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

Have your guest talk about who provides the services for these red light cameras.  Notoriously Blackwater and other military groups service these cameras for profit.  There are clauses that they can eliminate the service if certain lights do not provide enough profit.  I find this isn't about safety but turning a profit in the name of safety.  Do any cities in Oregon follow these contracts?

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Portland's water utility costs are some of the lowest in the Country.  Ensuring proper management of Bull Run's River by eliminating the possibility of cryptosporidium and even other micro-organisims that could threaten Portland's water supply should be heralded as a good move to ensure quality as well continued low cost.  This is a win win issue in choosing the UV media.

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context

I'm sorry to say it but the state has no right to intrude upon a parent's guardianship decisions over their child when no neglect has been found.  The active treatment in this case was "faith healing" which was found to not be neglectiful on behalf of the parent's rights over the child.  As I said before this is an extreme case and we should not prop up the State's power and responsibility to force parents to make decisions at the expense of their guardianship rights when found not to be neglectful.  I don't necessarily make this a blanket statement but the intrusion of mandatory medical care via the State is a power that should not be expanded upon and any further mitigation of "parent's rights" should be preserved in large.

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context

Where is the public's right to opt out of the State's institutions?  Faith Healing may be completely unfounded to some but where is the right to opt out of care for alternative means?  How much of the State's power should intrude upon a parent's right of guardianship?  This trial was one case. We should not make our laws off of brash extreme cases like this one while throwing our rights to opt out of public institutions.

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context

It is unfortunate that in the search of common ground on the proper stewardship of our forests that we polarize conservation and productive management of forests to extremes like clearcutting and and a complete hands-off approach.  The science of forest conservation and management has fallen out of step with modern environmental movements because the science supports not only thinnings but preventitive cuttings for fire, habitat, and other reasons much to the dismay of purist environmentalists.  The WHOPPER is not grounded on very good science obviously but this discussion is a microcosim of Big Timber and supposed hands-off Environmentalists with science unrepresented.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context