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

I'd also like to note that *any* stressor, economic or otherwise, has the potential to increase the likelihood that someone already prone to violent outbursts will act out.  In my case my ex didn't like her job and was struggling to find one that suited her newly acquired degree.  While the difficulties she was experiencing in the job hunt as well as the substantial student loan she'd acquired may not have been the cause of her behavior, it was clearly a factor in the frequency and intensity of her outbursts.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I heard one of the guests say that all victims of domestic violence deserve respect not more stress when seeking help.  The program failed on that count this morning. 

One caller stated "their [women's] lives are full of chaos", that this somehow explains bad behavior.  Another said the 33% statistic was an attempt to "de-gender" the issue.  Both responses demonstrate a cultural tendency towards overlooking women's behavior even when they're the instigators of abusive acts.

There are many reasons men don't report abuse:

• We are told, "You must have had it coming"
• We are stigmatized as being less of a man
• We are dismissed
• We are ignored
• We are socially isolated
• We risk the possibility of being labeled the perpetrator

A few years back my then girlfriend and I got into an argument.  Long and short of it she ended up hitting me.  I black out momentarily and when I came to my senses I respectfully asked her to leave.  When she wouldn't I threatened to call the police; she egged me on screaming, "Fine, call the police!"  I stopped dead in my tracks.  I knew if I called they'd show up and she'd turn on the tear factory, as she did when we fought in public, and regardless of anything I had or hadn't done, said or hadn't said, I would appear to be the perpetrator.  The best I could do was wait for her to calm down then hide in a corner and lick my wounds.  She never once apologized, took responsibility, or acknowledged the damage she'd done.  "If you really love me you wouldn't bring this up!"she'd say or, "My life is full of chaos and this is just my way of expressing that chaos!"
It doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman, if you're in a heterosexual relationship or a homosexual one, abuse IS abuse, the trauma is the same, and we all need the same healing, support and respect. Now that's an episode I'd call in for.
Thank you for your attention,
Aslynnhttp://www.greenpygmies.com/

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I wanted to make one final but important note:

I take issue with the drama teacher picking a play that included only half a dozen roles. While I agree with him that most activities aren't all-inclusive, that not all students will make the cut during try-outs, to choose a play with such a small casting for the high school setting is absolutely rediculous and anethema to the whole point of public school: education for the masses. Could you imagine the English teacher saying she's only going to teach the 6 kids she likes? The math teacher saying she's only going to teach those kids with good handwriting? The football coach who wants a team of 3 because that's his lucky number? Or the band teacher who says, "This year I'm only directing a brass quartet, so sorry, the rest of you can sell you instruments on Craigslist for all I care".

A teacher with that singular of an attitude would eventually get canned.

Should a drama teacher be treated any different?

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Offense is in the eye of the beholder.

I reserve the right to be offended.  I reserve the right to express my feelings in a civil fashion when I am offended.  And most importantly, I reserve the right to offend you.

The notion that there's a magical rulebook out there that defines what's offensive and what is not is perhaps one of the most ridiculous notions accepted by a significant number of Americans but it’s just not supported by psychology, sociology, or cultural anthropology, the three primary sciences that investigate the subject of “offense”.  Because I cannot hope to control how you ultimately choose to perceive me, because I cannot choose what you will be offended by and what you will not, I therefore reserve the right to at times offend you.  To choose otherwise would be a waste of time and energy.  You can't please everybody.

By the time the average kid hits their teenage years they’ve heard as much about sex and drugs as I would have my senior year in high school (’92); statistically, nearly half have already dabbled.  That said, it’s not rational for a parent to believe their children aren’t aware or haven’t dabbled--to follow that by abstinence?  Pure ludicracy.

Teachers and parents are on the front line.  By enabling open conversation and expression about those “adult” subjects children are already talking about on the playground and in the locker room we create a positive environment where our children can openly engage with us about them, where we can teach them what we know and help them make the right decisions.  It is correct, right, and logical, to have this conversation over a novel read in English class, in a play practiced after school, in gym class where sex and gender specific issues often come up in relation to different sports, and in science where the nitty gritty details of the birds and bees should be discussed so children are able to make better choices in order to live healthier, more fulfilling lives.  In my humble opinion that is something that parents and the public school system should partner in doing.

In conclusion:  To be offended is human, to expect not to be is absolutely un-American.

P.S.  Read my entire opinion at my online journal, greenpygmies dot com.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I found the same link as well (http://www.dianedowns.com/) and while it would have been nice to hear an alternate point of view, the subject of the program was "Rules of Release", not "Guilt or Innocence". This does, however, brings up a more interesting question (IMHO): are people displaying narcissistic antisocial behaviors ?guilty by disorder??

All of us have habits so I?m sure we can all agree a life long habit is a hard thing to break. Now imagine that one of your habits is to habitually ?fudge the facts? whenever communicating with others, regardless of whether or not you are trying to avoid responsibility. For example, your spouse asks you what you got while grocery shopping and you ?neglect? to mention the ice cream because you feel guilty about your weight. Or maybe you took a scenic country road to work instead of the freeway and you were late to an important meeting so you tell your manager you had a flat. While most of us are guilty of telling the random white lie it is difficult, if not impossible, for habitual liars to turn around on a dime and begin to tell honest, accurate, and consistent stories even when the situation merits it (as would be the case in a police investigation).

The real question is not, ?Can we trust Diane Downs? version of events?? Based on what I?ve heard and read the answer is a simple: no. The important question, in my mind, is this: does Down?s inability to be consistently honest make her guilty of murder? More importantly, should ritually dishonest people be presumed guilty of any crime simply because what they say can?t be trusted?

I?ve had several (past) friends who demonstrated similar psychological traits to Downs? and while frustrating and untrustworthy, their inability to keep their stories straight didn?t always mean they were guilty. People who are habitually dishonest, inconsistent, and manipulative are like that all the time and will continue to engage in socially ineffectual behaviors regardless of the seriousness of the situation. This makes them appear guilty but it does not make them guilty. In such cases the court should consider the testimony of people with this disorder as a consistent extensions of their personality hence not a trustworthy accounting of the objective facts.

Is Downs' guilty? I don't know. But my opinion, for what it's worth, is that she's more concerned about how people perceive her (and by extension, how she can take advantage of that) than earning anyone's trust. Trust is not a character trait worth emulating but an object to be molded for personal gain; sadly, for many like this it is not understood as it should be, as a means for building warm, healthy, and strong social relationships with others.

...

P.S. While reading more on this case I learned that Down's said the following when told her son Danny had a chance of surviving: "Do you mean the bullet missed his heart? Gee whiz!" If an accurate quote, that's definitely the behavior of someone with antisocial personality disorder.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context