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

There are 2 kinds of strength:  brute strength, and strength of character.  It is fairly well established that men overall can have more brute strength than women (obviously there are individual exceptions).  I am unaware of any studies that have been done to suggest that women have more strength of character than men, but I would suggest that men raping women is an example of lack of strength of character on the part of the rapist.  In a combat situation, I'm not so sure that brute strength is more important than strength of character, particularly in modern warfare, which is waged using machines and equipment. Certainly endurance and overcoming hardship are not gender-specific. 

With regard to rape, who can be said to be stronger, the brute with no strength of character, or the woman who endures the rape and survives?

Also, I'm curious if there are any statistics for sexual assaults on men in the military? 

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Leaving aside the politics and trendiness of having chickens, people should remember that they are animals, like any other pet, and require responsible care.  I can't see a reason why up to 3 hens should not be allowed in the backyard; they are relatively low-maintenance pets and not difficult to keep clean and healthy in small numbers with proper facilities and attention.  The problems might come with those who see them merely as egg-machines, or try to turn it into a backyard business, selling eggs or meat to the neighbors.  

I have 6 hens, who do a nice job turning my kitchen waste into eggs and compost for the garden, as well as providing great entertainment (but I live in the country).  I wouldn't want more than 3 hens in an urban yard.  While I don't mind my neighbor's crowing rooster out here, I definitely wouldn't want a rooster next door in the city.  Problem is, you usually can't tell if you're getting a rooster when you get them as chicks.  Then, what do you do with the surprise rooster?

I think most problems with urban chickens could be worked out with a little common sense.

What kinds of restrictions are there on other types of birds that are kept as pets?

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

R. Berg,

Re: your comment: "Many times it's process of learning why they have abandon their family support systems and helping them mend those relationships."

You are right on.  This is the case with a homeless person we are helping out right now--but he won't face the issues or talk about them, and over the years (he abandoned his family years ago, and blames his birth family for everything) has developed a complicated system of rationalization for his dependent behaviors.  How does one help someone like this?  If you speak plainly (and supportively) to him, but say something he doesn't want to hear or respond to, he just clams up and refuses to play.  And he seems to really enjoy his "freedom", although it doesn't seem so "free" when it's not going his way...

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Well, I certainly wouldn't drink as much wine (or beer, or juice, etc) as water, for a start :)  The point I was trying to make (not very well, I guess) is not how much water is used, but who has a say in how it's used.  Once a private, for-profit corporation has control of your water source, only your money will talk (and maybe not even then). 

While Nestle would be paying for the water, they would tie up large quantities of the available water (and going back to my original comment, no one can predict what the water supply will be like, or the demand on it, years from now).  Add a larger population to a few years of drought (both realistic scenarios), and you have issues.  As the 800-lb. gorilla on the block, Nestle would be certain to influence decisions made around the water source.

On the topic of glass vs. plastic, glass is silica-based and at least goes back into the earth eventually, when it's not recycled (although it can be unsightly)--it doesn't float around our waterways and impact wildlife in the way that plastic does. 

I think the question is not so much which industries use more resources, but how they are used (and reused).  I can think of other industries that could exist in Cascade Locks that would be less harmful than an outside behemoth like Nestle.  I know it's hard to develop these things, but at this point, a choice can still be made....

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

As a farmer, one truth is perennially pounded into you:  Never give up your water rights.  No one can predict the future where water is concerned, except for the fact that we need it to survive.  Imagine a world where you had to depend on a profit-making corporation, based somewhere far away, for your water delivery?  How expensive would that be, and how quickly and how well would they repair and maintain the delivery system?  It would completely dictate the kind of development that was done in the future, too.

Another point not considered in what I’ve heard/read so far is the air quality of the Gorge, which has come under scrutiny recently by the DEQ.  Yes, with I-84 running through it we will never get away from traffic-sourced pollution, but does it make sense to encourage more at this point, such as the 100+ trucks daily that Nestle would be using?  The National Scenic Area is the only one in our country, and people come from around the world who enjoy our fresh, tree-scoured air (not to mention those of us who live here).

Lastly, with regard to wine at least, no water is used directly in making it—it’s all juice.  Water is used for irrigation and cleaning of equipment and facilities, but that water is bought and paid for through the public utility system (and the same for beer, juice, or any other kind of business that I know of in the Gorge), thus supporting future water for all.  I, for one, would like to always have a voice in my water source and the way it is delivered.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context