2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election 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 international 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 television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

As other posters have commented, I find these discussions a bit sophomoric.  If we really want to talk about the costs, we can't compare what energy costs have been to what they would be with environmental legislation.  What we must compare is what the costs would be with environmental legislation vs. what they would be without environmental legislation - i.e. the costs associated with climate change.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

As a physicist, I have a relatively well informed view on the topic of nuclear power.  Given that, I have to say that this discussion troubles me on a number of levels.

I think that my biggest issue is that Greg Kafoury is the only person who is speaking on the "cons" side of this issue.  This is a problem for me because, unfortunately, he seems to express himself in a way that comes across as being extremist and bickering, rather than rational and reasonable.

Nuclear certainly has some significant down sides.  However, it has some significant advantages, as well.  All of this should be considered and discussed reasonably.

Truly, if we are going to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, we need to be open to a wide portfolio of energy solutions.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

From my perspective, there are several issues going on here. First off, I agree with the guest who said that have relatively stable prices is a very good thing. The volatility of the cost of gas has been a big part of the issue.

Second, ultimately the proper approach is to develop alternative energy sources. We currently have the technology to create a robust energy infrastructure that is not so entirely based on fossil fuels. The primary reason that we haven't done this is that fossil fuels have been so cheap. Therefore, it is a good thing, in the long run, to allow fuel costs to stay higher.

Finally, there is the issue of the gas companies. I know that they are the favorite culprits, but there's a reason for that. Currently, price or a barrel of oil is at about the same level it was at in the beginning of April, but the national average price for a gallon of gas is about $0.50 higher. Throughout this energy crisis, while the consumers have been suffering, the oil companies have been consistently record breaking profits, despite the fact that consumer use of gasoline has dropped. Anyone who doesn't see an issue with this isn't paying attention.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

My wife and I are currently trying to start a family. We have discussed what we're going to do once we have our child. The position that we keep coming to is the difficult issue that while I would rather be the one to be a stay-at-home parent, I also have the larger paycheck, which would make it a harder arrangement to manage. It would actually be difficult to give up either of our paychecks, but we don't want to have to put our children in daycare either. We have not yet figured out how we're going to resolve this, but we're still working on it...

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

This issue troubles me. As I understand it, the timber payments were put in place to allow these counties to transition to a non-timber based economy. Given that, I would argue that these subsidies should not have ended all at once. To encourage a transition, the payments should have been gradually reduced.

However, none of that addresses the issue that I'm seeing. Now, with the ending of these subsidies, there isn't talk about transitioning, there seems to be nothing but talk about "this is our money and we want it back". These counties were supposed to transition their economies, but there is no talk about doing that.

Now, all of that being said, I do support having these subsidies put back, but then gradually reduced, to properly encourage and provide for community needs during a transition.

Geoff.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

My first job was to work for a month as my dad's secretary, while his regular secretary was on vacation.

I am now in my mid-thirties, and I'm a trained professional.

A little off topic, but, unfortunately, I don't necessarily like what I'm doing. Or, a better way to put it, I don't like doing as much of it as I have to do. It seems to me that our culture is very focused on "professional" workers working a minimum of 40 hours per week (if you're lucky). I am something of a Jack-of-All-Trades, and I like doing many different things. If I could have my ideal career, I'd split my time between two to four different "professional" careers. Again, unfortunately, the culture we live in doesn't seem to take you seriously if you aren't "full time" in a professional field.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I'd love to understand better what kind of justification is offered as to why timber payments should be maintained, when the whole point of these payments was to allow the communities time to move to another basis for their economies. Sure, they haven't made this change yet, but wouldn't a better approach be to offer a diminishing payment over the next couple of years, to enforce a gradual transition? But certainly not to simply maintain the payments ad nauseam.

posted 5 years ago
view in context

While the following is humorous, it points to something that has some truth in it...

Subject: Saving Tax Dollars?
ARE YOU SICK OF THOSE HIGH PAID TEACHERS?

I, for one, am sick and tired of those high paid teachers. Their hefty salaries are driving up
taxes and they only work nine or ten months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay
them for what they do...baby-sit!

We can get that for less than minimum wage. That's right...I would give them $3.00 dollars an hour
per kid and only the hours they worked, not any of that silly planning time.

That would be 15 dollars a day. Each parent should pay 15 dollars a day for these teachers to
baby-sit their children.

Now, how many do they teach in a day.... maybe 30? Then that's 15 X 30 = $450 a day. But remember
they only work 180 days a year! I'm not going to pay them for any vacations.
\Let's see...that's $450 x180 = $81,000.00. (Hold on, my calculator must need new
batteries!)....for a new teacher, hmmmm.

What about those special teachers or all the ones with the required master's degrees?
Well, we could pay them minimum wage, just to be fair. Let's round it off to $6.00 an hour. That
would be $6 times 5 hours times 30 children times 180 days = $162,000.00 per year.
Wait a minute, there is something wrong here!!!

**********************

On a serious note, I live in Corvallis. Before I moved here I taught middle school science, and I would have loved to continue on that path. But, even with a masters degree, the starting wage that I could expect here is about half what I can make in industry. Unfortunately, my wife doesn't make enough for us to rely on her income as primary. Thus, though I love teaching and I have been told that I'm a natural teacher, the door is closed to me for financial reasons, at least if we don't want to lose our house.

posted 5 years ago
view in context

BTW, My name is Geoff. I live in Corvallis.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I see this as problematic. That is not to say that the existing system is any less problematic. This represents a restricted polling system that opens up the possibility of having two people on the fall ballot who, even combined, didn't get a majority of the vote. Indeed, there is the possibility that the two candidates won't even represent the majority position.

In an election where there are, for example, six democrats but two republicans, if 70% of the electorate were to vote democrat, but they were split evenly, the two republicans could take 15% each, vs. 11% each for the democrats. Therefore the two republicans would be the two candidates on the ballot. While this is an extreme example, it is simply to make a point.

The solution to this is to have some form of ranked-choice or instant run-off voting system. I don't understand why this option is not pursued by officials more often.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Many people have already noted that this is an old problem, and there is definitely a note of ignoring a looming problem in this. However, the problem can go back to the people who put this subsidy in place. If this was a diminishing subsidy, it would force the local people to gradually pick up their own burden. Perhaps an ongoing subsidy is due, but surely not the total amount. The creation of a financial 'cliff' is invariably a recipe for disaster.

Also, for the locals to say that they don't want to be supported by taxes from the rest of the state, but they are willing to be supported by this subsidy that is funded by taxes on the rest of the country seems a bit hard to swallow. If the state values these communities then we should all be willing to support them by the best means possible.

posted 5 years, 4 months ago
view in context