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

Having now donned my flame suit, I will offer this: in my opinion the Arizona law was passed out of supreme frustration at the extreme drug/crime situation that characterizes "border wars." I believe that frustration to be working its way into the Pacific Northwest - the drug problem is at unprecedented levels, there are towns along I-5 from California to Canada that no "white folks" should ever EVER make a stop in - the crime statistics tell their own story, and all of it adds up to even more opportunity for home grown criminals to become even more profitable than they are. I will say this too that my resentment of the flood of illegals is as minor as being unhappy at being required to acquire a second language (Spanish) or remain unemployed - and spending hundreds on this effort, to having had a horse murdered, yes murdered by rat-poison-laced grain, by illegals who because at the time I was married to an attorney thought that I personally was going to ruin the drug smuggling operation they were running out of a stables in Washington with the full knowledge and complicity of the on-the-take owner of the stables. What I would like to see is EITHER close the borders with ruthless enforcement no matter what the skin color or throw open the borders and make them ALL TAXPAYERS.

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Jayne - me too. In fact five years later I am still the "bad guy" and have been continually "punished" by my mother, who is largely incompetent, and my sister, a complete predator who only wants my mother's estate. How was I the "bad guy"? I attempted to institute a guardianship on my mother because, one, her hoarding was so bad that the county had fought her for three decades on the mess/filth and every neighbor and senior center in a five mile radius tried to get some help but were all run off with weapons by my mother and her (now deceased) spouse, and two, she was about to lose her high value property because she was "mad at the bank" who had granted her a small loan on the paid-off property to do "improvements" (replace the roof that had a tree fall on it that had never been repaired) which she "didn't feel like repaying because she didn't like the bank people". She was unable to care for herself and was a danger to herself and others. But because I tried to do this and the guardian would have been appointed by the Court and would NOT have been me (because she loved to accuse people of stealing from her - dr said diagnosis paranoid dementia - but my sister IS stealing from her which she allows), I am shunned by my only family, my mother and sister. I was the one who helped my mom for decades until it became overwhelming dealing with esp. her animal hoarding and the craziness - even trained mental health professionals specializing in seniors with dementia found themselves unable to cope. In the end I walked away from the situation to save my own sanity and let the courts sort it out.

posted 3 years ago
view in context

I am surprised that everyone so far is focused solely on things and possessions. What about older adults with beloved pets? Very few assisted living facilities of whatever level allow them. What a terrible heartbreak, to not only have to relinquish a beloved cat or dog or bird or ferret or pocket pet and then after that to endure the sneers and criticisms of those who don't "get it" that you had to give up your pet. I myself started calculating the years of dog lives, cat lives and horse lives and assuming I remain healthy and able to work past retirement age, they will have crossed the rainbow bridge before I end up in a retirement home and what critters are left in any event are provided for in estate planning (did you know there are legal ways now to provide for your beloved animals? betcha you didn't...). That won't address the heartbreak for me but at least they will be provided for. My significant other's parents are being cared for at home by him and his siblings and assorted nieces and nephews, at least they can stay together. For some bizarre reason these two things are ignored, dismissed and disrespected by assisted living facilities: the need for pets who are really family members, and the need for loving long-term couples to remain together for life. I was hoping as the population of the US aged that we would begin to respect and accommodate elders but what I see is exactly the opposite. Sad and shocking, unfortunately not unexpected.

posted 3 years ago
view in context

And where are those new NOAA employees going to live? There is so little affordable housing in that area.

So, are these NOAA employees who no doubt represent the average American worker with average salaries going to rush right out and buy their "affordable $200,000 home"???

I don't think so.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I bet none of the "Wilder" group ever had to survive on minimum wage! Anyone who considers $200,000 as "affordable housing" needs a very, very strong reality check (e.g., a checkup from the neckup). They really need to hear that they are living in a parallel universe - a monied one -- it certainly is NOT the reality of Oregon life today especially in coastal communities.

