RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
scottmil's comments:
on Kitzhaber Wins
dirtguy,
If I am understanding things, the problem is largely about tone and strength in numbers. And partisanship is like being an overzealous fan, where people only have room for their team, and the way their team sees things. Where participants are willing to be against something just because it was proposed by the opposing side, not because of the merit of the issues. Yes, I accept that this is a problem in itself, but I don’t know that it is the problem. This question is another example of the-chicken-or-the-egg. Where you might be suggesting our problems are because of, or a result of partisanship, and I am suggesting it might in effect be much worse---that our problems are about an inherently deep division and it merely represents itself with the symptom of overt partisanship. I do agree it is probable that the division is made sharper by partisanship, or it is exacerbated by the collective bargaining power and social support that a two-party political system might provide. But I think the bigger problem is that people actually do believe what they believe. And when one side is potentially guided by faith on some issues, and not reasoning, it might be incredibly difficult to get out of this impasse, because there are no logical arguments to be made.
On several issues there is unfortunately no possible compromise that wouldn’t result in a dumbing-down, or a subjectifing of things. On gay-marriage, you are either (realistically) bigoted or working from a place of faith, or you are not, because the only logical argument would be to support it. And what compromise is possible? One where the rights of people are still not equal, but might just be a little differently unequal? And where is the compromising on climate change? You either believe the evidence or you don’t. You either stick to the facts and do something about them, or you don’t. With many issues that are said to be polarizing, they are generally only polarizing because the compromise being requested is either impossible or requires one side to abandon logical arguments. And most of the issues that you can actually compromise on are arbitrary and superficial to begin with---so the resulting compromise doesn’t mean or require much.
Simply put, partisanship is not the cause of our political problems, it is the effect of them.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Kitzhaber Wins
Then we have to hear this ignorance of stating the obvious, while not realizing it is obviously correct, that Multnomah county changed the election. Well, yeah, why wouldn’t it? Did you think that one up, just because, they were some of the last votes to be counted? What if the Multnomah county votes were counted first and then the rural areas started to change the numbers? Would it not be as obvious to you then? Of course Multnomah county will always have the power to change an election, it has an enormous population! And, I think voting is usually based on the number of people casting ballots, so generally the areas with the most people are going to, obviously, have the power to change the election.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Kitzhaber Wins
Then, we have the always, disenfranchised folks, the self-imposed rural minorities, complaining about how they are never represented, well duh, you might have the appearance of being underrepresented because you are simply not the majority. If everyone moved to the rural areas then I guess the representation would change. Of course it is a bogus claim anyway, it is truly about conservative people complaining about liberals, and using geography as a smokescreen.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Kitzhaber Wins
Everyone seems to say that something has gone wrong with our politics. When do people ever not make this claim? When was something ever going right with our politics? I am not convinced that these claims about everyone being so partisan mean very much. Perhaps the world is just a bit more honest then it was before, with people actually saying what they believe, and now that people are actually upfront about their views, instead of being polite, we are at a democratic impasse.
We don’t need people to be less partisan, we just need them to choose the ‘correct’ side, and that is what people often mean when they make the partisan claim, they merely want people to think like them. This is the ‘authentic’ problem we face in America: that half of the country really does think and act like antiquated maniacs, and the partisanship is merely an accurate representation of the divide. We need to change the culture of the country into a culture that actually thinks and understands what a democracy ought to be, a culture that is not willing to tolerate the intolerant. It is not that we are partisan that is the problem, it is that ‘we’ are ‘who we are’ that is the problem. And, good luck fixing that one!
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Election 2010: The Morning After
How can one ever be happy with an election? Even if things turn out the way you wanted them to, it is rarely, if ever, because people voted with intelligence. The scariest thing about elections is how fickle and arbitrary people are, how the public is ruled by anger and popular trend, or at least the public who ends up deciding the elections. How in two years since the previous election, people couldn’t manage to recall what actually happened to shape the way things are now, that they have such short-term memory and no vision for the future. Elections always remind me that the good of democracy is no sure thing, that democracy relies on the quality of the people, and the quality is rarely there, and if it appears to be there, it is generally chance or circumstance and not educated thinking that produces the good results.
This election also suggests that President Obama wasn’t elected because Americans got smart all of sudden, it was merely a popular whim and Mr. Obama was in the right place at the right time. I hate to be so negative, but I just don’t see another reality fitting the evidence.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on College For Profit?
Like many things, I have a strong feeling about for-profit education, but I can’t entirely pinpoint why I developed that feeling, or what the reasoning is. So I am trying to work backwards, on something my brain already decided, to come up with the justification as to why I think for-profit education is a bad idea. But, so far, I have only done the opposite!
