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

Please note that if the state sells OSB and its land, the state will be in violation of the terms set by the donor who gave the land to the state of Oregon.  It was given with the proviso that the land be used to serve the handicapped, in perpetuity.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I agree with Julie 100%.  It seems to me that the move to close the school is a quick grab for easy money in a time of financial crisis.  If legislators were truly concerned about blind students, as they originally asserted was the purpose of the bill - (to re-distribute the money used by a few for the benefit of all blind students) they would look for ways to make the school for the blind work for 21st century times, in much the way suggested by Julie, above.

It should be noted that OR House of Reps tried to placate advocates against the closure of OSB by assuring them that the money resulting from closure would be re-distributed for blind students in their local education district, across the state.  But in the final version of the bill, that provision was removed and the money from the sale of the property is now allocated to the general fund.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I say let those who benefited from the gambling machine called "investment firms" such as Goldman Sacks and Morgan Stanley, should foot the bail-out bill. These 2 institutions will be the primary recipients of this "bail out". (By the way, Treasury Secretary Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sacks for 16 y, and was paid about $6.4 million/yr. He had $632 million in Goldman Sacks stocks. The British paper, "The Guardian", in 2006 published an article which stated that the average salary of all employees, including secretaries, was $521,000/y.) This is an outrage! Predatory capitalists demand that they have no oversight or regulations on their business. They champion the "free market" when they stand to make money. Profit is privatized. But when they stand to lose money, suddenly they want socialism. They want us to take the loss, while they take the profit.

Hoover tried this tactic in 1931, and it failed. Only in 1935, when FDR poured money into the working infrastructure of the US, did our economy start to recover. A primary reason for this disaster is the undoing of the very laws that FDR created - to prevent financial institutions from creating this type of situation. An article at EconomicPopulist.org has an article entitled, "People Are Asking the Wrong Question." In the article, the author cites eerily similar similar situations in the past, which failed.

As Sen. Bernie Sanders has said, "If it's too big to fail, then it shouldn't exist." Rather than "bail out" rich investors, we need a totally different approach. One which builds the infrastructure of the US from the ground up, not the top down. Something akin to the WWII effort that turned our nation in 1 year's time, could be applied to the manufacture of renewable energy technology and tools in the US.

If the American taxpayer is to foot this bill, which undoubtedly we will, regardless of our wishes, then we damn well better pay the price for the assets are actually worth. And we had better have equity payouts. All current managers should be fired. But better yet, I like Sen. Bernie Sanders idea - a 10% tax on anyone with an income of more than $500,000 - that would easily pay this bill.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

I've never appreciated the characterization of the boomer generation as the "me generation". That phrase is a product of Madison Avenue and a media controlled by a few corporations, for the the purposes of entertainment. I was in the first group of 18 year-olds that were allowed to vote (previously the age was 21). From the first time I voted, the majority of elections have been won by someone for whom I have not voted. Reagan, and the Republicans that have followed in Presidency and Congress, were put in power by the generation that followed the boomers. If anything exemplifies "me-ism", it is the workings of the Republican, neo-con agenda. This agenda is what has destroyed the middle class, the environment, and our democracy. So to the historian whiner, look to those who have supported the neo-con Republican agenda - not baby boomers, as where the course correction needs to occur.

PS - Although I did receive a California Opportunity Grant that helped me get through undergraduate school (which is no longer available thanks to Republican withdrawal of funds to support kids pursuing upper education), I got through undergraduate and graduate school by getting low-interest student loans (low interest loans no longer being available because of our elected leaders in the corporatocracy). I have spent my entire professional life doing work that involved compassion for others.

So, if you want change, elect people that restore our democracy and shift priorities from war profiteering, and policies and laws that benefit corporations first and people last.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

What dismays me is that there is so little discussion of the elephant in the room - that being the appauling services provided by those charged with that task - i.e., early intervention and school districts. Early Intervention and school districts hire lawyers that will assure that they are able to provide as little as possible, and get away with it legally (because they have comparatively unlimited funds, provided by taxpayers).

Although scientifically validated studies have been done, demonstrating applied behavior analysis as the most effective method of improving, and in many cases, eliminating the diagnosis of autism - public educators have yet to utilize it. Instead, they opt for a less rigorous appearance of incorporating behavioral principals, but nix the accountability of taking valid and thorough data.

Additionally, staff that spends the most time with students with autism are largely untrained. There are generally two options provided by school districts: mainstreaming and sellef-contained classrooms. In general, people prefer the idea of mainstreaming, but as it is implemented in Oregon, a more accurate term would be "dumping", as students are placed in classrooms with untrained aides (if they get one) and inadequate supports.

It would be interesting to find out how many people have opted out of the system because of these issues (I am one of them).

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context