Be the Spark!

contribute now

scottmil's comments:

on The Democratic Party's On

I agree with the not-so-"super-subtle point" you made. However, Ms. Harris should receive a bigger piece of elastic then you seem willing to give. Despite the fact that we can't read her mind - it seems clear she thinks!

We should hardly be willing to throw the baby out, even if it cries now and then. Think Out Loud is a good show and its host(s) generally seem altruistic, broad-minded and of good will.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on The Democratic Party's On

This position will never change and it never should.

Sometimes you need to state the obvious, because it is so often overlooked: The Democrat is (generally) liberal; by definition liberal means "open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." Being anti-choice is fundamentally against what it means to be liberal. You are asking the Democratic party to do the impossible!

It is philosophically incongruous to be anti-choice and democratic; you can't mandate the right of choice to others and rightfully be considered open-minded and tolerant.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on The Democratic Party's On

I think it is great the democratic party is in disagreement or divided if you like. Why shouldn't it be? Where did this absurdity come from that we think it shouldn't be divided? Elvis and the Beatles? Is that all there is? Its a complex world - should politics not reflect this? Does everything need to be prepackaged?

What this is truly about is that people want to win! Winning is apparently more important than discussion. What an intelligent democracy we have... .

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on The Democratic Party's On

Its foolish if you think "quincey" is any less informed or any more childish in his/her thinking then the other superficial reasons people choose candidates. Democracy is the new American Idol, average people making average decisions in a below average format. I think even if you decided to pack it all in - you are hardly worse for it!

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on The Democratic Party's On

The sad reality about being part of any group is that as you become more immersed you realize it isn't what you expected. You realize that few people make choices based on objectivity and that members of the Democratic party are almost as superficial as Republicans. In some ways the Democrat is even more annoying then the Republican; at least with a Republican you expect subjectivity and traditional thinking - you know what you are in for! With the Democrat the lack of intelligent thinking comes as a surprise.

-Portland, Oregon

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on HIV Testing and Informed Consent

Its not really the point you were making. It isn't as simple as you proposed. You can't trust health-care providers to be objective and as much as testing could help it could also scare people away if it is done improperly or if declining has a negative stigma.

I could very much imagine opting-out being an immediate red-flag at some doctors' offices and certainly for insurance companies. Perhaps some people who are involved in risky behaviour just won't go to the doctor at all. If this opting-out is in medical records then it certainly seems that insurance companies could use this information and make assumptions about the patient and refuse further coverage, which is a very real problem and could be a real deterrent to people getting medical attention.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on HIV Testing and Informed Consent

I personally was too afraid to ask my old doctor for an HIV test. It was a doctor at Providence and considering their logo is a cross I wasn't sure that the doctor wouldn't make assumptions about me and treat me differently. So I actually went elsewhere but not until months later. I did not have HIV, but my fraidy-cat behaviour was irresponsible and could have lead to dire consequences. Perhaps this could have been lessened if they asked each patient?

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on HIV Testing and Informed Consent

How much of this is motivated by saving money rather then saving lives? If you want to save people then find a way to fund statewide health-care for all. After that is achieved then implement testing.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on HIV Testing and Informed Consent

This is difficult - if everyone had the opportunity to be tested, it could make it easier for those patients that are afraid to ask - and should be asking. However patients without insurance might not wish to be tested and that could put them in an awkward position.

Is the stigma from HIV really gone? If someone declines the test can we trust the objectivity of health care providers not to make assumptions about the patient?

Currently insurance companies are free to discriminate at will. This legal discrimination is egregious and downright absurd. Until the USA has universal health-care and everyone is guaranteed coverage then I think testing should be by patient request.

-Portland, Oregon

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Clinton and the Generational Gender Divide

Black Americans are called a minority for a reason: because they are a minority of the US population - 12.2% (includes males/females). Women on the other-hand comprise 51% of the population of the USA (all races).

I think it wouldn't be a stretch to say women are underrepresented in US politics, more so then black men.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Clinton and the Generational Gender Divide

Much of your comment is what I have been deliberating. To paraphrase, perhaps with less nuance: it is human nature to have a bias towards people like you? Is this a fair summary?

Is this too much credit you give to "people of good will" though? Lifting up whoever for whatever reason? Maybe: Lifting up whoever for whatever reason if the individual or group likes the "whoever" and the "reason."

