Be the Spark!

contribute now

tpohara's comments:

on The Upside of a Downturn?

I guess it's all relative. Compared to my time surviving in the box (my name for the 8x10 space in a sleeper cab that "over the road" truckers endure), things aren't so bad for me now.

Btw, I have a lot of respect for wait staff, I tip at least fairly when I can afford to eat out (we just don't eat out lately). People who enjoy that kind of work and do it well deserve respect too.

I would say the biggest change for us is we're looking at churches that are within walking distance because regular trips across town (about 5 miles) wipe out our half tank of fuel for the week pretty quick (and we drive a little Escort, not some gas inhaler). We gave up on the idea of a vacation for this summer... last year.

posted 5 years ago
view in context

on Homeroom Economics

Teacher pay at least keeps some of us from considering the profession: can't buy a home or pay many bills on $31k. I used to think I would be good at something like that (other folks tried to encourage me in that direction too, by the way), but there is no chance that I could make ends meet on so little, especially with student loans likely outstanding. I can't imagine what someone with a family would have to sacrifice to survive.

It would also seem to me that setting the salary bar so low intends to restrict the profession to 1st career folks. If I can't afford to go there, how are we going to lure the best and the brightest from other (well paying) successes to pass their skills and passions on?

It seems a shame that we can't pay enough to encourage folks with strong life experience and good aptitude to consider caring for our future... our youth.

posted 5 years ago
view in context

on Classy Politics

I'm not really sure how I fit in with this.

In political environments where my pro-life commitment is moot (say local offices or ballot measures where there is no impact either way), I tend to evaluate each measure or candidate as well as I can. Some tax measures I have voted for, like our local community college and fire departments, other times I have voted against things that I think will waste tax money.

Does my class directly influence my political choices? Maybe, but at a lower level than "it's the economy, stupid" would imply. It is one facet among many, if you will.

But perhaps I should clearly state my class: indeterminate.

I have been a Consulting Senior Systems Analyst and System Administrator making $60 an hour full time for months at a time. I have also delivered phone books for about $2 an hour after my career died (I left a Senior Programmer/Analyst contract in 2002; at my level within my specialty, every head hunter I could deal with knew I had broken the contract within a week and I've never been able to return to Information Technology).

So I have been at the obscene top and I've lost my home and nearly my marriage at the bottom. I'm a classic example of "how the mighty have fallen". But I was responsible for my own choices and made several bad judgment calls that have us still paying more than a quarter of my income for debts that my own arrogance had allowed us to incur.

My experience is that I dug my own hole. Could I blame the market changes in IT after 9/11? Yup. Could I shrug it off as a bunch of unlucky investments during the dot-com bubble. Sure. Would I be shirking the responsibility for my own lackluster analysis, pathetic choices, and far less than stellar leadership? Ouch, dead on. I don't live in a place where famine is the rule, I don't even live on the street like I did many years ago. There are those who deserve pity because they really have no choice, but I'm not one of them.

Now I spend my days driving trucks, I average about 63 hours a week (up to 70) in a job that does not give overtime (we drive by the mile or the delivery, depending on the load... not hourly). This only earns me about $600 a week, but it has some insurance and it's honest work. My wife doesn't work, we live in a one bedroom apartment in Salem, and we get by.

But am I now somehow a blue collar grunt who has to vote the way smarter richer people think I should? No. I expect to be out of debt in just over a year now, and plan to go back to school. I have goals and objectives to reach them... if I'm given the chance, I'll take it. But I've seen the unexpected slap me up-side the head, and I'm not fool enough to think I'm now immune to it.

Do I resent the "haves"? No, I was one. Do I feel oppressed? Only by my own choices, temporarily enslaved to credit card debts by my inability to show some responsible patience and restraint.

Perhaps my response is best summed up as: The economy doesn't effect my voting; I vote for what I think we need and can (as a society) afford. Unlike my pro-life mindset, economy doesn't motivate me into the political arena in the least. As a matter of fact, I don't really believe that any of the presidential candidates will serve me economically. I would say that a "consumer" mindset coupled with instant gratification has become a cornerstone of our economy. The only chance we have in the long term is for this economic model and our individual mindsets to change... something I do not see any of the big three candidates encouraging, let alone espousing.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Are You Gonna Eat That?

Well, eating local is a nice idea... but when your food budget is already thin, what options do we have? No local ramen noodle plants that I'm aware of... and the rice i grind for bread comes from the Lundberg group in Cali (no, I won't move there to be close to my food source) since rice doesn't flourish here (climate change may help, but probably not for a few generations). When we still had a house in Washington, we grew some vegies, but I have limits on what I am allowed to grow on my apartment porch. Yes, I'll pick berries again this year on days off, but that doesn't seem like what you're talking about.

There are a few problems with eating local from where I sit:

Cost: from fuel driving around to farmers markets to buy produce, to the dollars that critical foods cost. We don't live on fruits, but on grains (and grain products) with some meat. Local salmon is about out this year, and the price of the good free range and pasture fed meat is out of reach for more than condiment status now. I'd love to support the bison and elk ranchers again, but which of my wife's meds do I sacrifice? If I go fishing (about all I can afford in large meat purchases is bait), am I supporting the local food web or actually taking even my limited potential purchases out of circulation?

Availability: actually having local food markets open when I can go. I'm headed out to work now and won't be back until some time around 6pm to 7pm tonight, it's Monday to Saturday work (but at least I'm not unemployed). Safeway will be open when I?m on my way home, and it's just a block out of my route... there is nothing with local food even close, much less open when I can get to it. Am I unique? Is this discussion really just aimed at those who aren't the landless working class (I won't include the poor, I think I got more local food when I had to go to the food banks than we do now)?

On the larger scale, the topic brings up questions about what has a better carbon footprint. There have been some interesting NPR segments on grass fed lamb from New Zealand having a better footprint and lower cost in England, have we got here what it takes to compete on such consideration (ok, we have great grass fed lamb here, though again, it's way out of my pay grade)? And what about just the other side of the mountains? Do they have to subsist on just beef, wheat, and apples? Does the concept of eating locally work only if you live in places like the Willamette valley where you actually have a broad range of choices if you can afford them?

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Guarding Against School Violence

(comment and a question for the guests:)

No current iron in the fire (no kids in school and my bills aren't paid down enough to go back myself). That said, I wonder how different this is from violence during the bussing years (my middle and high school years).

(the comment:)
It would seem to me that the chances of extreme violence are greater with road rage and drive by violence than in the classroom; problem is, we may be becoming too callous to the former and only the big stories of school violence are what get our attention.

(the question:)
Do any of the guests think we as a society and/or they within the educational circle need to consider the natural extensions of student's lives in the online world when assessing potential for problems? If so, how do we do that? Do your considerations raise privacy versus safety issues?

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on The Democratic Party's On

Dave:

Thanks for the clarifications. Perhaps the best course of action in this debate is to encourage you to consider a topic on abortion, inviting both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" proponents.

My experience so far has been that all but the most hard core folks in the "choice" community may be able to google the description, but never have. For example, my mum (adopted, not birth) supported "choice" vocally for years until she heard a surgeon describe the procedure I mentioned (her horrified comment when he had finished was "oh my God!"). The emotional emphasis many of us in the "pro-life" community feel isn't based on our wanting to interfere, but our growing horror at what we as a society are willing to do to our own. I can also say that we generally, and I specifically, are just as concerned for the poorly informed mothers as the child. My intent would have been to show we have justification for our agitation.

But a case could be made that my continuing to pursue this here is not furthering the discussion, and might risk violating your rules. I do want to participate in this community in other areas, and rather than cross the lines, I'll leave the thread. Thanks for answering, I?ll let Scott have the last word(s) if he wants.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on The Democratic Party's On

ok, Scott, lets double check with Mr. Miller about this.

Mr. Miller, do you object to my posting a detailed description of just one type of proceedure, the most obvious being "partial birth abortion"?

Without your permission, I'll leave the topic be, with it, i would advise that parents not let children read my response.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on The Democratic Party's On

Wow, I'm impressed by how little you must have understood what I said.

The choice I don't have is in the election process to be able to vote for someone who cares about life, all of it.

So being for life is "anti-choice"? Interesting abuse of the language. Yes, I've heard such before, but still it is illustrative.

You and I well know that if I actually post what happens to a baby in an abortion, the post will be pulled, in spite of the facts. So I have to debate on dialectic use with someone who chooses to rewrite the rules when he doesn't like the results. Odd, that, not really worth much time, is it?

Your last paragraph is classic, I do appreciate that you are making my point for me. Thanks.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on The Democratic Party's On

Actually, I would submit that I'm being more open-minded to ask that the party that is supposed to care about people instead of business cares about the most helpless folks.

