RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
virginiahammon's comments:
on Unpacking Heat
If you do some research, you will find that there is evidence that people who buy Hummers and Hummer-like cars for city driving are personally more insecure, rely on the opinions of others for their sense of self-worth, find the world a dangerous place, and seek passive protected safety. (Sorry, I can't find my link to one such report)
Marketers make their pitch quite deliberately to this demographic. (You're actually safer in a Porsche, or a Volvo wagon, that you can maneuver, than a big, unweildy tank-like vehicle, but appearance and passive (as opposed to active) safety is more important than reality to this consumer.)
I'm guessing that a study of people who need to make a show of carrying a gun into Starbucks to pick up a cup of coffee, would find that they see the world as a scary place - way out of proportion to the real dangers. It's also predictable that in general, they do not feel that they have much control in their lives, and that making a big production of carrying a gun gives them a sense of power that they otherwise lack. (For example, someone with martial arts training, or hostage defusion mediation training would be the equivalent of a Porsche driver....someone who could handle dangerous situations without waving a gun around)
An earlier poster noted that in Alaska, people visibly carry because they face the very real threat of bears, and it makes sense to be prepared. No one thinks twice about someone packing. However, showing off a gun in Starbucks is like driving a Hummer to get to work downtown; it screams, "I need you to think I'm strong and powerful!" That out-of-proportion response to a miniscule real threat (in Portland: seven tenths of one percent chance that you will face criminal violence), is what is legitimately scary to the rest of us.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
I said, "...making a point of packing a gun."
You also make my point, when you say,: "...criminals strike any and everywhere they choose." I don't know where you live or where you take your wife and child, but unless you are routinely taking walks with them at night in high crime areas...
Statistically, your wife is far more likely to get cancer (33/100) than to face a life-threatening criminal in Portland (0.7/100). (Your chance of getting cancer as a male is about 1/2)
Your child is FAR more likely to have developmental and reproductive problems, and die of cancer than they are to be killed by a violent criminal on the streets. (autism is now striking about 1 in every 100 children)
You'd be doing a better job protecting your family by lobbying for getting the toxic chemicals out of our water, air, food and your children's toys.
http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm
http://portlandor.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=32&articleid=58§ionid=268
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
When I see someone making a point of packing a gun, I see someone who is scared, who feels impotent to face life's challenges, and who needs a gun to feel strong and powerful.
Frightened people are more likely to have adrenalin pumping the blood into their extremities and out of their frontal lobes that control reasoned action.
That scares me.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Measure 66
There are 5 work days in a week, making a work 'month' 21 days.
184 divided by 21 equals 8.76 MONTHS, not "6 months of work."
Every teacher puts in countless additional hours preparing classrooms, making teaching materials, preparing lessons, correcting papers, talking to parents, supervisors, attending continuing education classes.
When you start out with nonsense numbers, the rest of your argument falls apart.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Measure 66
The change in the value of the dollar over the past three years is a minimum of 8% and may be as high as 35%:
If you use the same CPI calculator that was used for decades, before serious jiggering was done to the measure about 1997, the dollar value has dropped almost 1/3 in 3 years. (See ShadowStats.com.
Even using current methods (see MeasuringWorth.com), In 2008, $100.00 from 2005 is worth:
| $110.24 | using the Consumer Price Index | |
| $108.48 | using the GDP deflator | |
| $109.89 | using the value of consumer bundle | |
| $110.76 | using the unskilled wage | |
| $111.07 | using the nominal GDP per capita | |
| $114.27 |
using the relative share of GDP |
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Measure 66
How many, and what percentage of small businesses in Oregon have a NET, taxable income over $250,000?
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Measure 66
If the chart above is correct, then you must have a NET, taxable income of between $750,000 and $1,000,000 to have an increase in your state taxes of $12,000.
If you're only paying $50,000 now out of that income in state taxes, you're paying at a real rate of 5-7%.
Paying $62,000 instead of paying $50,000 in state taxes would make your tax rate between 6-8%.
Is that really such an unfair burden? You count on the State educational system to provide you with 15 reasonably well educated people. Your business makes more use of the police, fire, etc. that keep the community safe and healthy enough for people to support your business.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Measure 66
"37% increase in government spending" FAILS to take into account the devaluation of the dollar.
Please catch these comments. At least ask if they are using real or nominal dollars.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Measure 66
The DEVALUATION of the DOLLAR
The advertisements against these measures, show charts that use the nominal dollars to show the steadily increasing costs of government. This is seriously misleading.
The cost of government must go up every year just to keep up with inflation, or the devaluation of the dollar.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Measure 66
When the law says, "incomes above $250,000 for households, $125,000 for individual filers," I'm assuming these are TAXABLE incomes, not gross incomes. I'm also assuming that the increased business tax is a tax on taxable income, not gross income. Is this a valid assumption. It would be helpful if you would be very clear about the difference.
When people simply use the expression, "income," or "earn" it suggests that the total income will be taxed. Deductions decrease the incomes of many high earners, avoiding taxes on substantial chunks of income anyway.
For the 'farmers' and other small businesses who are standing up against this bill, when you say, "People who earn..." they misunderstand and think you are talking about increasing taxes on gross incomes.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Healthy Choices
I'm wondering if you are confusing big people with fat people, and fat people with obese people. I'm guessing that carrying around an obese amount of body fat is difficult to spin into 'good health.'
It may be our definition of 'obese' is off, and people can genuinely have higher levels of body fat and remain healthy.
However, if we are defining obese as an amount of body fat that is unhealthy, then, being obese is synonymous with being unhealthy.
posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Healthy Choices
Sam, It's not a question of either you are responsible or you are not. It's both/and.
I have no control over my genetic inclination toward weight or health. I have no control over the pollutants in the air I breathe, the water I drink and in the furnishings in a public space. Some of the toxic chemicals in our environment are endocrine (hormone) disruptors that cause developmental damage and impair health, and cause weight gain. Because of the 'nobody-tells-me-what-to-do' hands-off government powers that be, corporations are allowed to dump toxic chemicals in my air/water/food because they claim it would cost them profits to do otherwise.
I do have control over what I eat and how much I exercise.
We need to pay attention to both the personal responsibility and the community responsibility aspects of health.
posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Healthy Choices
Interesting observation! Thanks.
posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Healthy Choices
Discussion of the obesity epidemic must include the issue of chemical endocrine disruptors in our air, water, homes and workplaces.
When I'm armed with the information that stores are lining up their potato chips to lure me into buying, I can override the temptation, however difficult.
I do not have that choice with the toxins in the environment that mimic estrogen and encourage my body to put on weight. I can do my best in my own home, but I must live and work in environments under the control (or lack thereof) of others.
The L&C professor thinks that the tobacco industry gets the 'most evil' trophy. I'd vote for the chemical industry, who have known for at least 20 years that they were having a negative effect on our health, our ability to reproduce and even our brains. Their response has been to buy off Congress and local governments.
I recommend, Our Stolen Future; are we threatening our fertility, intelligence, and survival by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers (1997)
posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context