How do we interpret what is simply innocent human nature versus what is xenophobia, irrational cultural bias, overreaching pride or simple jingoism? It seems like a delicate line.

Will this human nature evolve as cultures increase integration?

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Clinton and the Generational Gender Divide

I also am part of "Obama's generation." Is this something to be proud of? The bigoted views of Rev. Wright are definitely something I want to associate with. Oh how very modern. The popularity of a candidate based overwhelmingly on superficial reasons is also very clever and so today; just turn the reality-TV on.

We are so on the cutting-edge we are almost falling off. Not that much really changes, the telephone, e-mail, the I-Phone through which people are still having the same old loopy conversations. Our generation gives itself way too much credit!

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Clinton and the Generational Gender Divide

I'm a guy who became a feminist. I worked with a woman who repeatedly told me how she wasn't a feminist, so I became one to make up for her stupidity. There are few things worse then women who go around declaring they aren't feminists. All women reap the benefits from the sweat and tears of the pioneers and revolutionaries of the past.

Perhaps these abstainers think you have to be militant or angry to support the rights of women? Who would dare declare in public that they didn't support the civil rights movement or the rights of racial minorities?

-Portland, Oregon

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Clinton and the Generational Gender Divide

How very, very ironic that you are even having a show on this topic. I challenge Think Out Loud to a show on the racial divide and whether people feel the "need to elect a" black man "as president just to prove equality." The standards of OPB and NPR are egregiously hypocritical on this issue. Anyone asking whether Obama is receiving support because he is black is immediately censored on NPR as a racist. This absurdity and lack of critical thinking is deplorable.

This shows existence answers your questions. Thankfully feminists are at least honest enough to admit that Hillary's underdog status is some part of the attraction.

NPR really should be ashamed - it's "dumb objectivity" on this topic, on this show and others, is debased and pathetic.

-Portland, Oregon

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Of Prayer and Penicillin

Completely true. However, we shouldn't let their hypocrisy be a justification for ours. Perhaps we can teach the faithful something by our clear thinking and moral objectivity. There is a small, small possibility that our lack of bias might garner some respect from the faithful towards the "non-believers" who are defending their rights with nothing to gain. I guess you could call my hope - blind faith.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Of Prayer and Penicillin

The line between a "cult" and a mere "religion," is practically impossible to determine. One has to think the term cult was invented by the religious to criticize other religions that they found to be extreme. The catholic church certainly is a cult by definition, albeit a homogenized mainstream version; a cult nonetheless. It is pretty plausible to argue all religions are cults. They are just so commonplace that no one notices.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Of Prayer and Penicillin

What an excessively overreaching and fallacious comparison!

As much as I abhor what they are doing, their motivation and intent is most definitely not what you are suggesting. To the parents they are not gambling with their child's life, they are following god's desires as they see them.

Withholding treatment is enormously different then intentionally causing harm to, most likely, a homosexual adult. Additionally this is their young child and the law allows the parents to indoctrinate a child in any faith and a lot of other things I may not agree with.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Of Prayer and Penicillin

There is much with religion I personally find to be objectionable, actually all of it. However, we allow religious freedom in this country! Most religions are bigoted especially towards homosexuals and this is thoroughly tolerated. Woman have also been treated as submissive and unequal for centuries. This widespread religious vitriol is rarely challenged because its the mainstream.

These minority religions can't be treated differently even if their actions results in the loss of life, to treat them differently is discrimination. They truly believe their faith is god's will and their claims are hardly more unscientific then any other religions. Nor can their claims be disputed or challenged by our current standards of religious non-proof. If we want religious freedom then these are the results. The religious xenophobia from other religions is ironic and very, very pathetic.

-Portland, Oregon

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Rural Office Politics

We have no idea whether there even is a disconnect between rural and urban representation in Oregon policy. All we have are subjective anecdotes. Perhaps the rural have a bias towards the urban? The rural are statistically conservative and republican, perhaps this perceived disconnect is a moral dislike or xenophobia rather then a true under-representation.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Rural Office Politics

It might help to have some Oregon population figures:

RURAL - 836,079
URBAN - 2,911,376
TOTAL - 3,747,455

This means the rural population is only 22 percent of the state, so they should be underrepresented.

-Portland, Oregon

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics