2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal 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 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 portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

I would pay zero property tax under your plan.  But I do know a few Farmers and Ranchers who could be devastated.  I agree we need a formula that is tied to a persons ability to pay.  But it needs to also consider both a persons ability to pay in the short run and their ability to make a living in the longer run. 

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I was one of those desperate property owners in rural NE Oregon who was in danger of loosing everything.  The recent housing bubble is only a continuation of peoples trying to get something for nothing that has been going on here since at least the late 1960s.  The 5 & 10 acre parcels all around me keep getting bought and resold every few years for a profit.  I was one of the few people who was bent on staying and trying to make a living with my home-based business.  I was getting more and more deliquent on my property taxes.  I had four kids in school, a big garden, a house and a business I had built with my own hands, and was about to loose it all.  Something had to give.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Scott, I appreciate your thoughtful approach to things. And, I think I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

People who are intentionally partisan, to the point of either vowing never to compromise, or so self-brain-stuffed that there is no room for any competing ideas, can have many different motives.  They can be reacting to someone(s) on the other side they think is dangerous, stupid, beneath them, or what ever.  They can be acting out of material, or social,  self-interest, i.e., the personally selfish, and tribally selfish, motives.  They can be acting out of an investment in a way of making sense out of a chaotic world, i.e., the ideological or belief motive. Or some combination of all of the above.

The chicken and egg thing is always tough to work backwards.  I think we agree that 'excessive partisanship' is a result of underlying things that, even if revealed, are so much a part of the human condition that we will be hard pressed to make much progress on it.

One reason I focus on pencil and paper so much is that it gives those rare people whose' motive is just solving the problem, the opportunity  to actually compete with all the people who have other complicating motives as well.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Another way to illustrate the specialized clumping problem, is with the adage, 'if you just have a hammer every problem is a nail', or, 'if you just have a saw every problem is a board'.  While the poles argue over the merits of the tools they each favor, it is easy for the casual observer to get sucked into the drama of the competition and not step back and assess dispassionately the nature of the many complex, interacting, problems and the tools that may be required.  Again it helps tremendously to get out the pencil and paper.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I have had little luck convincing people that they are a lot smarter with pencil and paper than without.

It's like the kids in class that are 'A' students in math competing with each other by seeing what math problem they can solve in their heads.  All this, while some 'C' student in the back of the class beats them all with pencil and paper.

Part of the problem is that there is much more involve here than problem solving.  The social competing, the adrenaline, and the investments in (specialized/oversimplified) ways of making sense of things, keeps us forever in an unproductive stew.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Problem solving always involves lot of multiple interacting variables.  Complexity will only increase with time.  We have out grown our ability to sit down around a campfire and talk it out.  We are a desperately social , hopelessly tribal species that has evolved to clump into specialized groups and then proceed to fool ourselves into enough confidence to function.  We do this with selective preponderance.

We need more people throughout the electorate that don't just see the limits of the partisan - fooling yourself into confidence thing, but people who learn to solve complex human problems using pencil and paper.  It doesn't come natural to our social sensibilities when a problem involves people, but people are capable of it.   We instinctually do it all the time when confronted with complex physical and technological problems. 

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Can you speak to the relationship that seems to develope between introspection and empathy, in truth seekers and certain writers?

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Can you speak to that relationship that seems to develope between introspection and empathy in true seekers and certain writers?

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

@John & Jacob

Repeating my questions that niether one of you answered:

Considering your positions, if you were  loan officers at a bank and a black farmer came in for a loan, would you treat them differently than a white farmer?

And if you wouldn't, how long do you think it would take the average loan officer that is not as mature as you to start using race as a way to put down someone that dosen't look like them?

No, there are good reasons for not giving license to peoples most selfish social impulses, i.e., putting other people down.  I have no problem defending this basic goal of 'political correctness'.  It is aimed at the bullies, and it is the bullies that scream the loudest.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

So, you have your reasons for thinking Dudley should not get elected.  You are not particularly paritsan yourself, but feel the obligation to inflame the partisans who would help you in your goal?

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

@John & Jacob

Considering your positions, if you were  loan officers at a bank and a black farmer came in for a loan, would you treat them differently than a white farmer?

And if you wouldn't, how long do you think it would take the average loan officer that is not as mature as you to start using race as a way to put down someone that dosen't look like them?

No, there are good reasons for not giving license to peoples most selfish social impulses, i.e., putting other people down.  I have no problem defending this basic goal of 'political correctness'.  It is aimed at the bullies, and it is the bullies that scream the loudest.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

@John

Hurtful? Yes.  But more instructive, it is self-serving, (in the "one up -one down" social dynamic).  It is bullying if you are in an advantageous possition, and it is sad, if you are coming from a low status possition yourself.