Let's be fair, you are pro-abortion, since that is the only choice you include under your title. What other choices are you in favor of that I can't come to an agreement over? Who is trying to claim high ground when it is a one issue appellation? Pro-life is actually a more accurate title for us, since we believe that the baby is alive and its life (and its mother's) is important: hence "pro" meaning "for" and life. It is consistent with my opposition to the war in Iraq (life is lost for pathetic reasons there, too) and my opposition to the death penalty.

So why is that a problem for the Democratic party? Does "open-minded" and "tolerant" mean I should care any less about more than half a million Americans getting killed every year in the name of "choice"? This is why I have no choice, I like many other moderate "pro-life" Evangelicals have to put up with the Republicans if I want both to participate as an informed member of the electorate and to vote my conscience.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on The Democratic Party's On

Actually, I think you did use it within context, I was the one that your online host quoted, and that was my terminology. You didn't cliam to be on our side, or theirs ("pro-choice" or more accurately "pro-abortionists").

In fact, while I found the democratic leader's response rather formulaic, at least she didn't try to antagonize as some of the poster's have. Rather than distract from my point in responding to you, I'll pick one of them to answer on their choice of words and the problem they miss.

To make sure that my point in this one is clear to everyone else, if TOL wants participation from people who see both sides of an issue, they have to at least be considerate: Ms. Harris has done so, IMHO.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on The Democratic Party's On

Nope, independent, not a democrat (well, you asked).

When the dems stopped fielding prolife candidates, they lost me. Sad, that. Considering that I would otherwise agree with Sen. Obama on the vast majority of his positions. No, I don?t trust Sen, Clinton, I wouldn?t vote for her if she were prolife (that run at the airport under fire sounds too much like some of the things her hubby said, both I and my wife think honesty challenges must run in the family).

I hope everyone has a good time at their shindig. Perhaps they should remember that caring about human life shouldn't start when the baby has escaped the womb, it means caring for the person throughout its entire life; otherwise they?ll continue to strike me as far more hypocritical than the ?make it on your own and if you don?t, too darn bad? GOP.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on Housing Ripples

Between loosing our house in 2004 (not related to this topic, our own fault), and having my annual income plummet (I used to pull 65k, now i'm lucky to get 42k out of a harder worked year) we can no longer afford a home.

I had to laugh at an interview the other day on OPB of some central Oregon talking head who felt that "affordable housing" meant $150 to 200k. Not at 11 bucks an hour, or even $15 on a 40 hour work week.

I've survived the debt crunch once, lost just about everything because we depended on too much income in an uncertain society... I almost lost my marriage over the financial hell it put us through. Prices now are so far out that I'll likely never have a house of my own again, because I'll never again accept the pyrrhic victory of home ownership at any cost.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on How Does Your Garden Grow?

No much for me to say at the garden level, sorry, I have to grow plants on the deck at my apartment. But I can say that the late frosts have killed my second set of all my spices and climbers except the dill and fennel. If the weather being so decidedly less warm than expected is due to climate change, then even I can tell.

I start all my plants indoors on the window sill, transplanting them when I expect them to get growing. Usually the first set is too early (first week of March). The second just went out last week, but the frost yesterday got some and the ice this morning got the rest.

The rest of the plants we normally put out wait just a bit longer anyway, and I don't expect to change them for what I understand the weather will be any time soon.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on An Internet Speed Limit?

While I would probably offer serious disagreement about it being "more important" (unless you grow your own food, have your own well, get power from your own homemade generator, don't drive or ride public transportation of any kind, and own your own property outright on non-taxable land), I might also digress too much...

Think about that same public infrastructure: are there massive potholes anywhere in your community? Old bridges or overpasses that are already at capacity? "Accidents" caused by poor driving? Traffic jams? Speed limits that almost no one wants to obey? Tickets for poor behavior?

Government regulation might be called for, government provision of the service is not, if your road example is followed to its logical conclusion.

imho, of course.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on An Internet Speed Limit?

Mr. Senior:

I understand your points. What I would submit is that if all the public owns is the "last mile", then you are increasing the likelihood of poor service from the pipe owner, not improving it.

