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 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 don't mean this to sound inflammatory -- but it is a question that I think has to be addressed: What is the definition of fascism? Didn't Benito Mussolini say it was the union of the corporation and the government? Isn't fascism the system of taxing the population for the benefit of business? This isn't the first time this has happened in this country either. Have we become a fascist nation?

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Is it true that people are pushed into gang involvement seeking out things missing in their family and social life? Are "gangs" ever formed, officially or unofficially, in order to provide a community essential things like security or social services that the state is for some reason not providing? How often does a local police force identify a group as a gang when the supposed members don't see themselves that way?

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

So what are the potential impacts on property values attendant with the introduction of LNG facilities? What do we know about the people who will be administering these facilities? Remember -- we live in the state whose people decided that the government had to pay when its actions reduced someone's property values. Should we not have the same stipulation for a private company?

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I see the point of the "personal responsibility" argument. But lending is a profession that requires specialized information to carry out. I mean, it's not simple, is it? Reasonably intelligent people have trouble with all kinds of financial issues every day -- and if you say it's never happened to you, I just don't believe you.

The way the issue of balancing personal responsibility with access to specialized information is dealt with in other professional societies is to require licensing under very strict guidelines and auditing not by governmental organizations, but by the professional societies themselves -- who have every reason to maintain community trust.

For example, no one allows a person with a civil engineering degree to build a bridge unless he or she is a licensed professional engineer and has been accredited by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

It is totally reasonable to set up a non-governmental professional lenders society in order to deal with this problem -- after all, how many people have been taken in by this sort of scheme? Do we really think they are all irreconcilably stupid, or do we think they are honest people who wouldn't think twice about someone else's promises?

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Exactly what geographic region constitutes "Cascadia" is a subject that has been under good-natured debate for years -- but it seems as though the Willamette Valley to the coast and up through the bit of Washington adjacent to Oregon's "panhandle" inland to about Hood River is the region that is at Cascadia's heart. I think it is totally appropriate to refer to this area as Cascadia without fear of offending anyone who would like to be included.

As a side note, I think any serious discussion of the emerging regional identity would be incomplete without mention of the very serious independence movements popping up in Cascadia.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I heard the explanation by the gentleman from waterwatch as to how certain groups were disincluded from the process. It sounded totally plausible given what I know about how these decisions are made. I would like to hear the other side of the story, as his judgment was called into question toward the end of the show. Any takers?

If this version is correct, then it is very misleading to call this conclusion a "consensus." The local tribes and invested environmental groups absolutely MUST be included in any agreement touting itself as a consensus.

I think the last two callers were both laboring under a related misconception. While it is true that dams don't release greenhouse gases, their affects on local wildlife can be and frequently are devastating. Dams are a trade off of problems, not a solution. Where in the decision making process does wildlife get a say? That might sound silly, but sustaining our outdoor areas is important to our Northwest culture. Also, I don't think it is feasible to stop cutting trees in the northwest altogether -- but we can do it much more efficiently and in a way that benefits the local communities to a much greater extent (e.g. milling Oregon-cut trees in Oregon rather than exporting them). That the last caller claims his group can "log in a way that is good for wildlife" calls his whole point into question. You can't log in a way that is good for wildlife, you can only try to minimize your affects. As to his point about litigation, since environmental groups are frequently left out of the decision making process, litigation is often their ONLY option. THAT is where wildlife gets its say. People who are willing to speak up for the voiceless in this way should be congratulated and thanked for their efforts. Open up the process to these groups more, and you will get less litigation.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I'm really concerned about an apparent side-note to this discussion: MacArthur Court is one on the best places in the country to see basketball game. There isn't a bad seat in the house, it's a beautiful old building, it's part of Eugene's skyline, and it has a lot of history. What it lacks is ... skyboxes. You can't wine and dine potential donors during the winter months at UO, you have to actually rub shoulders with the riffraff (otherwise known as "students").

I think the real issue surrounding the new stadium is that it is more profitable to appeal to a few super-rich patrons to whom the price of a ticket is no object than to appeal to broad support from the whole community.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Bravo, Brenna from Portland. Your point concerning local interests over special interests and the definitions of those terms wins out.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context