Oregon Public Broadcasting

1st congressional district 2012 election 2012 session agriculture art arts author beer births books budget business central oregon college congress crime culture death penalty eastern oregon economy education employment energy environment eugene fishing food gangs gay rights health health care high school history homeless housing jobs law legislature literature living media mental health military movies music native americans obama occupy portland occupy wall street onthejob oregon our town outdoors parenting police politics portland portland business journal portland mayor pregnancy prison public health race rebroadcast recess recession religion republicans rural schools science shooting sports supreme court talking business technology teen theater unemployment union university of oregon washington water weekend women youth

Amen.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Since our small breweries are one of our finest 'exports' (items produced in Oregon that actually get sold outside of oregon) I would be against this HUGE raise in the tax.  If you really think it needs to be raised, raise it, but do it in smaller increments so the breweries can absorb the costs in a sane and safe manner.  Of course, if you manage to close all the little guys, you won't wind up with any tax to speak of and will only end up screwing yourselves and the beer makers both.  Also loosing a small but significant number of jobs, in the process.    The tax on business that hasn't been raised in so long...how does it compare to other states???  Again, may be incremental hikes would be more fair?  Again we don't want to drive business away from the state or we will end up with a net loss.   Besides, I guess I feel like you are talking about penalizing the folks who are respossibly using oregon products  - wish three was some way to make the dealers anda busers pay for the problems.... 

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I am with the current caller - what's with the whole 'grooming' thing??? If it was an 18 year old female would she be being 'groomed' to be...what? a woman? Geeze. Talk about homophobia... 18 is old enough to vote and certainly old enough to know what you want to do and try, even if you don't settle on it for the rest of your life. Bottom line folk, EVERYONE lies about sex. What does this have to do with politics?

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Premise: You have a goal (a good one). You have done nothing wrong, but it could be percieved that you might have and if there is any controversy about it, you will loose your any chance at your goal. What do you do? Abandon your goal and the chance to do what you see as some real good in your world? Or lie and hope it all works out, since you really didn't do anything wrong in the first place? Like I said - a great one for the ethics classroom. Way sticky when you get it in real life.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

If Sam had NOT lied during the campaign, he might have been cleared of any wrong doing before the actual election, but due to the nature of the allegation probably would not have been elected. I doubt any clear outcome could have been reached to everyones satisfaction before the election concluded. So what choices did he have? This is a GREAT subject for anyone in an ethics class right now. It doesn't matter whether the facts are as stated or not - he had to chose what was the best way to win the election. He's a politician. Is anyone really truely surprised he made the choice he did? Was it right? Is lieing EVER right? whew. I suggest that anyone could make a case in either direction on this one...especially if you consider the possiblility that he is really telling the truth about what happened, now. He certainly isn't the first person to make a poor decision when faced with a pretty, intelligent and very young love interest. If he is being truthful about ages, then his only 'crime' is lieing about the facts during the election campaign. I am afraid I can't make a clear case - for myself - either way. I can understand exactly why he made the choice he made without condoning it. I have never wanted to make the kind of difference you can make by taking on a public office...so can't really identify with his motivation. Can you?

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Should have mentioned this before. I used to work on the coast - swing shift - with a commute between Newport and Lincoln City (the return trip after midnight). Had a flat tire one rainy night and a guy literally came our of some bushes near a subdivision to help me change it. All I had was my heavy duty flashlight. Scared the heck outta me. Turned out ok, but I talked to my boss about it and he allowed me to take a firearm to work as long as it stayed locked in my locker during my shift and only came out when I went home. I never applied for the CCP because it WAS subject to public knowledge. I didn't think it was anyones business. So when I carried, I did it openly (with the gun either on the dash or seat next to me) for those late night commutes. There are many cases where this would not be possible. I was lucky.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

This information should be private. If you have passed the backround check and taken the course to recieve this permit, folks should not have to worry about you. You don't have to worry about the person with the CCP standing behind you with the concealed gun - it's the crackhead outside your bedroom window you should be worried about. How many crimes with guns have been commited by folks with concealed carry permits? You can bet we'd be hearing about it loud and long from our 'unbiased' free press is there was anything going on there.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Having mandatory minimum sentences MIGHT be a deterent to some criminals- on the other hand, why do we have Judges if not to determine the best punishment for the convicted criminal standing before the bench? Do we need better judges may be? Bottom line---if we don't fund the building of new prisons and/or do something about the way the whole prison system is run in this state, all the minimum sentencing laws in the world won't help the crime problem. Do you want them to do early release on rapists and armed robbers just so there will be room for the folks who will be placed in jail mandatorily with more of these laws? Remember what happened to the system last time we passed on of these laws? I wholeheartedly agree that we need to get tough with habitual offenders (especially of crimes that do so much harm to the people and communities of Oregon), but you know, I am willing to bet that we loose more people (that more people DIE) to drunk drivers than we do to our Meth addicts and we can't seem to keep them off the streets either. I don't think either of these measures should pass unless and until the people of this state commit to housing the criminals we are saying we want the courts to take out of circulation. As for the madatory treatment programs - again, great idea!!! Needed idea - how can you expect someone to cure themselves of something like a Meth addiction???? When they are released without any treatment they will go back and reoffend as soon as they can. But again -- where is the money for these programs to come from? We don't have enough jail space as it is, now you will need more money for the treatment programs and facilities. Where to do you take the money from??? Programs for the elderly, the schools, the moneies to keep our bridges and highways in good repair???? These are all good plans, maybe even neccessary plans, but without our commitment to fund them - the willingness to dig into our own pockets and find the money for them - they are just pipe dreams.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

This is one of his statements that I wish I had been able to phone in on- when the first big gas tax bill failed to pass back in the late '70's I had been working at the Highway Bridge Dept. as their very first woman draftsman. When the tax raise didn't pass, me and all the other most recent hires got fired. EVERYONE in the dept. was worried about their job. Yes, they were all paid public employees -- on the polical dole as Mr. MacIntire would have it. So where does he get off saying that 'people working for the government SHOULD be let go when taxes are cut'??? THEY ARE! They always have been. When programs are cut it is because they had to let EMPLOYEES go, and can't staff the damn programs anymore. Who is this idiot? And those employees are hard working tax paying citizens of Oregon who are just like all the rest of us hardworking tax paying citizens. I can make good arguments both for and against this issue - as are made here by all these other folks - but just the fact that this guy feels like he does is almost enough to make me vote opposite HIM just because. It has taken me an entire day to get registered and figure out how to get on this site, so I don't know if anyone will even read this, but at least I feel better for responding now. As for folks that don't vote---I don't get it. I was more excited about being old enough to vote than I was about driving or drinking either one. I can't think of any reason NOT to vote that doesn't entail some unflattering reflections on personal character. Besides, if you don't vote you don't have any right to bitch about the outcome. Wouldn't want to loose my right to complain!!!!

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context