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 terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Gerald is completely right! Nothing epitomizes the provincialism of this state like the locals' knee-jerk defense of this state's pathetic response to snow. In the Northeast and the Midwest, this kind of snow would be a non-event. Every town in New Jersey or Illinois would plow and salt EVERY street, not just major thoroughfares. And why the steadfast refusal to use salt? Has anyone really done a study of the environmental damage that salt allegedly causes? The refusal to use salt seems like pure ideological opposition. What about the environmental damage caused by sand and gravel? What about the fact that the lack of salt and plowing causes more people to buy SUV's than otherwise would, which is worse for the environment? Those need to be factored into the analysis.

Also, no one in the rest of the civilized world uses chains, except in the mountains. In no other city with a large population are people getting by with chains. No one has even heard of chains in the Midwest or Northeast; they're viewed as a quaint relic of pre-plowing days.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Darlene Hooley has been a staunch defender of civil liberties despite the Bush administration's attempt to eviscerate them under the guise of the "war on terror." She bravely voted against allowing warrantless wiretapping and against eliminating habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. Would each of you continue her legacy of defending constitutional liberties and opposing the expansion of unchecked executive power? Are you willing to publicly defend such stances against a "law-and-order" demagogue like Kevin Mannix?

posted 5 years ago
view in context

I want to know where the candidates stand on Iraq. Specifically, Mr. Schrader, the frontrunner, does not mention Iraq under "Issues" on his website. Where he does mention it (curiously, in the "About Me" section), he says he just wants to bring home the troops "with honor," whereas Mr. Marks says on his website (prominently under "Issues") that he wants to bring the troops home as "rapidly as possible." Does Mr. Schrader really want to bring the troops home from Iraq and, if so, why is he not mentioning the issue more clearly and prominently on his website?

posted 5 years ago
view in context

Please ask Mr. Dozono why he took money out of a child's trust fund he was supervising and how he could possibly be a good steward of public funds after doing that in the past.

posted 5 years ago
view in context