I had to wait a bit to compose myself and write this because I was off in gales of hysterically derisive laughter at this actually not-so-funny belief apparently held by someone who hopes to mold the coastal community in Oregon along the lines of spectacularly failed coastal communities elsewhere (even those supported by those parallel-universe monied types who still have to drive over two hours to get supplies because all the local stores have closed).

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Jacob, I even got this as an expat rural Washingtonian when I moved here in the 90's. The unfriendliness was so marked that the business I as a relo'd "lifestyle entrepreneur" wanted to start in the Willamette Valley was systematically and with many illegal and violent activities destroyed by the locals, so in short order I sold the facility I had acquired with very high (clearly foolish) hopes and went back to the same career I had in Washington. From this and in the ensuing years I learned that many local businesses take someone from the "outside" as a dire threat and I believe that this is because there is so little money in Oregon that the most vicious fighting is over what little money there is to go round.

You mention status of Californians but did you know that throughout the nineties the largest number of new Oregon residents transferred from Chicago? True statistic from the DMV.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Before thinking about attracting "lifestyle entrepreneurs" coastal towns need to address something that most destination resorts and retirement communities have NOT addressed: where do you affordably house people who are going to be employed by "lifestyle entrepreneurs". Cities' planning needs to include AFFORDABLE HOUSING or the coastal communities will continue to face what they have been facing and even what destination resort communities face daily - there is nowhere for the minimum wage or "min wage plus a pittance" service people to afford to live, consequently it is very difficult to find people to help run the small businesses that make up a coastal community. Not all "lifestyle entrepreneurs" are going solo, most need to have at least one employee.

I would love to live in one of the coastal communities esp. to escape the increasing pollen/pollution problem of the Willamette Valley. I moved here a decade and a half ago. I have seen only one job vacancy in my field in the coastal community ranging from Reedsport to Waldport in that decade and a half. Jobs are extremely scarce and even if one gets a job in a coastal community, because wealthy retirees - many from out of state - have cornered the housing market, where is there any reasonably priced housing? Answer - there isn't any!

Think about any start-up business yes even by a "lifestyle entrepreneur." If they are already independently wealthy or well situated, fine. But "well situated" doesn't describe most lifestyle entrepreneurs. Living on a stashed salary of about two years while launching a business, which is pretty much  a standard recommendation from the experts, doesn't leave a lot of room for ultra-expensive upscale housing - no golf course residences, ocean view top floor condos, etc., or even that adorable ramshackle seaside cottage surrounded by weathered picket fences and seagrass popping up through the (perilously) shifting sand.

All in all, coastal communities' planners must have enough housing diversity to be able to attract both the lifestyle entrepreneurs themselves as well as their prospective employees.

Wondering what all the new NOAA employees are going to do about finding housing when NOAA comes to town???

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I love all the gadgets and have a few of my own, the ones I can afford, that is. I do think that there should be strong limits on what the kids have access to during certain things - like classroom time except where using a computer, for example.

But may I also offer this. It's my understanding that the state unemployment people are now strongly suggesting (if not "requiring") that you set up social networking for yourself and stay in constant continual contact via texting, etc., so you can somehow via this networking find a job. In theory, I suppose, this is a good idea because networking really is effective in job searching. But to be constantly, continually connected and bombarding others and being bombarded with endless chat, text, more chat, more text, etc. etc. ad nauseum - most of which is purposeless or sales-oriented - no thanks.

I also think that there is too much abuse of reputations that is exponentially multiplied with e-media.

All in all I really would have to vote this way: TMM! Too Much Media!

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I would like to know what the candidates plan to do about the incredible levels of fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer money in state government - no one in the last two administrations has appeared to be in any way serious about investigating the same. And as a corollary, what will be done to protect whistleblowers who are no longer employed by the state because they were harassed out of their positions because they asked too many pertinent questions - there is NO whistleblower protection once you are no longer employed by the state and you can and will be sued for what you know and TELL.

