Did you read the same article I did? This guy had just robbed someone at GUNPOINT. The police were wearing protective gear such as helmet and bulletproof vests because they knew he was armed, not because they like to dress up. This wasn't a traffic stop for jaywalking. Police didn't overreact. This guy could have been ready to go postal and kill a bunch of innocent people - such as kids playing in their backyards during summer break. What if this was your backyard? What if you were robbed at gunpoint in your own home? What would you like the police to do in this type of scenario? Stroll in with flip flops and offer him some tea? Your "police state' assertion is baseless, exaggerated, juvenile, and stereotyping. These officers put their lives on the line every day and would take a bullet to save thankless people like you on a daily basis. In a true example of their type of personal character, they would probably STILL be willing to save your sorry backside even after reading your completely disrespectful comment. I guess they have better character than me...
I liked Villard Street Pub even though it was in an old converted McDonald's building. That building was leveled and this new building was created in its place with all new decor and updated menu. They went back to the "Wild Duck" name, but this place still has a good familiar feel to it. Good local beers, nice menu variety of pub grub and healthy items. I've been there a few times since it opened and service has always been attentive. My daughter loves the big giant duck statue.
Remember... these are KIDS. I don't know about you, but from the ages of 18 - 22 I spent my college years in a drunken haze and chasing women. I still managed to graduate with a B average and am now a much more mature, well-adjusted adult with a good career. But please keep in mind that some amount of substance use is common for the population, especially with the new freedom of being over 18 and out of the house for the first time in their lives. They may be held to slightly higher standards, but they shouldn't be held to unreasonable standards compared to their peers of the same age.
The headline is backwards, isn't it? I'm no grammar expert, but it should read, "Decline in Pacific Oysters linked to global warming." The way it currently reads gave me the impression that Pacific Oysters CAUSED global warming. Now, there's a new theory! It turns out humans and industrial pollution aren't to blame... it's the oysters!
Finishing my thought... I'm writing the Governor to tell him how ashamed I am of the state taking this direction and stifling an honest debate and new thinking in finding a solution for broken education funding.
Private funding? GASP!!! Richard Lariviere ONLY raised $750 MILLION in private donations for the school - in one year. And look no further than Stanford as an example of how dreadful privately funded education can be... (sarcasm!).
Education funding is broken. Richard Lariviere was thinking about new ways to fix it by operating with more independence. The state feels threatened that the funding ideas didn't include relying on state government to fix it, thereby revealing how ineffective the state has become. Someone has to fix it, and if the state can't step up to fix it, then they should embrace new thinking. But instead they fire him. Shame on you, Governor Kitzhaber!
I saw some statistic that only a tiny amount of UO funding comes from the state - something like 8% or less. You can read between the lines here. This guy was exploring new ideas for private funding that the state government didn't like because it included taking the university funding completely private, instead of relying on a broken and non-existent state government. After all, if the state can't run a broken education system, then why should they let someone else with new ideas try fix it? So instead of embracing new ideas and entrepreneurial thought, the State Board (and Governor) feel threatened that we will figure out how useless the state really is and so they fire this guy. This is a cowardly move by the State Board, and the Governor.
I am also annoyed with the commercialization, but I personally enjoy the music. It reminds me of a more innocent time when people celebrated Christmas by being around family and taking comfort in the simple joys that can be found in good food, good companionship, and a warm home. Don't participate in the commercialization, but instead use the musical nostalgia as encouragement to celebrate this Christmas in a way that makes you and the people around you happy, regardless of what others are doing (or buying.) I've been trying for years to get my family (and my wife's family) to get together on Christmas and focus on food and enjoy the time with each other, just for the sake of being together (and not for proving one's worth with the value of a boxed present.) Years later, I still have an uphill battle. I've also had some strange looks from adult family members when I give them a card that says we've donated money to a local charity on their behalf, as if they are offended that they didn't receive some kind of junk present that will end up floating in the ocean before next Christmas is here...
Most safety issues in snow are caused by the driver, not the tires, and whether a tire is studded or studless won't help with bone-headed driving habits.
Here's a dirty little secret... I have a 4x2 rear-wheel drive truck - yes, 2-wheel drive folks (gasp!). I got a set of studless snow tires last year and they worked great - actually even better than I expected. I went over Willamette Pass to Bend multiple times in various depths of snow, packed snow, and ice. No issues at all, good braking distance.
Rule #1 = SLOW DOWN and allow space between cars! Regardless if you have fancy tires or 4-wheel drive...
Rule #2 = Come prepared with good tires or chains
Rule #3 = Even if you have a 4x4, drive like you don't. 4-wheel drive has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with ability to stop in snow/ice (this by itself would save a LOT of needless crashes. I've seen more wipeouts from over-confident 4x4 owners than I can count.)
Yes that is a drug reference. Perception is reality.
I'm all for parks enriching communities and quality of life, but I would prefer to see something else instead of a skate park. A skate park is a niche type of thing that would be useful for an extremely small group of people that doesn't justify the expense and long-term maintenance. Also, I'm skeptical that skateboarders would be able to "drive out drunks and some crime" as the article suggests. If such an expense is to be allocated, I would like to see it centered around a more family-friendly activity.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Invention