We often think of public and not-for-profit education as being democratic and equitable. But, in some ways, or on some levels, it isn’t. The admissions process, may mean the most qualified candidates, or the best educated students get accepted, but it doesn’t mean everyone can. What about someone who wants something badly even though they might not have the grades to meet the criteria for admittance? There are probably many people who just don’t try hard enough, and if they decide they want to try, maybe they should be given the chance. The assumptions of merit should ideally occur while you are actually taking the course, rather then being denied entry in the first place. For instance, what if I did poorly at school because of a personal crisis and can’t get accepted to a university because of my grades, but potentially might do very well in the subject. In ways, merit based admittance is only equitable if you think the smartest people on paper should be the only ones to get the chance. Structured education can be formulaic and authoritarian, and sometimes it seems like for-profit education has the potential to lessen this.
I feel a higher education is not, or should not, simply be the means to a high paying job. That education in itself is useful and necessary. But, even not-for-profit schools don’t entirely march to this drummer, much of the process is about metrics and grades, not just learning in the hope that you will be a better person for it. Parts of education are a competitive and judgemental process where you are rated against others. Ideally grades and test scores should be more useful to the student to guide their progress, rather then as a sign to the outside world whether someone makes the cut or is good enough. The fact that degrees are issued at all is a sign that the structure of most educational systems is about more then just an education, or at least that the education is meant to lead to something else.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on College For Profit?
In a way the goal of so many aspects of our educational system is to increase the economic potential of the student. It is not simply an investment in your future, it is more accurately an investment in your financial future. Perhaps, this is not as crass as it sounds. Perhaps, it falls under teaching one how to live, or teaching one how to have a good life, and it just so happens that money is a required component for a successful life. But, that life’s success is still being defined economically. It is hard to escape the notion that much of, even, not-for-profit education has the end goal of profit, perhaps not in itself, but through its students.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Foot Traffic
pedalmore,
Most roads in their current incarnation are built for the prevailing and primary function of motorized vehicular traffic. I am not saying that bicycles don’t have an equal right to use roads, but it doesn’t change the fact that the overwhelming function and existence (right now, not in history) of roads is because of, and for, automobiles. You can compare this to claiming the tarmacs or runways at the airport are not for the primary function of airplanes. Yes---emergency vehicles, gas and luggage trucks use them, but they are there primarily for the aircraft. In fact, they would not exist if the airplanes didn’t. It seems a bit like common sense rather then arrogance that people will assume roads are there primarily for cars. Or, perhaps, the function of bike lanes is not for bikes either? Are they equally for people who want to roller skate or pick up trash? And, if roads are equally adequate for bicycles and cars, then why do we need bike lanes at all?
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Foot Traffic
“The problem is peoples' often arrogant belief that roads are for cars, and nothing else belongs. That clouds their perception.” This statement shows an equal kind of arrogance. Roads exist primarily for cars, they were built for cars, there would not be roads across the country if cars did not exist, there would be walking trails or sidewalks. Yes, pedestrians and cyclists also use portions of the road, but the primary function is for cars. Bicycles are as much missiles as cars, sure cars are more powerful missiles, but this is all relative. Everyone has an equal responsibility to act responsibly. Proposing that drivers are somehow more arrogant then cyclists and pedestrians is nonsense. If anything it could be just as likely, if not more so, that cyclists are arrogant because many of them see it as a moral imperative and a culture. They might also feel oppressed, which is likely to create arrogance in response. But, realistically we all suck!
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Foot Traffic
The problem, if there is a problem at all, is not transportation mode specific. Every group that is moving from A to B in America, via any form of transport, seems to have some kind of problem, every group claims to be a victimized minority and you begin to wonder where, and who, all the perpetrators are. The problem is not one group, but Americans approach to public life in general, there is an overwhelming sense of entitlement and smugness, not intellectual smugness, but more of a cowboy, bad-ass smugness. This doesn’t show itself necessarily in the way people would assume, like in fast aggressive driving, it also shows itself through opposite modes. The hippie approach where you think you can stop and confuse traffic to let one car turn, or to let a pedestrian jaywalk in middle of the street. Often these alleged niceties are some of the most dangerous manoeuvres, because they confuse people through a bending of the rules or a subversion of the normal flow of things.