It is my belief that many hundreds of thousands of dollars could be saved for the state budget by cracking down on governmental fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Homeowners Associations: group monuments to asinine regulations, IMHO.

While I generally respect anyone who dares, courageously, in this vicissitudinous group of microclimates in the Willamette Valley to farm, grass seed farming is a filthy business that is completely unfriendly to not only the environment but to anyone unwise enough to live around their operations. That latter would be me - in south Linn County and surrounded by grass seed production fields. It's not just the field burning or before that the harvest leaving everything within miles covered with dust but what comes before harvest which contaminates that dust with a lethal to some cocktail of pesticides, fungicides and plant hormones designed to encourage the grass to relinquish its seed uniformly to make harvest easier. And about those pesticides, fungicides, etc.? Not every crop duster is concerned about overspray whether that overspray contaminates water supply (livestock watering troughs, ponds and creeks), the neighbors' horse pastures, or even the neighbors themselves (having been deliberately doused with pesticide by a crop duster I complained was overspraying on my land, an episode which has left me for many years with what is known as "ocular migraine"). I SO do not care about the grass seed farmers.

And they have a LOT of alternatives including production of mint, meadowfoam, organic turf, or even biofuel. I am really, really tired of hearing the sounds of hands put forward open palm up followed by the smacking sound of check or cash hitting palm when OMG us poooorrrrr grass seed farmers need to be subsidized now - where's the entitlement, government and taxpayers, cough up NOW.

If they want to be farmers, they should choose something more environmentally appropriate than grass seed.

If you don't want a lawn to mow and can't manage a veggie garden of your own (most people who work a 40 plus hour week are too exhausted trying to hang onto their jobs to come home and weed) try planting in a hardy low-growth habit groundcover. There are a lot of those out there that LOVE our climate and look pretty and are encouraging for the other critters who share an environment that really, really needs to not have pesticides and herbicides.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Yes - but veterinarians routinely charge more now that at least a percentage of pet guardians have insurance on their pets. Except in emergencies where the vet clinic holds an emotional gun to the pet parent's head saying your pet will die unless you pay us BIG $$$$$ up front but of course we don't guarantee your pet will live but you still have to pay us BIG $$$$ up front as in RIGHT NOW or we'll letyour pet die right here or you can take your pet home to die.

Having had dogs and horses for the better part of my sixty years and seeing the veterinary profession disintegrate into the obscene money-grubbing/don't care about the patient but only the money/get the money first regardless of the situation that exists in human medicine, I don't hold out any hope that any medical provider for human OR animal has any ethics left whatsoever. It's all about the money - those of us with half a brain figured that out about 15 years ago when the almighty dollar became the sole and only reason for people to take up the practice of any kind of medicine. I actually had a vet say to me and repeat happily several times when discussing a medical procedure needed for a horse - not emergency but nonetheless very much needed - "all you need to do is decide how much money you want to spend." Until I gave them a dollar figure of what I "wanted to spend", while still not knowing their usual and customary charges for the procedure, they would not give me any answers whatsoever to the cost inquiry. When they did, it was about 10% more than I had hazarded a guess on.

And you can't shop these things because the vets all talk to each other and I have ACTUALLY HEARD a vet tech make calls to several other veterinarians' offices and say "so and so is shopping around" and then the veterinarian at the original clinic calls the pet parent who is desperately seeking affordable medical care for their pet and abusively screams at them for doing so. Personal experience.

Vets are just as bad as doctors. It is ALL and ONLY about the money.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Dang I JUST LOVE it when the media and those chosen to be interviewed for the media (usually the rich folks and the doctors) engage in a bottomless game of victim blaming - that is, blame the high cost of health care on the patients who, it is strongly implied, are either a) hypochondriacs, b) DEMANDING expensive procedures just because someone else is paying for it if they have insurance, c) sue-em-all types just waiting to lawyer up if a doctor doesn't give 'em what they are DEMANDING, or d) all of the above. No one, it seems, if that is a doctor or pharmacy company, is willing to look at what they themselves are doing to hike up health care costs.

