I always feel more informed after reading your columns. It often leads to me having more curiosity about a topic and deeper thoughts. My thoughts after reading about Portland's homeless problems and either or solutions, shelter vs housing, is that this is a sucker's choice. Why not use both? For example, it would seem to me that providing recalcitrant alcoholics and drug addicts with housing is a poor choice. However, providing someone housing that has experienced an economic crisis might be just the reprieve they need to lift them back up on to their feet. I would suggest a metaphor, use the right tool for the job. Addicts, veterans, economic crisis, mental health, multi-factor homelessness would all seem to me to need their own paths. I know it's a Gordian knot type of problem, but solving it pragmatically vs politically (maybe the two can't be separated? I am a little naive that way) seems the wiser course.
You said: “For instance, the Secretary of Defense-nominee, Pete Hegseth, is a well known culture warrior who will certainly make life difficult for transgender people in the military....I think that's a bad path, but that is what the President-elect wants him to do. “ This obsession with transgender ruin the rest of your demonstration. How could you write something like this seriously? Defense is a serious topic with life and death consequences. Your focus on transgender, a question who concern a minority, as the first source of concern demonstrate a false perception of reality and a lack of jugement in your analysis. Reasonable people are chocked by your statement. Your perception of reality is biased, ideological, partial and a source of concern: how could we trust a man like you with this type of comment who is an offense to common sens? Please Make an effort to work on yourself, stop your obsession with woke topics and ideology . Reassess the priority, take some distance with the rights of minorities and concentrate on the common good. The total defeat of the democrats at the last election must be a wake up call and justify serious reassessment.
We'll have to disagree on the wisdom of the underlying policy on transgender servicemembers, but your point actually reinforces mine - by nominating someone who will focus on an issue that impacts relatively few military members, the President-elect is missing an opportunity to make bigger changes, many of which we agree on. It's hard to see how someone who has never worked in defense procurement will be able to reform defense procurement in a thorough and thoughtful way. In terms of making the military more flexible and responsive, another shared priority, there doesn't appear to be any plan on how to go about that, nor any suggestion that the nominee's work history gives him any experience that would make him effective in that role.
I always feel more informed after reading your columns. It often leads to me having more curiosity about a topic and deeper thoughts. My thoughts after reading about Portland's homeless problems and either or solutions, shelter vs housing, is that this is a sucker's choice. Why not use both? For example, it would seem to me that providing recalcitrant alcoholics and drug addicts with housing is a poor choice. However, providing someone housing that has experienced an economic crisis might be just the reprieve they need to lift them back up on to their feet. I would suggest a metaphor, use the right tool for the job. Addicts, veterans, economic crisis, mental health, multi-factor homelessness would all seem to me to need their own paths. I know it's a Gordian knot type of problem, but solving it pragmatically vs politically (maybe the two can't be separated? I am a little naive that way) seems the wiser course.
I just heard. I wonder if the Community Health Centers of Lane County might be able to pick up the slack, at least regarding the health care piece?
I heard back from Laurie Treiger, who believes that WB will at least continue the healthcare piece.
Marty, I too, appreciate your column. Particularly on this topic. Are you aware of the current development on White Bird’s Front Rooms department?
You said: “For instance, the Secretary of Defense-nominee, Pete Hegseth, is a well known culture warrior who will certainly make life difficult for transgender people in the military....I think that's a bad path, but that is what the President-elect wants him to do. “ This obsession with transgender ruin the rest of your demonstration. How could you write something like this seriously? Defense is a serious topic with life and death consequences. Your focus on transgender, a question who concern a minority, as the first source of concern demonstrate a false perception of reality and a lack of jugement in your analysis. Reasonable people are chocked by your statement. Your perception of reality is biased, ideological, partial and a source of concern: how could we trust a man like you with this type of comment who is an offense to common sens? Please Make an effort to work on yourself, stop your obsession with woke topics and ideology . Reassess the priority, take some distance with the rights of minorities and concentrate on the common good. The total defeat of the democrats at the last election must be a wake up call and justify serious reassessment.
We'll have to disagree on the wisdom of the underlying policy on transgender servicemembers, but your point actually reinforces mine - by nominating someone who will focus on an issue that impacts relatively few military members, the President-elect is missing an opportunity to make bigger changes, many of which we agree on. It's hard to see how someone who has never worked in defense procurement will be able to reform defense procurement in a thorough and thoughtful way. In terms of making the military more flexible and responsive, another shared priority, there doesn't appear to be any plan on how to go about that, nor any suggestion that the nominee's work history gives him any experience that would make him effective in that role.