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

The one that always gets me is For Real by Bob Franke. I first heard it sung by Lui Colins (probably not much known locally). It isn't a happy love song, but it hits the center.  The first verse is:

Death took the husband of a neighbor of mine on a highway with a drunk at the wheel.
She told me keep your clean hands off the laundry he left, and don't tell me you know how I feel.
She had a tape that he'd sent her from a Holiday Inn, and she never played it much in the day
but when I heard him say I love you through the window at night I just stayed the hell away

Even the words without the music hit the bull's eye for me. She has a lot of songs like that.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I do not think burkas should be disallowed based on religion but because of security.

As a society, we are obsessive about protecting children in school. How do you do that if you cannot identify individual teachers? How do you tell, every day, that the person coming in is the teacher you hired? We are not a culture that can identify people easily by more subtle clues

But I am offended by singling out religion as a point of exclusion. If a muslim woman cannot wear a head scarf, then a chemotherapy patient should not be allowed to either. Or would you REQUIRE the chemo patient to wear a head scarf or wig, or stay away all together, so that your children are not exposed to the reality of cancer?

Our children need to live in the world.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

As an atheist, I find it offensive that we would think that simply exposing our children to people of religion, and the fact that they have different conventions and observances is somehow harmful to them. If it is that dangerous for them to even see, then why are you letting your children out in public at all? Who knows what they might come in contact with!

I have never thought that the separation of church and state means erasing all evidence of religion no matter how obscure. How can you teach effectively without acknowledging the profound effect that religion has had on society and history?

By denying these simple observances, we are, in fact, imposing our own religious/social mores on them. The one part I struggle with is the face veil, since it does not allow you to identify or "read" the the person you are speaking with.  But that is probably more for me than today's children who live on the internet and with remote communication.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

For the employer who will only hire friends if he cannot check credit, maybe that is what he should do. I'm not sure I would want to work for someone who apparently has no judgment or ability to assess the person he is meeting.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I have to agree that it is a way to look for information you are not allowed to ask while hiring, especially about medical history or other things that might cost the company itself.

But I also think that selling the credit history as a hiring tool adds more power to the credit industry itself, especially if the hiring company only looks at the score and not the specifics. People get to be obsessed about their credit scores and keeping them up.

Personally, I have a less than ideal credit score.  Why? Because don't use credit most of the time. I don't have any credit cards. Except for my mortgage, I don't spend money I don't have. And my current mortgage is a private contract, so it won't show up on my credit history anyway. I don't owe anyone else anything. I pay my bills more or less on time. Always have. All of that makes me a bad credit risk.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I think the mania of holiday celebrations are mostly for kids, and I don't have any.

As a single person, and since my parents are now gone, I prefer to spend christmas by myself in my comfy chair and my not-that-attractive sweatsuit, with a good book, good food, nice music and a glass of eggnog.  Not always possible, since my married siblings find that to be a lonely and pathetic way to spend the day, so they harangue me about joining them for---whatever---and sometimes I give in. But if I had my druthers ...

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

BTW, if the deficit is so overwhelming that it MUST be paid down immediately above all other considerations, how dare the same people talk about reducing taxes anywhere for any reason? In fact they should be talking about RAISING taxes to pay the deficit.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I'm a cynic. It wasn't a problem for eight years to get us into a horiffic deficit starting from no deficit, but NOW we must deal with it immediately. It tells me that the people upset are mostly upset that we are no longer spending the money in ways that benefit THEM or things they care about.

I don't see why it has to be either or. We need people to work and we need to save and spend responsibly, both as individuals and as a nation, and I appreciate that the president is talking about both.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

It troubles me that both sides in this issue have automatically responded in an adversarial way. And then they wonder why they are treated as adversaries.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Something just said struck a chord -- We need to think about the best way to move PEOPLE around the area, not how to best benefit any particular transportation mode. It is hard for many of us to not skip that step and go right to the mode they favor.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

If you want people to drive less (I do), you need to make all other forms of transportation attractive, safe and comfortable.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

It isn't about never getting things, it is about being mindful of what you get and why.

If you consider everything you bring in or discard (why do I need it? why do I need to throw it away? can I do something with it other than throw it away), you just start seing things differently. The trick for me was realizing that "not throwing it away" did not mean I had to keep something.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

What worked for me, when I was living jointly was that we both put half of our income into a joint account, that was used to pay bills and any other incidentals. If that money ran out or one of us wanted something above the regular bills and beyond our budget, we would negotiate. Cable TV - I didn't want it and didn't want to pay more than half the cost, but he could not afford his half because he was a student at the time, and he could not convince me that it was worth the extra money to me, so we didn't get it.

If there was extra, we would decide what to spend it on, but we each had half our income to spend as we chose.

katied

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

BTW, the weirdest part of the decision not to have children was the thought that, for millions of years, from the first spark of primordial life (or Adam and Eve if you are a creationist) something or someone managed to survive at least long enough to reproduce successfully, in an unbroken chain right down to me. And because of where and when I am living, I can just say, "Nah, I don't want to," and deliberately break the chain.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I decided around 15 that I did not need to have children, and carefully reconsidered that decision every five years or so until I was 45, without changing it. Altough it got harder as I got older, just because I did not like losing the option to change my mind, the choice never changed.

I also know that I was never opposed to having children, if the relationship or circumstances were right for them, but that didn't happen. Thankfully, I had no family pressure to the contrary.

I always understood that I would regret the decision at times, the same way I would have regretted the loss of freedom and independence if I HAD changed my mind. But you can only choose one path and there is always some regret for the path you didn't choose ... more now that I'm in my 50s. As I expected, I regret not having adult children more that the babies, toddlers, tweens and teens.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I'm also starting to see the whole national health care debate as a disguised way to actually prop up a failing system and PREVENT something better from growing in it's place.

If nobody has insurance, then they will KNOW what the costs are and start demanding accountability. If hospitals and doctors are held accountable for their costs by their clients, they will get more efficient and lower costs. If patients actually have to pay for their own care, then they will CARE about the costs and be more selective about their demands.

As long as insurance covers basic care, what we have won't change appreciably.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I think it is obscene to REQUIRE that people give money to a for profit third party although I don't see why the medical profession itself shouldn't be profitable.

But then I think INSURACE is about gambling on risk, not filtering basic, usual care.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

On today's specific topic, my mother managed to hold my only brother back a year without stigma, in spite of the fact that he could easily have skipped grades (really, really smart), because she did not feel that he was physically ready for the pressures of the grade school structure. He was also the only one of us who did not do preschool, which I never though of as unusual until now, but at home she kept us all really physically active, and as a teacher, made sure we were all well prepared for the academic side of school when we got there.

It was high school that was his downfall because it was not COOL to be really really smart, so he worked hard not to look as smart as he was. He never really got over that.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Welcome to adolescence. EVERYBODY feels like everyone else has it better.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Personally, I would like to see Oregon follow a model that President Obama outlined for the national government. No bill should be enacted unless the bill itself INCLUDES an adequate funding source to fulfill the bills provisions.

I'd be very surprised if people were still so willing to vote yes on draconian prison sentencing if they were voting on a tax to cover the prisoner increases at the same time.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context