I'll give you TRUE rationing: it is called "NO health care" for people who are currently uninsured because they can't afford the insurance or uninsured doctor visits, and it will continue to be called "NO health care" for those who continue even in 2014 to be unable to afford the mandated purchases - they will be too overburdened with stiff financial penalties (that the IRS has vowed to enforce, a gestapo-like tactic if ever I heard of one), to pay for even the most minor doctor visit.

There are an awful lot of folks out there - I have talked to some here in Eugene in recent weeks - who think that people really are choosing to die and in fact SHOULD die rather than one single penny of those local folks' money go to any kind of a Medicare for all program or universal care or single payer or even a public option. Look around you: the people who developed ObamaCare HAVE access to health care because they HAVE money or control a great deal of it (the health insurance companies having heavily contributed to both parties and having participated in development of the legislation).

The reality is this: the only real health care is for those with money. The reality after watching this for the past year and a half? For those not monied, rationing-to-zero health care is what happens.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Whether a corporation is "for profit" or non-profit really makes little real world difference these days in how the money works insofar as paying obscenely high executive salaries and bonuses. Nonprofit status is pertinent much more to tax issues on the corporation.

Interestingly in the 90's the so-called "nonprofit" status of BCBS in another state was completely and utterly trounced in the courts because BCBS claimed itself to be nonprofit and then proceeded to act in fact just like its for-profit buddies.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that just because a corporation is nonprofit that it has your best interests at heart "above its own." All it truly means in day to day business is that they have more money to pay their executives as they're paying no taxes. A charitable organization is more likely to think of others - although some of the biggest and most well known are increasingly being attacked for having their administrative costs be such a high percentage of donated dollars that it's little more than a scam to the unwary people who might be or be considering donating.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

By your comments you are rather nastily implying that those who do not live as you do have made "bad choices". I CHOSE to continue working even at a low paying job and despite severe health problems. I CHOSE not to incur high-five-figure debt to finish a 4-year degree which trust me - I worked in higher education for YEARS - does NOT buy you a decently paid career any more. I do not own my home, I rent, have a roommate, drive a 29 year old car with 300K miles on it, share a cell phone, can't afford a landline, take public transportation wherever conceivably possible, my TV for which I cannot afford cable anyway is a 1993 model, I have zero nice furniture and shop for clothes at Saint Vinny's charming emporia. NOW do you think that I am living up the high life just so I can stick others with my health bill? Carrolldj - you frankly do not know anything about what you are opining.  Why not try educating yourself about the TRUE state of the economy before blathering such blatant tripe.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

FYI those who think subsidies might be the answer - look at many of the explainer posts such as appearing on msnbc. As individuals we will be required according to this bill as passed to pay out ALMOST TEN PERCENT OF OUR GROSS INCOME for premiums before we are given subsidies. DO THE MATH.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I wonder how many people who would prefer to keep working past age 62 or 65 or even seventies are going to in essence be forced to retire in order to get Medicare because there is no way they can pay for even (probably minimally) subsidized health insurance. Many of us have employers who do not pay for health insurance as a benefit (and maybe big multiple-employee companies are going to be required to provide health insurance or face fines but most small businesses, over 90 percent of this country's employers, are exempt). Manyof those companies who do provide also ding the employees for part or all of the premiums deducted from their pay but with salaries not keeping pace with the cost of the insurance, how exactly does this work? It seems to me that our celebrated falsely-named "representatives" did not bother to consider the many intended and unintended consequences of this falsely-named "reform."

Worse yet the spin doctors are at it: they are now calling the "reform" "universal changes" which deliberately mis-appropriates the PROPERLY named "universal healthcare" and TWISTS IT for their own agendas.