First, I would suggest that you may be mixing the proverbial apples and oranges with your comparisons. For example, publicly owned roadways have very natural speed controls, as anyone who has sat in traffic can attest. But lets examine the roads analogy anyway, because there is still a good counterpoint that I feel you might have missed: their condition. How are the roads in Portland? I'm sure that as a publicly owned service they don't have potholes, weakened or aged bridges or overpasses, since those would increase wear on the citizen's vehicles and possibly pose safety hazards. They never have traffic jams, let alone at the same bottle necks day in and day out. Everyone behaves and there is no need for traffic ordinances nor the officers to police them. There is harmonious movement and no need to protect against accidents. Actually, I could beat the analogy to death, suffice to say, I think you might admit that the roadway example can rapidly turn against your original point. Think about it, the freight backbone is actually only about half public, the other half is the railroads, they provide the true heavy bandwidth for serious users... last I knew, they were privately owned.

Back to the topic at hand, have you either personally or in a business capacity ever troubleshot connection problems where two or more companies are providing any telco or network service? They point fingers at each other and the customer often has to figure it out enough to empirically identify the system (not fun, I assure you) or hires an expert who can (been there too). Now I'm sure that Portland's Information Technology department would welcome the chance to hire enough people to support your citizens when there are problems, but can you honestly tell me that you trust the local government to not be at least as bad about addressing problems? Again, I am probably being a bit cynical, but I have seen at least a few cases where citizens needs were less than earth-shattering to the civil servant?s management when the elections are over.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on An Internet Speed Limit?

I would respectfully suggest that a Portland Municipal infrastructure, if as powerful as the one in Independence (5MB/s, not 5Mb/s) could serve quite well for the average site with a moderate volume, all the more so if package upgrades are available. T3 backbones used to be limited to about 45Mb/s, about what Independence' Mayor said they maintain on the basic connection.

However, I will grant that fiber can meet most demands for now, though it is slightly more difficult to handle the infrastructure (or at least was the last time I had to deal with it, a little over five years back). Of course, I remember when 300bps was good and when most security experts said your machine could never be compromised over a network. Guess that makes me older and a bit of a cynic...

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on An Internet Speed Limit?

Public ownership of a limited resource is a serious problem. I don't have Comcast here in Salem because their service was at best inconsistent, but I have to wonder how much of that was them and how much was system abuse by folks on the same node up/down-loading movies illegally or running websites from their home machines.

Considering our recent interactions with the ACLU, ask yourself:
if the internet connections are limited bandwidth, will they be litigating to spend increased tax dollars to allow porn merchants to set up in our area; will some more remote community that happens to have a greater ethinc diversity become their darling just because they haven't got the same bandwidth said pornographer insisted on as his/her first amendment rights...

I could obviously go on. Bandwidth is hard to compare to water or electricity; even if Bil Gates paid for us to lay fiber to every taxpayer's home (can't leave anyone out, see the local ACLU rep), there are still huge infrastucture and human expenses. Do any of us honestly believe that public ownership would improve the situation? At least now, when I think I am wasting my money on poor service, I don't have to keep paying for it.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

on The Legality of Homelessness

Your questions presume there is a direct relationship between homelessness and panhandling (and other less than positive social behavior). it reflects a bias that tells me you haven't lived on the street before.

Homelessness is a complex issue: I know, I can still remember when the best place to sleep in Oregon was under northbound I-5 at the eastbound 205 underpass (paved/flat/not dusty, dry, and usually out of the most of the wind). It's been many years, but I still remember it fondly as 'the hotel Oregon'.

Panhandling is a different, though sometimes related issue, there are many homeless who don't panhandle, and I personally have known people who panhandled who were not homeless. I don't care who you are, if you haven't lived out there with no option to go "home", you have no clue which is which, and if you are out there, you probably don't have reason to care as long as your corner isn't threatened. The occasional reporter or advocate who "visits" the life has no clue what it feels like, you can't shake knowing that you have a home... and trust me, the driven and the survivors will never tell you what they really think.

Let me explain those terms. Among the truely homeless, there are three different groups to consider: the helpless (especially the elderly, little kids, and the newly homeless (especially runaways)), the driven (those addicted to alcohol, drugs, or the mentally imbalanced), and the survivors. The former would welcome getting off the street, the middle no longer trust the idea of 'home' for various reasons, and the latter might consider it, but have determined that this way of living is fine for them for now.

Legislating against aggressive panhandling is not legislating against homelessness, just limiting resources for some of them. It hurts them if you don't legislate replacement options or at least allow caring groups (like the Missions) to do what you won't. Legislating against worse behavior is what a civil society must do or it will degenerate into chaos (which is often what life on the street is). Homeless people shouldn't be allowed to accost a stranger any more than anyone else is.

