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

Kudos to Mike Mullen.  The Admiral understands reality.  People who object, like McCain, are living in the past.  They fail to understand that the world moves on, whether  they like it or not.

It is quite simple.  If you are willing to die, then your sexual preference is really a small thing.  Those who object are captive to some outdated, outmoded thinking.  

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

There was a time in recent US history when today's discussion about money and the death penalty would not even have been thought of.  The period after WWII up until the time of the Kennedy presidency was a period when America worked.

Why was that?  Because Americans were willing to pay to have the government function properly.  The highest marginal tax rate on income was 91% up until JFK.  During that time American systems worked efficiently and well.  Schools, universities, roads...all infrastructure, including the courts, worked because they were funded properly.

Now, thanks to Americans greediness, we have dropped tax rates to a point where the government is basically choked and struggling to function.

So when you hear death penalty proponents claim that it doesn't matter what a death penalty case costs - that we should pursue them all at full throttle, ask that proponent if he/she is willing to pony up for the money it costs to try these cases.

My guess is that the level of greed, selfishness and self-interest has grown so deeply into the American psyche that the answer is NO.

So, Americans will eventually shoot themselves in the foot.  The government functions more poorly as time goes by even as the greed-head citizens demand more services, more programs, more death penalties, more prisons, more medical benefits...more - more - more.

At some point the country will go broke and all systems will shut down.  Then we will see how happy the "Don't Tax Me" types are.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

If you've ever attempted to testify at a Committee Hearing in Salem, particularly on controversial matters, you know that Lobbyists typically end up taking most of the slots reserved for "Public Testimony."  

This happens because the Lobbyists are permanently ensconced at the Capitol building and have early access to upcoming hearings.  Consequently, the lobbyists absorb most or all of the time allotted for public testimony, effectively blocking any opposition.  

Simultaneously, the paid lobbyists hover just outside the rope which separates the house and senate floor from the public.  The lobbyists hover as close as possible to the legislators, doing what lobbyists do.

While the Mayor's suggestion has a few kinks to work out, his basic idea is good because it holds the more blatant abuses of the lobbyists at some distance.

The mayor is correct.  We cannot limit the free speech rights of the Lobbyists.  However, by performing more of their work from their home districts, the influence of lobbyists could be equalized a bit more.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Your guest's assertion that "there is something wrong" with those who would tunnel under a graveyard strikes me as being overly anthropomorphic. The dead are not disturbed by bulldozers or any other mechanical device. They are dead.

Your guest perpetuates the myth that humans are "special" and deserving of some strange, sacred treatment, even as corpses withering underground. This is akin to the Egyptians mummifying their deceased leaders for their journey into the afterlife.

It is understandable that an individual might not wish his deceased ancestors to be shifted about by earth-moving equipment. However, it happens all the time. My own father, a World War II veteran has been "relocated" two times at the Fort Snelling Military Cemetery in St. Paul, Minnesota, due to overcrowding. His remains are now stacked up on top of two other sets of remains.

My father was not offended by this change of circumstances. He is dead, after all. Neither I, nor any of my siblings, were disturbed in anyway when we learned of my father's "change of address."

If there is anything sacred about the dead, it is the memory of them in the minds of those who survive. To imagine that the dead are entitled to everlasting quiet in their burial grounds strikes me as a rather silly conceit having more to do with the insecurities of the living than the imagined needs of those passed away.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context