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 agree with Maud's comments about the redistribution of water. Water is going to become a major political topic in the next few years...I think what we need is a balanced discussion on this topic before it gets to the point of say, the healthcare debate. The last thing I'd like to see is a shooting war as a result of water demands across the world.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Hey Penny, what about using a steel container?

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

One of my newest customers (I co-founded a water company that provides business-to-business water service) just signed on for the very same reason. That said, I totally agree with Maud's comments about personal-sized bottled water and its woes. That's not to say my business doesn't have its problems, but like the TOL host mentioned when I called in, I think it's possible to harness the dynamic of the commodification of water and use it to do good. At least that's what I'm trying to do with my company NedWater.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I respect your choice not to be around a gun Lottie, but in the case where you may be the victim of a crime of any kind, you don't have a choice. You can be in your workplace, or in your home and not have the benefit of that choice. You are within your rights of course to exercise this choice, but saying you don't want law-abiding citizens to not carry guns doesn't mitigate your issue/concern

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

The woman responding to a criminal attack was acting consistent with statistics. It's well-known among law enforcement officials and CHL holders that 1. Police statistically respond too late to respond to a crime in progress and 2. The US supreme court ruled that the police are NOT responsible for one's personal protection and security. The woman who used her firearm to protect her self probably didn't have time to call the police and even if she did, it is doubtful that the police would have responded in time.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I think Scott that people are coming from a point of respecting privacy, concealed weapons as a deterrence, and the right to self protection. I'm not reading any hysterics in these posts.

Firearms are an incindiary issue generally, but characterizing these posts as "hysterical" is not forwarding the conversation.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Scott, I'd be curious to understand what it is you are so angry about. Are you saying that the popular vote CLEARLY shows Clinton as being the winner? Help me understand your perspective.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Totally agree with your last paragraph Tom. Man has created the Creator in his own image. And the world reflects this. However, the true Creator is reasserting itself. That's a positive emerging outcome.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Totally agree with this comments and similar ones. As a veteran U.S. Marine and 20-year practicioner of martial arts, I totally DISAGREE with much of what Matt had to say. Paul the listener isn't the only one who needs education. "The Creator" did NOT create man to be a fighting animal. I lean much more strongly towards Buddhism, but have read the Bible many times and there is no mention in "The Creator's" word that says man is a fighting animal and should pursue that act.

Any bonafide martial artist knows that the higher-order practice of martial arts isn't to defeat an enemy or competitor, it's to defeat one's own egoic orientation. Indeed, the ultimate purpose of martial arts isn't martial at all, it's spiritual.

As for Matt's comments about feminized men: Matt is allowing his personal opinion (and perhaps his own orientation) to defile his martial art. I'm not saying he's gay, his sexual orientation is his business. But to say the feminization of men is an evolutionary bad thing misses the point that genders exist as balancing forces of one another. Many men on the planet could benefit from some feminization in a sense that there are many positive attributes of the feminine expression that could balace the masculine in man.

Not only would a greater feminization equate to better relationships among and between men, it may also allow people like Matt to see the higher order purposes of the Martial arts and the true purpose of man: to express their divinity, not their penchant for brutality.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Totally agree with this comments and similar ones. As a veteran U.S. Marine and 20-year practicioner of martial arts, I totally DISAGREE with much of what Matt had to say. Paul the listener isn't the only one who needs education. "The Creator" did NOT create man to be a fighting animal. I lean much more strongly towards Buddhism, but have read the Bible many times and there is no mention in "The Creator's" word that says man is a fighting animal and should pursue that act.

Any bonafide martial artist knows that the higher-order practice of martial arts isn't to defeat an enemy or competitor, it's to defeat one's own egoic orientation. Indeed, the ultimate purpose of martial arts isn't martial at all, it's spiritual.

As for Matt's comments about feminized men: Matt is allowing his personal opinion (and perhaps his own orientation) to defile his martial art. I'm not saying he's gay, his sexual orientation is his business. But to say the feminization of men is an evolutionary bad thing misses the point that genders exist as balancing forces of one another. Many men on the planet could benefit from some feminization in a sense that there are many positive attributes of the feminine expression that could balace the masculine in man.

Not only would a greater feminization equate to better relationships among and between men, it may also allow people like Matt to see the higher order purposes of the Martial arts and the true purpose of man: to express their divinity, not their penchant for brutality.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context