

At the same time, anyone can make a mistake.  Not all sex offenders are the same. Every sex offender has to be evaluated in terms of their risk to re-offend.  Those determine to be at risk to re-offend should be permanently kept isolated from society. I have often wished there were two large islands thousands of miles apart. One for males and another for females. Let these adults live out their life among their own without incarceration. If only.....

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

The crime is much worse because they have not only sexually violated that child but violated the trust of that child. The violation of a child's trust in such a manner carries negative consequences for that child for many, many, years.  Its a premediated act and not simply an act of opportunity. This is true for any one of any profession or trusting relationship with a child. The younger the child the more trauma.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

This situation only applies, at least in my experience, when the older person is a male but not when the older person is a female. In my professional experience I have encountered several situations where the male recently turned 17 and his girlfriend was 14 at the time of the sexual contact. At the same time a 16 year old girl became pregnant by a 22 year old but was not charged because the 16 year old refused to cooperate.

As noted in recent news stories, adult females who sexually abuse teenage boys are more likely to get probation than incarceration while a male will definitely be incarcerated.

Society seems to believe teenage boys "get lucky" and not traumatized while girls, even consenting ones, are always traumatized.  How about all children are traumatized by sexual abuse, consenting or otherwise regardless of their age, whether it is obvious or not.  Different children exhibit different reactions at different times to different people.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

This is not rocket science people. An adult who enters a profession which places them in a positions of authority and/or regular contact with children have a higher responsibility to protect such children.  It is there responsibility to recognize recurring inappropriate sexual feelings toward a particular child or children and remove themself. 

Its far more damaging for a child to be offended by someone they trusted than a stranger. This should include any adult whether coach, teacher, minister, rabi, attorney, therapist, school counselor, etc because such sexual abuse must be considered premeditated.  Otherwise, society makes the statement that its child victims that too expensive to protect you, so deal with it.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

America has struggle with sexual issues since and before it was founded as a nation. Its only gotten worse with the passage of time. America is conflicted between sexual freedom and Victorian values.

Sex offenders must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is no cure for sex offenders, their behaviors can only go in remission.  Sex offenders will always be a risk to their community and society. The challenge for communities and society will also be the balance between reasonable risk and rights of the sex offender.  Unless or until communities and society are willing to either incarcerate S.O. for life or give them total freedom following their release, the challenge of this balance will remain.

A bigger problem is the failure of the legislative and judicial system to immediately and appropriately respond to indications an S.O. risk factors have significantly increased.  Such as S.O. failure to strictly comply with the conditions of their release, skipping treatment or dropping out, contact with children or going to places where children are likely to be, isolation from family and/or community support, unemployment and/or lack of effort to secure or maintain employment, etc. Such violations are initially responded to with a lecture or at most a day or two in custody.

And the fact remains, some S.O. will remain a high risk to re-offend and everyone knows it. But the legislative and judicial system simply cannot stomach permanent incarceration until the S.O. original offense is so bad or the number of known and convicted offenses are so high> Why ?  Where is the justice for the victims who could have been protected ?

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Pete, everyone has a right to present their views. Otherwise the station would need to add the words "Selective Public" to its name; and the program would need to also change its name to "Some People Think Out Loud".  Its only through a respectful, candid exchange of views that we grow.  I enjoyed hearing Ms. Starrett views and their basis.  There are any number of people who share her views ust as their are who share yours.  As someone who has yet to develop a view on this topic I welcome her input as I welcome yours.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Tom, this country was established by the weathy and for the weathy. Initially only those who owned property could vote. And yet, a great many people without property gave their lives to found this country.  The poor whites in the south were without jobs because of slavery. And yet, a great many poor whites gave their life in defense of a system that kept them poor and uneducated.  During the 1800s the captains of industry gave legal life and personhood to their corporations.  Corporations continue to pay large sums of money to both major political parties and attorneys/judges to maintain this myth of legal personhood. The Oregon minimum tax has been around a very long time through numerous public financial crisis. Where is the anger of the Oregon voters? Just as poor white defended a system that created their condition, so poor and not so poor Oregonians also defend a tax which contributes to deficit tax revenues for the public good.  Go figure.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I recommend you read "The Disposal American"  When and how the American worker became just another piece of equipment to Employers.  After I read this book a great deal of modern American history and current labor events made a lot more sense to me.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Most Americans, for whatever reason, have a strong sense for "fairness". Its a strong gut feeling for fairness and justice.  This sense is heavily influenced and tainted by our perspective and definition of fairness and justice.  Hence the problem.  I believe, within certain limits, employees should be willing to shoulder some of the financial burden through reduced salary and benefits during difficult economic times.  Especially if such reductions will eliminate or significantly reduce layoffs and help some people keep their job. Employers should also be as quick to restore and reward these employees as economic times improve.

Unfortunately, both private and public employers are slow to restore the salaries and benefits without a fight. Some employers then view employees leaving as opportunities to increase their profits and save money by hiring replacements at a lower salary. Its like the price of a barrel of oil goes up two dollars and the same day the price of gasoline goes up 25 cents.  Then the price of a barrel of oil goes down two dollars and the price of gasoline remains the same or takes several days to go down 10 cents.  Americans as a group have a strong sense of for fairness and justice. Absent this they will resist shouldering additional burdens regardless of how logical and reasonable.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I am confused and conflicted. As others have stated, people live in rural areas to be away from the urban areas. There are advantages and disadvantates to this choice. I do not believe high speed internet is a right. Its not like electricity or telephone service. On the otherhand, rural communities should not be totally excluded from accessing the ability to download relatively large internet files.

It seems the struggle is "where to draw the line".  What about a ranch or house which is relatively isolated or in the middle of nowhere ? Should this family be excluded because its not grouped with several other homes ?  What is the cost-benefit analysis?

Will high speed internet service contribute to more people willingness to live in a rural area which would result in increase population pressures on other resources ?  Should rural communities pay a higher rate ?  Isn't this corporate welfare ?  Why cann't corporations and small businesses who receive such government funding be required repay this investment over time ?

I remain confused and conflicted. I can understand a strong case for both sides.  What I do know is the fact that in the long run neither decision will affect me. Its not like I will pay less taxes if the decision is "No" or more taxes if the decision is "Yes". The other thing I am absolutely certain about is that the world is not fair. Which may include another universal rural internet tax for me added to my universal telephone tax.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context