The most appalling example of the average American’s entitlement is the passing, or fast-lane, on highways, many people rather then going too fast in this lane, go too slowly, they don’t actually pass cars, they merely travel in the lane hunky dory, and if someone comes up behind them, instead of getting over, they slow down---because no one is going to tell them what to do. That is exactly the problem with all our transportation issues, no one is going to be told what to do. Everyone wants to do everything on their own terms whether they are fast or slow, or nonsensical. This includes liberals and conservatives, and in some ways, contrary to what I would have assumed, liberals seem to be just as bad at all this. Because they also approach the road, while often with good intentions, but those good intentions turn into aggressive intentions---they want traffic to work the way they feel it should, rather then the way it actually does. When all groups are so on the defensive, and so ready to jump on every grievance, even if those grievance are allegedly motivated by safety concerns, it creates a war-like atmosphere.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Candidate Conversation: John Kitzhaber
Dr. Kitzhaber, like politicians often seem to do, claims that things are not working and that we need change. Does he actually believe things are not working in any substantive way, or is Oregon economically in a poor place simply because the country is? And, having been the Governor of Oregon, how much difference can one person make? Are these promises for change even possible in the overly partisan climate described by Dr. Kitzhaber’s website?
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Philosophy of Taxes & Spending
Tom D Ford,
I wouldn’t say I happily pay taxes, I think they are useful and necessary, and would often vote to increase them. But, I can’t avoid thinking that they are an unfortunate reminder, or the lesser of evils, that are necessary to keep a chaotic species in order. They are not something we ever hope for, they are simply something we have to resign ourselves to.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Philosophy of Taxes & Spending
lolo,
Thanks, that was a great post. I kind of thought the show might have been more about the bigger picture, or the philosophy of taxes, similar to the way you have described them. I think this is exactly the problem, that people forget the scope of what taxes do, they simply focus on an esoteric issue and how that myopic issue effects them. I think that is one problem with journalism, perhaps an unavoidable problem, it is so focused on technicalities and specific facts that it has no way to provide an overview of the issue. Many keep repeating the mantra that ‘we will let you decide,’ which so often results in talking about the leaves in detail, but always forgetting the branches that hold the tree together. I don’t mean this show, really, but just media and public discourse in general. It seems like people have ran with the ‘we will let you decide’ and now use it as a cop-out to not get into the tricky territory of linking things together. Maybe they feel it will seem subjective, but it will only seem subjective if it is badly done.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Philosophy of Taxes & Spending
It seems like most people’s views on taxes are linked to what they think of government in general. If they think the ruling parties are competent and the government programs are efficient and necessary, then they are more likely to be less bothered by taxes. The problem with our views toward taxes, on all sides, is that they are relative. For instance, if you don’t like war you may get angry about paying taxes during a war. Or, if you don’t like health-care for all, and the government decides to fund it, you may not want to pay your taxes. In a way we saw a similar scenario with Juan Williams, when people threatened not to support NPR anymore because they didn’t agree with the decision, or the way he was fired.
In a way taxes will always be a battle, because they are a purchase that you didn’t make, they are something that you don’t have a choice but to commit to. You are born into a country, into a place that has a tax structure, and you don’t have much of a say in it. Especially when people are taxed at different rates it can seem inequitable. It is hard to keep in perspective or to have at the front of your mind what taxes do, what their justification is and why the exist in the first place. In a way we are so removed from those fundamental economic and governing principles of giving up freedoms for the protections and structures that a government provides. It is hard to feel that you are benefiting from taxes, when this way of life is the one you have always known. Taxes will always feel authoritarian, because they are in essence a tariff on life.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Addressing Gang Violence
Jacob,
It should be fairly clear, that ‘political correctness,’ whatever that means, is not something I concern myself with. Well of course it isn’t, because the only ‘correctness’ I am concerned with is the kind that is true. Which is exactly the problem with your post, and others---they just aren’t correct to begin with---so there would be know need to even get to the political correctness of them if I were so inclined.
I thought it would also be clear to most people (I realize you are not 'most people,' but I thought I would give you the credit) that there is a huge leap between genetic predisposition to disease by certain ethnicities, versus proposing that gangs exist because blacks and Hispanics are allegedly predisposed to enjoy the camaraderie of organized violence. The problem with your proposition is that you have presented it as means of causation which you have absolutely no evidence of---you can’t link it up.
