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

Obama had a substantial Democratic majority but still couldn't pass meaningful financial reform, blocked lawsuits by mis-identified, completely innocent individuals who were kidnapped (extraordinary rendition) and tortured, blocked prosecution of Bush's torturers, failed to break up the banks that are "too big to fail" when 97% of the public favored doing so, blocked any consideration of single payer healthcare reform, agreed to re-up the awful subsidy of corn farmers for gasahol, wasted money on Cash for Clunkers instead of getting down to building infrastructure  for bikes and  pedestrians, failed to close Guantanamo, failed to end either of Bush's disastrous wars, etc. etc.

How, with a huge majority has Obama managed to just look weak.  Every sign of more of the same instead of the promised "change" can't be pinned on the Republicans.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

These are times to risk being a one term president for all of the right reasons instead of for all of the wrong reasons.

Obama has failed to deliver on most of his promises:

    Torturers are protected instead of pursued

    Big banks are consolidated instead of broken up

    Reckless risks are rewarded instead of punished.

    Corrupt practices like earmarks have been tolerated instead of ended.

     Healthcare reform is structured to benefit insurance companies instead of patients.

     Two Bush wars are being pursued instead of ended.

     Transparency and freedom of information has been eroded instead of supported.

This man is a self-made loser.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I lived briefly with my French relatives in the South of France.  

Of course, it is irrational to apply any generalization to every individual in the domain of the generalization.  But, I am generally fearful of fundamentalists of any creed.  I certainly, as a generalization, fear fundamentalist Christians as greatly as I fear "Muslim extremists."  Frankly, I have difficulties with the argument that only peaceful Episcopalians and Quakers are Christians, but violent or bigoted Christian fundamentalists are not.

A large percentage of the Muslims in France seem to be hostile to historic French culture (for example, of equality, especially when it applies to Women), of separation of church and state, etc.  I believe that the preponderance of practitioners of some forms of Islam really favor some form theocratic government, just as do American fundamentalists do who want their dogma to be enforced by laws.

 I support secular government, and think we ought to think twice about encouraging immigration from sub-cultures, whatever they name the religion they practice,  that are hostile to the idea that people with different ideas can live together peacefully without fear of having someone else's views imposed on them. 

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Surely they jest.

The Democrats over the past three decades have moved so far to the right in their rush to join the Republicans that they make Barry Goldwater look like a liberal.

Meanwhile, faced with mild mannered, centrist, compromiser, the Republicans sit on their hands while issuing from the mouth are the usual baseless slanders and re-writing of history.

After the disastrous Bush administration, you would think they would develop a tiny bit of remorse.

By the way, I am not a Democrat.  I am a conservative abandoned by the ever more right-wing populist Republican party - a party that throws the word "conservative" around in contexts that have made the word meaningless.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I share this concern.  Anyone who studies the issue will see plainly that single payer systems deliver a higher level public health for a dramatically lower percentage of GDP.

Real reform, no tinkering is required to fix our healthcare system.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

With some trepidation, I voted for Obama.

It is hard not to sympathize with a President who inherited the financial, foreign policy and moral disasters of the awful Bush presidency.

Nevertheless, it is tragic that Obama missed a rare opportunity to break up the big banks, that he is satisfied to tinker with a health care system that requires a major overhaul, that he has failed to prosecute the traitors who undermined our constitution, surveilled American citizens, and tortured the innocent as well as the guilty, that he has failed to bring an agenda of genuine, deep and structural change.

It is too early to write Obama off.  Let us all hope that he grows into the job.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I support an increase in the top tier tax rate.  However, I think that the revenue raised should be used to reduce the taxes paid by low income wage earners which are extortionary in Oregon.

In any event, we need to see a state goverment that collects taxes and makes a compelling case that the taxes are spent to benefit citizens..

So, for example, while we are allegedly facing a fiscal crisis, the state continues to allow urban renewal (really urban destruction) which syphons away tens of millions from schools and other local  tax districts.  They continue to subsidize out of state corporations with "enterprise zones" and other shams that destroy local businesses that could otherwise compete.

At the individual level, our legislators make a mockery of their supposed commitment to environmental stewardship and reduction of greenhouse gases by using our taxes to subsidize drivers (for example).

Oregon needs more revenue.  But our legislature needs to establish a smidgen of credibility by (1) ending corporate subsidies that discriminate against tax paying local enterprises, and (2) by going the businesses that are further subsidized by exporting their real costs to the environment - for example, grass seed farmers.

In short, we need a Democratic party with a real vision, a few principles, and a backbone.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

The University of Oregon's academic quality has been sliding for the past several decades. Under-funding is certainly a major factor. However, the University's relentless focus on athletics at the expense of academics is another contributing factor.
Thank goodness Frohnmayer is retiring. His leadership has been a great disappointment.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I agree.

Schools define talent far too narrowly. TAG programs are more about labeling than about looking for each child's talents and gifts.

This ill-conceived approach is essentially a coalition of pushy parents and the teachers who think that they would be more successful if they had better kids to teach.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I have two grown up children, both of whom are highly successful academically and otherwise. The first of my two children was involved in TAG.

I do not agree with the premise that labeling children Talented and Gifted and then offering them a special and/or accelerated curriculum is beneficial.

My biggest concern about TAG is that it identifies a child as Talented and Gifted rather than focusing on identifying each child's talents and gifts. I also think that children develop at different rates, and may be academically advanced at one age, and not at another. The program often reflects the ambitions and conceits of the child's parents more than it does the academic needs of the child. Finally, these programs often create little perfectionists whose fear of failure stunt their potentials.

I am fine with offering classes that address the talents and gifts of children. They should be available to a child whose talent is natural facility, or or one who excels through diligence and discipline. Most children have talents and gifts. Let's have schools with the resources to address the gifts and talents of all the children.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context