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 language 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

It isn't just fertility treatment that needs to be regulated, but reproduction in general.  American law in this regard makes no sense whatsoever.  We have to be 18 to legally have sex but can have children at any age.  Responsible and economically sound parents have to go through mountains of paperwork, interviews, visitations, etc. to adopt a child but an unemployed couple on welfare with four children already can have another with no questions asked.  Where is the logic?

People recoil at the idea of the government telling them when, where, and how many children they can and can't have.  The argument is that family planning is a personal matter - a basic human right - and the government has no place interfering.  But is not quality of life also a human right?  What about the quality of life for the poor kids born into families who can't support them, or where they're competing with 13 siblings for affection, as in the present case?  What about everyone's quality of life when the country, continent, or planet is overpopulated?  Many argue that the Earth is already past its carrying capacity for human population. 

It seems to be a thorny issue that no one wants to touch, but hopefully this extreme case of the octuplets will spur some legislation in the right direction. 

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

The great political game will not change until people are so physically miserable that revolution is the only solution. Americans are too comfortable and apathetic to do more than complain. Once the economy bottoms out and the real reprecussions of Peak Oil start manifesting, then people will start to actually do something. Too bad it takes a crisis to cause real change.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Well said. It should also be pointed out that ignorance breeds fear, and the reason why fear-mongering tactics are so effective in this country is the overwhelming ignorance of the American populace. The evangelical right-wingers have a whole host of bogeymen with which to scare the ignorant, and they have no qualms with pulling them out one after the other.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

You have a good point about the U.S. becoming like Iran. This is something that so many Americans miss. The Bush administration rails against theocracies in the Middle East yet works dilligently to establish one here.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

"Only Jesus was raised from the dead. Not Budda nor Mohammad. Only Jesus." "Only Jesus can save you."

Two words: Prove it. And don't say, "You have to have faith." Faith is belief, and in order to believe in something there has to be a good reason to do so, other than "That's what my mommy told me when I was a kid and now rather than face the fact that it's all b.s. and deal with the ensuing mental crisis, I'll defend it with moronic slogans and force it on everyone else instead." Again, prove it.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

One of the things I love most about Oregon (or I should say Western Oregon) is how "non-religious" it is. As someone who was raised Baptist but turned Agnostic in my late teens, moving here was like finding my true home (for many other reasons as well).

I recently moved from the Portland area to Silverton, which is a more conservative area with a lot of churches (there is one on the other side of my backyard fence - I like to sit on the patio drinking a local craft beer on Sunday morning while the church-goers file in). But I would say that it is still a much more open-mided area that many other parts of the country, and I genuinely like it here.

But in Oregon as in the rest of the USA, Christians try to legislate their beliefs into law and force them on the non-religious population. Fortunately this actually occurs less often here than in many other states, but we are still bound by Federal law (another good reason for Western Oregon and Washington to secede from the union, but that is another disucssion....). Since I have no religious beliefs, I am only affected by religion when laws are passed that force me to conform to some religious norm or idea, or support a religious institution. Examples:
1. Teaching creationism in public schools (which somehow is a valid theory yet global warming is hack science)
2. Federal funding for religious non-profit organizations (which both parties' candidates support)
3. Censorship (if someone is offended by what is written or broadcast, don't read it or watch it!)
4. Religious display in government buildings, and even on our money!

As I said, I am glad to live in Oregon which is a much more enlightened area than most of the country, but I fear the day when we will be overwhelmed by Federal laws forcing Christian "values" down our throats.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

If the 13 colonies hadn't seceded from the British Empire, which was an illegal and treasonous act, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context

I think the alientation that the people of Eastern Oregon and Washington feel from the governments of both states, which are primarily concerned with the Pacific Northwest proper (and should be, based on population dispersion), is a microcosm of the alienation that the Pacific Northwest feels from the Federal government. If it makes sense for Eastern Oregon and Washington to form their own state, or merge with Idaho, due to their extreme differences with the western halves of their states, does it not then also make sense for the Pacific Northwest to break off (completely) from the U.S., due to our extreme differences with the rest of the country? Let's not forget that our country began with secession from the British Empire due to under-representation.

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context

I am directly in the middle of the middle class, but I wouldn't say that I identify with any particular class. I don't belong to either party (they both infuriate me in their own unique ways), and would actually be ecstatic if the party system were abolished altogether.

The economy will influence my vote this year in the following specific way: I won't vote for any presidential candidate who doesn't address the main economic issue of our time, which is unfettered consumerism. Unfettered consumerism is the root cause of the sub-prime crisis and the reason why Peak Oil will be the immense crisis that it will soon be. But no candidate is going to address this issue because to do something about it would damage our economy beyond anything we have seen so far and require all American citizens to make huge sacrifices and change their lifestyles dramatically. No one wants to hear that, no one will vote for a candidate who suggests anything of the sort, thus no candidate will address the issue. Therefore I will not vote in the presidential election this year.

Phillip
Silverton, Oregon

posted 5 years ago
view in context