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

I've been going to Tea Party protests for a little over a year now.  At the outset, the movement was simply a response to out of control government spending.  It was not a strictly Republican movement, and it was not directed at Democrats or Barack Obama.  [Local Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters actually held a similar protest against the first bail out bill on the 27th of September 2008 at the Sandelie Golf Course in Wilsonville while George Bush was still in office.]

Since I've been involved with the Tea Party, a number of groups have tried to coopt the movement for their own purposes.  Some people have attempted to make an actual political party out of it, more than a few candidates have courted it, and it seems that the Republican Party views the movement as its own.  Unfortunately, the press also seems eager for it to become something it was never intended to be.  Apparently, government spending just isn't an interesting enough story for political analysts to dwell on. 

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

A few hours of safety training, and an extensive background check, are required to get a concealed handgun license in Oregon.  Only a cursory background check is required to purchase a gun.  No training is required for open carry, but you must be legally permitted to posses a gun to carry it.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

If open carry is a legal right, then what difference does it make that some people feel uncomfortable when someone exercises that right.  Desegregated public facilities used to make some people uncomfortable, but that didn't mean that minorities had a moral duty to not avail themselves of their right to use them.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

For most of my life society has been screaming about overpopulation problems, and urging my generation not to have children.  Now we have economists complaining that there won't be enough working age people in the western world to support the large numbers of workers getting ready to retire.  Indeed some commentators are now complaining that childless couples are being selfish for not helping to raise the next generation of workers.  Personally, I'm ready to tune out the experts.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

As a childless taxpayer I'm already expected to pay for public schools, and a variety of programs to benefit indigent children and their parents. Now the government wants to dip into my pocketbook again, and without any explanation as to why this would benefit the public as a whole. Would somebody please explain to me why I should subsidize what amounts to a vacation for someone else?

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context