I paint with broad strokes, because space won't permit details. Let me sum up: creating laws against panhandling is a selfish but somewhat understandable response when more annoying behavior has been over-defended by ?do-gooders? who have no real clue what they're choosing to protect. Homelessness is a separate but occasionally related situation where we need to consider the behavior: help those who actually want help to rise above it... and let those who don't want exist as long as they don't abuse civil society or our willingness to care for the helpless. Support your local Rescue Mission or Soup Kitchen, they have the right ideas and know what it takes to make a difference.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

on Obama and Race in Oregon

Yes, to two points:

1) Perhaps in trying to answer the original questions, I take on too much; and
2) at some point the similarities of a tribal mind-set with a strongly held belief are significant enough to be considered.

The relevant core of my rather late night rambling answer, however, is that dialogue requires that everyone have a say, even if that makes the powerful uncomfortable. Unlike the deep south where I spent my teen years, politically correct America as experienced here presumes that to be white is to be the bad guy. If Sen. Obama wants to lead a dialogue in America, he will have to show that he knows that that mindset must be overcome just as much as the bigoted white attitudes that so many (whites as well as blacks, latinos, first nationals, asians, etc.) have fought against.

Does that clarify my points, or just muddy the waters more?

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

on Obama and Race in Oregon

I appreciate Obama?s willingness to raise the topic, but I have to wonder if he really means to have a dialogue or if he means have white folks listen to everyone else and stifle ourselves when we see double standards?

My premise: America is on the brink of sinking into tribalism (and no, that isn?t an ethnic euphamism). Obama?s call for the conversation, if genuine, would be a great place to begin towards restarting the melting pot to make us a nation of equals. It is contrary to the divisive notion that if someone is like me they're ok regardless of the facts and if they aren?t, they're bad, again regardless of the facts. The uncertainty, as I see it, is that in the last several decades rhetoric like his has usually meant, ?listen to what my people have to say and either agree or shut up; any other response is discriminatory.?

America isn?t supposed to be about tribalism, it has taken us a long time to try to remove it. ?Political correctness? fights most modern attempts to start dialogue. I want a color-blind America, not a ?my color is above suspicion and therefore supreme? one. If communities don?t want to become a part of a greater whole, thinking they can have what they want without blending and bending, talking won?t really help; just look at Northern Ireland.

Let me define tribalism from a context that isn?t racially charged to show my point. If I say an unborn child should be protected, most of you here will think I?m a narrowminded person. If I try to describe why with a medical description of what happens, even though I can describe it accurately, then I?m being inconsiderate and emotional (God forbid I try to bring that up on a radio program as part of a discussion or dialogue). If someone disagrees and I challenge them, I?m not being sensitive, or worse, I?m a bigot. In other words, ?we?re right and don?t bother us with the facts unless they agree with us?... that?s what I mean as tribalism.

I can say it?s hypocrisy that let Ed Kennedy gets away with his 12 hours just because of the Irish political machine in Mass; most of you will have no problem with me saying that, my heritage is Irish-American and I know of which I speak (the Irish in Mass, I probably wouldn?t go near the Senator to save my life). That said, I don?t hear many in other ethnic communities who will stand up against their own either, no matter how much evidence there is. The Atlanta uproar last year over Michael Vic was a classic example, I didn?t have one black friend who was willing to talk about it who didn?t stand up for him. That means that either no one there wants to speak out against one of their group or they fear others within the group if they do.

If I see a criminal and affirm that he/she is guilty, should I care what his/her race is? But if he/she isn?t white, I?m a bigot. Why is that? If I see someone driving like a maniac and call him/her in, I?m being responsible, unless he/she is latino, black, asian, middle eastern, or first national... then I?m profiling or a bigot. Actually, even if it?s a white ?she?, I?m suspected of prejudice.

What I hear from this noise is ?shut up unless you have the politically correct answer? instead of ?the best way to resolve problems is work together.? Case in point: when Alan Keys runs for president, he isn?t considered an authentic voice (happens to be the last candidate I tried to actively support). But when I was honest and said I wouldn?t vote for Jesse Jackson because I don?t consider ?prochoice? to be anything I can reconcile with being an truthful pastor of the Gospel, I?m just a white bigot (was told that more than once by both blacks and liberal whites). Why is that? Is it any wonder that most whites won?t talk about race? The only ones I?ve heard who will are closet bigots who are liberals (been a few of them on your station as recently as today [Thursday]) or they actually are full blown bigots who use racial epithets almost as often as rappers do. I can?t stand either, by the way.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics