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

Well, until we have a technology that has the same or better power to land use ratio, we do kind of need nuclear power.  The largest solar plant is only a proposal and is only expected to produce 600 MW but takes up 6,000 acres.  The Crystal River Energy Complex in Florida has 4 fossil fuel plants and 1 nuclear plant on 4,700 acres and generates a total of 3,140 MW.  910 MW are the nuclear plant alone, which takes up less than 1/5 of that 4,700 acres.

They are currently upgrading the nuclear plant and expect it to generate over 1,000 MW.

It's also just sad that our existing nuclear plants are aging, wasteful monstrosities far behind the state of the art plants in the rest of the world.  State of the art plants are smaller, more powerful, and produce far less waste.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

For me it came down to:

Obama: is at least out there talking about my core values (open government, shutting down the Torture Dome, shutting down the Fear State, shutting down the Police State, total health care reform, talking to our enemies instead of calling them an 'Axis of Evil', etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.).

McCain: throwing out all of his convictions to tow the party line and let his handlers pick Palin.

Now, it hasn't turned out that well so far, but it seemed like the only choice given that everyone else in the race was either bats**t crazy or completely unoriginal and uninspiring.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Karol said that she wants Democrats to pick up the "quality" of loyalty from Republicans.  I actually think the opposite.  I think Republicans need to drop this "quality".

I would much rather see more parties and term limits on the House and Senate.

The Republican lockstep crap would be fine if the had the right answer 100% of the time, but it is not so fine when their answer to everything is "cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulation, go to war."

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

@Revyloution

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  Free speech itself causes harm, so there is no way to say free speech cannot be a defense for those causing harm.  It already causes harm in so many ways.

And, I'm not arguing against churches voting in blocks.  I just used that as an example of how you cannot say this church is causing harm, but this church is not.  They all are.  You just can't draw that line.

Going down that route, I do not see a difference between not seeking medical care for your child and brain washing your child not to seek medical attention.  However, most people would say the first is not protected speech and the second is.  They both have exactly the same consequences, and drawing a line breaks equal justice.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

@Revyloution

I guess you could say mandated secular education is targeted in the sense that it gives preference to secularism over religion.  I'm not sure how you can really compare that to a law that says this religion can practice its beliefs but not that religion even though they all cause harm.

Witch burning and negro lynching are torture and murder.  Special laws were not required, we just needed to enforce the existing ones.  In fact, I think hate crime laws are bad for society in of themselves since they put more value on one person over another, but that's another discussion.  It's also important to remember that those laws passed because we were already growing beyond that dark stain in our society...and that's all that was really needed.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Free speech should not be extended for the defense of causing harm to others.

But it is every single day.

Like I said, I think the main stream religions cause real, measurable, large-scale harm to society by voting in blocks in ways dictated (indirectly to avoid losing tax-shelter status, of course) by their churches.  But, we give them a pass and go after these people.

Take abortion, for instance.  Main stream Christianity is against it, but most Conservative Christians are also against providing social services to single/teenage mothers and their children.  Consequently, we have a great deal of children that live in poverty, abusive homes, jump from foster family to foster family, and get nowhere in life.  How is that not damaging to those children and society on many many levels?

Outside of religion, I think people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, etc. are effectively the same as a religion.  They cause harm to society in exactly the same ways.  But, you can't shut them up.  You have to let them talk because the alternative is worse.  Instead, you educate people.  You teach them to think critically for themselves.  You teach them to seek out and evaluate all options.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

How will prosecuting them show them that there is no god and that faith healing does not work?

I'm pretty sure prosecution is synonymous with persecution in their minds.  I don't think it says anything else to them.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

@Revyloution

Progress toward secularism comes through education, better understanding of the world around us, and the free-flow of information.

It does not come from confusing the justice system with targeted laws, breaking tenants of freedom, and attempting to force a differentiation between cults and religions.

Honestly, I think we are just going to have to put up with people like this until education and natural selection weed them out.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Seems like this case will be more interesting than the Worthington case.  I think it is going to make a lot of people grapple with the impossibility of drawing an arbitrary line where child abuse stops and faith healing as an acceptable practice starts.

It seems so easy to call the Worthington case child abuse, and a lot of people I spoke with about that case had almost knee-jerk reactions to it.  I suspect a lot of people are going to feel much less strongly about this case, but I do not see it as anything less than child abuse.

The problem is...

If you DO NOT draw a line, then faith healing has to be outlawed completely.  If you outlaw faith healing completely, it has to be done on the basis that it is a form of brain washing.  If you do that, you have to outlaw all organized religions.  Good luck doing that without breaking free speech.

If you DO draw a line, you are breaking religious freedom and, more importantly, you break equal justice under the law since other religions are doing the same basic things and get a pass.  And, I would argue, the main stream religions getting a pass are doing far more damage to society than this group of faith healers by creating voting blocks that vote for policies that have no basis in logic and do large-scale, measurable harm in some cases.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Yes, agreed completely.

This is why I really love the Mormons and Scientologists.  Those two are pretty well-documented case studies in the formation of organized religions and society's reaction to them has been very interesting...amusing even if were not so sad and hypocritical.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

See, I would see it as healthy that we killed off those jobs early on in this country.  The jobs were going to go away no matter what.  Yes, jobs went overseas, but eventually those overseas jobs are going to die off too.

You say forest product demand still exists, but it is going to go away.  Health care is going completely paperless.  eBook readers are still in their infancy and will kill off paper demand for books, magazines, and newspapers.

We, in this country, have a head start on retooling our industries and finding new ways to package and print.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Health care is changing very quickly.

As early as 10 years ago, hospitals were turning out 800-900 pages, on average, of data per sleep/EEG study and were usually running anywhere between 4-10 studies PER NIGHT.  Digital PSG and EEG have eliminated paper in those labs leaving just medical reports sent to referring physicians.

And, of course, even the need for paper for the medical reports is going away very fast.

It is much easier these days to setup security and off-site backups, so smaller clinics and labs are starting to accelerate their conversion.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I can't say I would have any issue with the dog mentioned at the beginning of the show.  In fact, I'm not sure why the school has a problem with it.  If the child is really that disruptive, it seems to me it is better for the other students to actually have the dog there to calm the child.  ...assuming the really can calm the child.

However, a vet with PTSD training his own Pit Bull, let alone outside of any guidelines at all, and calling it a service animal?

Just seems like a lapse in the federal guidelines, honestly.

Like Robin Dickson was implying, a true, well-trained, highly-skilled, service animal should be carefully placed, and there should be very strict guidelines over what kinds of animals can be used and how they should be trained.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

There's a difference between thinking about the welfare of children and "thinking of the children."

Thinking of the welfare of children is making sure we invest in education, making sure healthcare is always available, providing libraries, museums, and parks, providing after-school programs, etc. etc. etc.

"Thinking of the children" is passing ill-conceived, poorly-defined, knee-jerk laws that are unenforceable, easily abused, and/or step on the rights of others in attempt to insulate kids from aspects of life a small number of loud-mouthed parents find objectionable and have no real negative impact on children in reality.  And, it's actually this attempt at insulation itself that I think harms children far more than the objectionable thing ever could.

I was referring to the second.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

@ Tikveh

Right to decide what?  How exactly does a parent ever have control over anything to which their children are exposed?

All parents can do is educate their children.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Can we all stop thinking of the children?

I'm pretty sure we are destroying our children through all this thinking about them.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Yes, you're right.  There's no critical thought by those of us opposed to TASERs.  We should just trust someone trained to deal with situations a certain way that the training they received is the correct training, the only effective training, and that it best serves the public.

Since I have never experienced a life threatening situation, I am obviously unqualified to comment on something that could affect my life at some point, right?  That's called an argument from authority, it's a logical fallacy (and indicates a lack of critical thought on your part), and you provided no evidence that guns, TASERs, batons, or chemical mace are the only means to deal with situations, and no evidence that your ability to use them reduces crime and keeps the peace.

I personally have spent a lot of time around police.  My opinion of their training is that they are trained for the worst possible outcome and trained to approach every situation as though that is going to be the outcome.  In many situations, that makes a violent outcome guaranteed.

Yes, there are situations where non-violent resolution is hard to imagine.  Handling someone crazed on drugs with a knife, for instance.  But, I find it absolutely impossible that there is no other way to handle that than to either shot the person or electrocute the person.  The use of TASERs, CEDs, whatever they're called, is just a thought-terminating option.  It's easy to use, gets the desired results for the police, and eventually people just stop thinking about better ways to handle dangerous situations.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Is the infliction of pain really acceptable when the officer has direct control over the amount of time a person feels that pain?

Hitting someone with a baton and electrocuting them are the same to me.  It doesn't matter to me that person being electrocuted (usually) does not have lingering pain.

Also, I love to hear police types say people should just be compliant.  Have these people ever considered what it is like to be confronted by an aggressive person or persons in military-like clothing carrying a variety of weapons on their belts, all of whom are shouting orders at you?  The confusion, the fear, the anger.  How does a police officer judge non-compliance in that situation?  How can a police officer expect someone to react instantly in that situation?

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I'm a little confused about TASERs.

A well-trained officer can beat suspects without killing them or even leaving marks.  That's non-lethal, but is horribly unacceptable (to most people).

So, what makes MOST-OF-THE-TIME-non-lethal electrocution acceptable?  Even if we could make it 100% non-lethal, how is electrocution acceptable?

How many times do we have to hear police whine about needing "tools" to fight crime and then deal with the torrent of abuse that follows before we start studying ways to actually make police more effective instead of just giving them bigger guns and electrocution devices?

You can measure the amount of time police have had guns in centuries and we still cannot stop police from accidentally/intentionally shooting innocent people.  Yet, now we are allowing them to pack AR-15s in their trunks because of the off chance that they might have to get in a fire fight with someone packing a similar assault rifle.

Thinking that the problems with TASERs is just procedural and that we can just tweak the procedures to make them safe is just stupid.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I always find it kind of odd when tax opponents say taxing discourages investment in the state/country and that we need to trim the fat.  I have a really hard time believing that the sum total of a state in the eyes of corporate interests is its level of taxation.

I am more than willing to pay more taxes to fund schools, infrastructure (roads, public transportation, etc.), and social services (anything from public day care and after school programs to unemployment).

I am willing to bet corporations are too.  Who wants to move to a state with horrible schools, poor public transportation, and poor social services?  How do you attract employees to that kind of location?

Granted, high taxes do not automatically mean good schools, etc.  But, good schools, etc. need money.  There's no magical formula that will allow you to run excellent schools with almost no budget.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context