You might know that blacks and Hispanics make up the majority of gang members in certain places, but you do not know that they are gang members because there is something inherent among blacks and Hispanics that leads to this behaviour. It could be these minorities have been oppressed or feel marginalized, have poor economic conditions, have a culture that is more prone to violence---it could be all sorts of things, that yes, might happen to be specific to those cultures, and when combined with the circumstances people find themselves in, leads to gang activity. But, based on your language you are going beyond drawing these potential observations, you are prosing an egg that is already rotten before it hatches.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Addressing Gang Violence
On this page, there is a bit of ‘pointing out’ how gangs are made up of 'blacks' and 'Hispanics,' and how once we all realize this key statistic everything will be peachy-creamy. Gosh, you know, I did realize that was a factor. Not sure where that leads to. Are we to think that 'blacks' and 'Hispanics' are inherently defective? Is there hope for them? Is it cultural? Is it economic? I can’t help but think the motivation for pointing this out, isn’t meant to be useful and isn’t leading to a solution. There are many thugs, in many places, and in several parts of the world those thugs happen to be 'whites.' It could be useful to understand the ethnic makeup of a group, but what is not useful is to suggest that this makeup speaks about an entire ethnicity at large, or that a race is broken, and churns out criminals at birth. There is a whole lot of chicken or egg in the world, and it is hard, or nearly impossible, to comprehend.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Addressing Gang Violence
Assuming we are speaking about only black criminals, then, still, what is your point? It doesn’t seem like the subject is about blaming anyone specifically, it seems to be more about how we can fix the problem of gang violence.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Bullying in School
To be at the wrong end of bullying is to be a recipient of a kind of torture. Bullying can sometimes include physical pain, but the cruelest aspect is the mental, teasing frustration, where the recipient feels stuck, boxed-in, rat-wheeled, with no apparent escape. A physical fight’s danger generally ends with the last blow, but the bully infects their victim with a persistent fear that lives on past the incident. When will the next time be? Even if the bully can no longer cause direct pain or abuse, the insecurity in the victim lingers and continues to do its corrosive damage.
It is easy to be repulsed by something like the torture of animals, or the bullying of them, because they are generally defenseless, but their defenselessness is inherent, they mentally and physically can often not fight back. While the torture of animals is atrocious its impact might not be as severe as the bullying of humans, because their consciousness is minor. When you bully the human they can fully grasp what is being done to them. They have a personality to infect, to destroy, to degrade, and they have a memory that retains the event in a literal way.
In many ways bullying could be said to be worse, when it comes from an equal, because the gravity might be enhanced. If the person is much older, or much stronger, then it is easier to comprehend how this could occur or even why, because they already have an inherent power over you. But, when it comes from someone like you, it makes the situation seem ever more hopeless. Because in a way you have the potential to fight back but couldn’t, or can’t muster the power, which leads to the feeling that perhaps you are inferior and truly rotten. 'Hopelessness' might be the key to the power of bullying, it defeats the personality, and if there is no hope and things seem dire, then why continue?
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Equal Protection for Sexual Minorities?
3 - nunya,
“Homosexuality should not be advocated for as an appropriate lifestyle or as a lifestyle that is equal in value to those that significantly better meet said biological imperatives.” Even if we accept your statement as fact, it still doesn’t say or lead to the conclusion that homosexuals should not be married. ‘Advocating’ that homosexuals have equal rights, such as marriage, is in no way advocating for homosexuality itself, or homosexuality as a sexual orientation. It merely says people have this orientation, which we cannot deny, whether by choice or biology, and they should not be discriminated against, particularly in a commitment that has nothing to do with biological imperatives. Additionally, can you even conclude from the imperative that the homosexual lifestyle is inappropriate? How do you classify someone who is bisexual, in fact I have met such a person, who had a child and then entered into a homosexual relationship several years later. What if she later decides she would marry her partner if she could? How far in life does it extend? If you are broken and old and can no longer reproduce is your heterosexual relationship somehow inferior?
P.S. Thanks for your time also!
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Equal Protection for Sexual Minorities?
2 - nunya,
For some reason, you leave the door open that some cases of homosexuality may be genetic. Which seems odd, because then it at least half the cases your argument would have a problem. Potentially, you might propose that whether homosexuality is biological, or is not biological, it doesn’t make a difference; because either way it is a mistake. But, even if homosexuality is a mistake, a choice, an error, or even a disease, it wouldn’t make a difference in how we treat homosexuals. It wouldn’t mean they deserve different rights because they are allegedly ill or inferior in one aspect.
What happens biologically many not be ‘irrelevant’ to everything, but I think its relevancy to how a person lives their life is very limited. We differ from most species because of our ability to do ‘more’---in a way we break free from the imperative to replicate. At times some of us even decide not to replicate, because we don’t have the economic means necessary, or think the planet is at capacity. A homosexual sterile male might develop a cure for cancer and save many lives, which would seem to do more then enough to satisfy any imperative to further the species. Or a homosexual male might get together with a homosexual female and have a child, what then? Humans have advanced consciousness and abilities that go above and beyond their biological imperatives. And, implying a simplistic imperative to a complex life can be dangerous, especially when the conclusions being drawn from it could never logically extend that far.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