Generalizing groups of people is the first clue to tribal/self-serving behavior.  The few cases where it is not, it is a clue that someone is a lazy or an overwhelmed 'researcher'.  Take your pick.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

John, your comments can be seen as a man desperately trying to assemble a gang.  People really are the same the whole world around. Welcome!  It's OK!!!!

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

John, all people are, desperately social, hopelessly tribal, binary&linear thinking, sense making creatures.  Understand that, and you can understand the commonality of gang behavior, and the behavior of any other group of people, (including groups you and I belong to).

This is only a starting point to solving the problem of gang violence.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

So, does this mean you 'were' trying to "Swift Boat" the candidate with your original post?  Just not for partisan reasons......

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

 Sorry Bruce...  I did read a lot into what you wrote.

I'm kind of on 'hair trigger' here with anything that can remotely be construed as partisan.  I've seen too many good problem solvers, capable of dealing with complexity, be boxed into a narrow zone of ineffectiveness by what the specialized thinkers on both extremes see as unacceptable.

For an independent voter like me, that a Republican voted for a Democrat indicates that he has the same priorities I do about problem solving skills being more important than political leanings.  Of coarse most voters see it the other way around, and you have to get their vote if you want a shot at using your problem solving skills.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

What is your goal here?  To beat up two good men at once?

We need people in office who understand the polarity dynamic well enough to both see that it is an inpediment to problem solving and that good men and women who demonstrate this understanding deserve our support.

Partisans just don't get it.  They have hitched their wagon to the strengths of one side of a polarity, and fooled their binary brains into thinking they have the whole story when they also focus on the weaknesses of the other side.  They ignore the strengths of the other side and the weaknesses of their own.  

This kind of works in the judicial system where you have a judge and a jury in the middle of two sides.  But in our political circus, no matter who we elect, the partisans on both sides work to keep them from being in the middle.  Obama has been hamstrung as much by the Left as he has by the right when it came to getting independent problem solving on track..

For the vast majority of people, life is too complicated if it is not someone's fault.  The cycle of deification and vilification goes on and on.  What we need is to find a way to shield the most capable problem solvers from the least objective thinkers.  We tend to do the exact opposite.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

If children have not been taught how to cooperate to meet their needs, they will compete; wether it is for a toy or status.  Without adult involvement, the competition starts to look pretty much like; dominate or be dominated, or; participate in the domination of others or risk the same.

If there are other issues - needs not being met at home, proxy wars in the adult community, anger, pain(s), etc. -  putting someone else down, often feels a little better than not.  This can become an addictive obsession for the 'strongest' kid in a group, (especially if they have many other things going wrong in there life).  A pecking order can quickly develop, with the 'bully' in charge.

It's great to have insightful adults to read the dynamics in a given situation and act to help turn things around.  I have also seen insightful students with strong bodies, set the tone in a situation where a bullying dynamic would likely happen without them.

Every incident is a teachable moment if you have the insight and the power.   Lots of teachers don't have the insight, even though they have the power.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Religions are groupings that have utilities for people beyond the social community function they serve. Some of it is political, and some of it is psychological.  We can decry the political, and say the psychological makes no sense, but it is here to stay.  We can monitor and manage political abuses. And we can direct the tribal competitive urges toward good works.   But the need to have answers to the unanswerable will not be denied.  This requires some pragmatic, psychological, slight of hand. We call it 'belief', even if it has nothing to do with god.  

Sure there are scoundrels using religion for cover or power.  Likewise there is a whole spectrum of mixed motives in peoples involvement in religious communities.  But you are not going to eliminate people 'believing' some combination of things that they see as in their physical, social, and psychological self-interest.  And yes, it can look a lot like peoples' political beliefs, with the caveat that the self-interest involved extends into the here-after.

We can, I think, point out to good effect, that personal beliefs are almost always self serving.  But, I think we all make a dangerous mistake if we generalize any group of people.  If we do it in the positive direction we miss the scoundrels and help give them cover.  If we generalize in the negative direction we can limit the potential of the people of good will.  I find it  better to focus on individuals in a group and be skeptical, vigilant, and hopeful.

It sounds like your early church experience was even worse than mine.  I am still shy of groups of all kinds, as I have experienced similar destructive group dynamics in political and environmental groups as well.  Still, groups are how most things seem to get done in this world.  I now try and influence them from the outside.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Put another way; organizations of all sizes i.e., gangs, tribes, corporations, religeous denominations, political parties, nation states, all have potential energy.  Think of dynamite...., or better yet, a nail gun.  The intended purpose of the devise does not preclude other potential uses.  Short-sighted, self-interested people are always part of the mix. 

We can argue that Christianity is generally a little bit safer design of nail gun than Islam, but it is silly to argue that people/governments should not use nail guns to build houses.

A 'nail gun' not used for building, tends to get used for other puposes.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context