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 like the idea of telecommuting, it is a sound approach. We have the technology - why not use it? I don't think it should be mandated (I believe in freedom of choice), but it should be optional.  Here are some of the advantages I can see:

1. The legislator could remain physically (and mentally) close to their constituents and continue to be an integral and accessible part of their local culture. 

2. It would be a 'green' approach, both financially sound and good for the environment - less driving, and no need to use energy to maintain a separate office and/or residence in Salem.

3. This would curb the influence of 'outsiders' such as lobbyists and politicians with agendas geared toward a different lifestyle.   Even the perfect watchdog can't defend you when they are living in somebody else's backyard.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I am nearly 60 years old, I am Pro-choice, and I have a daughter who is now in her 30s, and I also had 3 abortions. Each abortion was based on the fact that I was already a single mom and the father of the baby, whom was a person I had been having a long-term relationship with (although did not want to marry or live with), did not want it.

Unlike many other women I know, who purposely get pregnant to 'trap' the man, I chose to not saddle anyone with a baby they really did not want.
Yes, I went through depression and guilt, but I knew that in the long run it was best to not bring a child into a world where it was not wanted.

While raising my daughter as a single mom I didn't receive or ask for child support. Certainly it was a struggle, I often worked two jobs, and attended college, but I had made the choice to leave the man, even though he wanted me to marry him. We maintained our friendship and he and his daughter are very close - she is his only child. I worked, I paid for everything, she has grown up healthy and well-adjusted, and, by the way, very independent.

But for those of you who are Pro-life, I have questions. How many of these unwanted babies have you adopted? Do you believe that we need more unwanted children in families that already are living in poverty? Perhaps we should all pay more taxes so these people with unwanted babies who are often physically or mentally challenged due to drugs or alcohol can get more welfare? Do you believe that a baby who is the result of a rape is guaranteed to be loved by it's mother? What kind of life do you think these children would have? Have you donated enough money to any of these potential parents to raise any of these children?

I am a third generation adoptee - my grandmother and my mother were both adopted. My mother died when my brother and I were only 4 and 5 years old, we were adopted. Do not tell me your self-righteous Pro-life drivel unless you also have adopted. And I don't mean adopting children from overseas, I mean giving a good loving home and life to unwanted or disabled babies right here in the US. If you have not adopted, or at least attempted to, it is apparent that you really don't care about these children's lives, but if you have adopted, then I thank you.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Yes, you are correct that insurance is the hidden devil in the details. I remember when health insurance was a choice, and it was only used for emergency ills. A standard physical, care for flu or a cold or an infection was affordable. A doctor's visit was around $35, and if you aren't going to the doctor more than twice a year, to pay for insurance was absurd. Oh yes, and doctor's actually made house calls and had their own office - not some clinic where you end up being seen by a nurse and not a doctor.

That was only 20 years ago. Then the insurance companies began paying lobbyists to rub shoulders with Congress and further their profits. Congress began their fear tactics with 'what ifs'. HMOs? That's where this all started. Pharmaceutical companies, medical labs, and so on saw that they could make more money if people were insured instead of paying out of their pocket - and the greed took off.

But I don't believe the answer is universal health care - that's just bringing us closer to losing our freedoms and becoming a socialist government. The answer is to cap health providers and get rid of insurance except for emergencies and severe problems.

My employer shouldn't be responsible for my health - it is my body and mind - it is my responsibility. But my health should be something that I can independently afford to maintain, and my employer can offer health insurance for major illnesses if they so choose. Consider what percentage of people actually have major illnesses or injuries. Right now your monthly insurance cost is paying for that person that goes to the doctor for a hangnail, not just the person who has cancer.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context