We had a saying a number of years ago: If you are not terrified, you are not paying attention.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Department of intended consequences: with this not-so-wonderful reverse Robin Hood thing (rob the working poor to give ever more to the bloated obscenely rich corporations and their executives) Obama and the others who engineered what is nothing less than a Health Insurance Company Bailout will also do the following: employers who provide health insurance as a benefit to employees now will refuse to do so - why should they, if everyone must buy their own insurance - yet salaries will not increase to help workers be able to afford the mandatory insurance purchase; auto insurance companies will no longer pay for medical expenses when one of their drivers causes someone else to get hurt, why should they if everyone is mandated to buy their own health insurance - not that premiums will go down because of this, oh! Mercy NO!!! Landlords, potential employers, car insurance companies, really anyone who has or wants to exert some kind of power over someone else who needs what they have to offer, will require evidence of health insurance before they rent to, insure or employ anyone.  Jails and prisons will overflow with those who, having been unable to afford the purchase of health insurance and being unable to pay the IRS-enforced penalties (read the bill - the IRS will be the enforcer) will have to go to the slammer because they have become a "deadbeat" according to IRS rules. Supposedly there are "subsidies" for the working poor to help offset the cost of purchasing health insurance. Those subsidies will be very small. Do you know any of the working poor who can squeeze even a subsidized several hundred new dollars out of their income? I sure don't! The cheapest health insurance I can find right now is MORE than my gross salary. Nothing I have read about this legislation will change that.

In my opinion, this is the "new Communism." That is: from each, all that they earn, to a few, all that they desire.

I don't have much use for lawyers, frankly, but in this instance I would think some enterprising legal type would jump at the chance to represent 32 million gotta-buy-or-jail folks in a class action lawsuit. Of course, that would mean actually getting the federal courts to certify these hapless poor folks as a class to permit such an action to go forward, and considering the federal government passed this legislation, that would render the whole mess moot.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Reducing addiction harm? Reducing bad behavior caused by addiction? What about at work? Being the "victimized" employee of an abusive alcoholic and unable to find at my age and skills another job in this economy and unable to quit because in Oregon no matter how bad the job or abusive the boss a quit automatically means no unemployment benefits, I simply have to endure at the risk of my own health and sanity the addictive behaviors of my substance-abusing boss. I would like to see some protection in the workplace for those who as employees have to deal with chemically compromised supervisors. BTW I can't go over my boss' head because my boss is head of a one-person company. The boss' family members have either (a) moved as far away from the situation as they can or (b) enable - that would be the spouse along with the boss' social circle, so there is no intervention in the offing any time soon.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Well whoever it was bemoaning the paltry 5% "profit" of the health insurance companies, that is only the percentage that they have to pay taxes on. What do you think happens to the BILLIONS of dollars of income to these companies? Like a previous post said, ROOMS full of people figuring out how to deny (or refuse) coverage. Bloated salaries, perks, benefits, bonuses and gold-plated retirement for the upper echelon. I'm not against anyone making a profit. There is a BIG difference between making a profit and PROFITEERING. Laissez-faire capitalism, unregulated big business, is more aptly described as the latter.

And who/where is the health insurance company offering premiums for a "mere" few hundred bucks??? All that I can find and believe you me I have LOOKED long and hard - as an individual at my age and with pre-existing conditions the cheapest I can find runs nearly $2,200 PER MONTH and that is WITH caps and deductibles and co-pays.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Regardless of who the Governor selects that person needs to spearhead a true Oregon money issue and that is the problem of fraud, waste and abuse taking place in Oregon state agencies. I believe if this issue was investigated and there were some whistleblower protection that it would soon be learned that Oregon COULD get closer to a balanced budget just by stopping the truly shocking waste going on. Please ask whomever is stepping into the role of purse string manager that they need to spearhead an investigation into deeper issues of misuse of taxpayer dollars.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context