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 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 terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I echoe the thoughts of what comes next? There is speculation that Mubarak may step down, handing over control to his right hand man, Suleiman. Which by all acounts but not be much change at all. I think the Egyptian people would realize that.  If an overthrow is to occur, who will take the place and step in? There are so many interested involved in the riots and protests, it will be hard to appease them all. Wil the Muslim Brotherhood take over, or a more secular group? Over all we can hope that a democratic election will allow for representation from the people and varying groups/agendas.

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I think the question hear may be somewhat disingenuos, or possibly a bit mroe of a semantic discussion. For some it will be a discussion on "WOULD YOU OWN A TOOL?" as in woudl you own a hammer, a crowbar... While for others it is mroe about the extension of the tool, as in "WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO KILL?"

This is part of the debate, arguing different levels of the words and uses. While anti-gun protesters are arguing and pointing the violence and the transgressions committed with guns the pro0fun lobby points to the utility and the tool. This can then be flipped but it never seems like we are arguing the same definitions.

I would argue that pro-gunners are not pro-violence in fact they often argue that the presence of a gun can be a deterrent to violence (while this may be a logical mis-step, the threat of violence can be its own kind of violence).

So...this argument becomes very difficult. We also have to acknowledge the whole "Its not the tool but the user" argument. Another can of worms.

Making this whole thing a very touchy subject, hair trigger if you will.

I myself am anti-gun. I don't own one and never hope to. I don't feel the need and have never been in a situation where I thought a gun would help. I lean towards the "live by the sword, die by the sword" mentality, that a culture dependent on guns either for our safety or violence becomes a violent culture. I would wonder how often the presence of guns on private citizens deters crimes? Guns were present in AZ when Sen. Giffords was shot, did it stop the shooting?

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context

When it coms to stuff, I have my fair share of it. The problem is discerning between what is "stuff" and what is "important". I love books and read a lot of them, but then they pile up and the shelves sag. I love to have these as a collection, but do they count in the stuff category? I am also an artist. My style is kind of DIY, and I often use found objects such as magazines, old books etc. for collages. Or I paint on panels of wood, so I tend to collect a bit of stuff around me. However this is crucial to my creative work. So...how do we discern between the junk drawer full of old paper work, the stuff we don't need and al that wonderful disjecta floating around, that is crucial, needed and wonderful?

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context