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

As an atheist, I find it very easy to swallow that the earth does indeed need to have very particular environmental "settings" for life to exist.  This is why life does not exist on the other planets in our solar system--at least not in a way that we are able to recognize and is likely fairly rare in the universe.  Not because some holy being set the knob at a certain setting but because the astronomical phenomena that created the planet had to happen in a very particular way for there to be a mix of carbon, water, oxygen etc. that supported life. 

I agree with you scottmil on your earlier entry about the existential component of this issue although I would argue a simple premise that humans are in large part good.  Yes we do incredibly horrible things and perpetuate horrendous calamity on the planet but as individual beings I believe we are larely good.  And for the sake of that goodness I will continue to fight for a just, beatiful, and loving life on this planet.  It all may prove futile in the end--ie, humans' time on this planet may be nearly done but I will continue to fight as much for the plants and animals that we take down with us as for the generations that come next.  It is only human and I believe our humanity is largely in tact only clouded by consumerism.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Lord Moncton--or Lord Monckton--is NOT a scientist.  He, like Al Gore, is a politician and writer.  He is NOT an expert on climate change. His beliefs go against scientific evidence and the scientific community at large. One can't argue with that sort of belief.  Lord Monckton may in fact believe the earth is not round even though most of us can see that it is when we experience an eclipse.  He is entitled to believe this and any number of things he wishes to believe but debating him about such things? Riduculous and futile.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

It is in fact not his life he was lying to save, it was his political cache.  It's a bit tough to be taken seriously as a supporter of education for instance when you are having sex with a student. 

If I were to show the same poor judgement that Mr. Adams repeatedly demonstrated I would surely lose my job and deservedly so.  It is JUST HIS JOB that we are talking about really.  A very public and elevated job for which he is now shown to be sorely unfit to have...IMO. 

And sexually repressed culture...yes...that doesn't make what he did or his lying okay and that you seem suggest this is so is disturbing.  Beau was a kid.   Period.  Was he sexually persuing Mr. Adams?  Possibly.  Again, if a 10 year old wanted to have sex with you, would you say yes?  And would that be okay?  There are limits because children, ESPECIALLY GAY CHILDREN, are vulnerable.  And no matter how sexualized Beau was (or perhaps because of how sexualized Beau was) he still deserved protection from a MUCH older man in power.

posted 3 years, 12 months ago
view in context

Yes Scott, there are indeed good, noble reasons to lie.  Lying for personal gain is not one of those good and noble reasons. 

posted 3 years, 12 months ago
view in context

It had quite a lot to do with a certain teenager.  And you bet I protested in the streets against the Iraq war and Bush's lies.

posted 3 years, 12 months ago
view in context

And I reiterate...if Mr. Adams were a Republican, Portlanders would be in the streets drubbing him out of office.  This is actually just another form of homophobia--we (as queers and democrats) are afraid to go against one of our own because we don't want to divide "the movement". This issue has made me a bit embarrassed for our city and our movement.

posted 3 years, 12 months ago
view in context

This man using being gay as an excuse for Sam to lie is apalling.  Sam is a white man(straight acting, even) in one of the most liberal cities in the US.  Being a supporter of Mr. Adams is one thing--being an apologist for his lying is quiet another.

posted 3 years, 12 months ago
view in context

Grew up in rural Ohio, hardly a bastion of liberalism.

posted 3 years, 12 months ago
view in context

I am a 37 year old gay woman.  Been out since I was 14.

posted 3 years, 12 months ago
view in context

I'm not saying burn Sam at the stake.  I'm saying, as a queer and a democrat, he does not represent me nor do I think he belongs in office given he lied to get there, continued to lie afterwards and told a teen to lie as well.  I wouldn't hire someone who lied in this manner to mow my yard and certainly don't want him running our city.

posted 3 years, 12 months ago
view in context

To Scottmil: Where do we draw the line?  We could start with looking at brain development--a 17 years olds brain is not fully formed.  Where do YOU draw the line?  If a 10 year old says, sure I'll kiss you there, is that consent?  Is that okay?

posted 3 years, 12 months ago
view in context

So Beau lies because Mr. Adams tells him to and now he has less credibility than Mr. Adams?  This is ridiculous.

And to Bluna, a 42 year old man in power having a relationship with a teenager is wrong--morally and legally.  Lying about it and accusing an opponent of a smear campaign is also wrong.  Back Sam if you like, but do it knowing you are backing a deeply flawed man and a habitual liar. 

As a queer in Portland I DO NOT support Mr. Adams and I dare say if he had an "R" next to his name rather than a "D" Portlanders would be in the streets in droves.

posted 3 years, 12 months ago
view in context

The Willamette Week clearly tried to get Sam to tell the truth long before Inauguration day. It was Sam who finally decided to tell the truth then...conveniently...he is ever the politician. And as a 37 year old queer I too know what it means to not be truthful about my sexuality. However, I have NEVER had sex with a TEEN while I was in my 30's and certainly not with a TEEN who was in a position of submission to me. Sam lied because he KNEW what he did was wrong.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I for one would be equally (and possibly more) upset if this were an 18 year old girl. As a queer I don't care about that particular fact of this story. It's about the AGE, the inferior position (an INTERN and a CITY COUNCIL MEMBER), and the lying that is the issue. Sam has shown extraordinarily BAD JUDGMENT. Are we becoming so accustomed to this in our politicians that we aren't willing to stand up to it? Have you had sex with a TEEN who was in a position of submission to you--a student of yours, someone you coached on a team? Would you think it was okay for YOU to do?

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

We don't know if it was legal. Are we to believe Sam on this? And without the legal issue there is still the issue that this was an 18 year old BOY, MANY years younger than Sam and in a very inferior position to Sam. This is wrong on many levels--legal or not. At the least it shows poor judgment. At worst it is a sign of grooming and abuse. Sam not only needs to resign--he needs to enter therapy.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

This isn't just about having consensual sex. It's about JUDGMENT. Having this relationship with a TEENAGER, lying about it to your staff and to the public--making the public and reporters feel guilty for suggesting this was the case--this all shows VERY POOR JUDGMENT. You had a nice run at politics Sam. Time to get a real job...you're done.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context