Recent Comments
Re: “A Punch in the Mouth”
Actually, styrofoamcup, we've said fluoride has no taste. So it can't be magically delicious.
And here's some evidence that, though the paper formally fluoride only after it was placed on the ballot, the Mercury has written long before this particular debate about dental health and the woeful lack of access in young and old alike.
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/de…
http://www.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX…
Re: “"Tin-Foil Hat Parade," at City Hall Tonight, Celebrates Fluoride Defeat”
Aw, c'mon, you guys. I just like the Kernel. And I think the theme is a genuinely good poke in the eye to everyone who wrongly generalized about one side or the other.
Inasmuch as it's unkind to say that all opponents are stupid and nuts, it's also unkind to say all proponents are stupid and evil.
Also? The statute of limitations on an election never runs out two days after. Never ever. Hugs and kisses.
Re: “Scenes from the the No on Fluoride Party. Which Is Winning”
We were confounded, Katie? Or did we actually suggest maybe some opponents and skeptics were confounded? Maybe you didn't read our endorsement so closely or don't understand a deployment of the royal "we"? Take a look at the verbatim quotation:
"The simple and reasonable case for fluoridation—which the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitively urges for the prevention of tooth decay in children and adults—is drowning under a hailstorm of counter-arguments that look, sound, and seem rational. Except that they aren't.
And it's understandable. We're scared of junk science that we're too busy to tear apart. And we're worried about one of the things that Portlanders hold at the center of our civic identity: our water. So we rage about lobbyists and we put up signs that tell people not to do something that practically every other major city in America has done, some for decades and none with any sign of catastrophe.
Never mind that many of you who might be leaning toward "no" won't be the ones who suffer..."
Have fun jumping on newspapers and complaining about how people who don't agree with you—and list precisely and transparently why not—are rotten!
Re: “Someone's "Burning" Dislike for Fluoridation: Witness a Torched Lawn Sign”
Guess I didn't. I've also not written blog posts about the tales of "yes" sign thievery I've also heard. Random sign theft on other side isn't as interesting as fire and vandalism.
Now... anyone on the "no" side had a sign burned, too? Send me the details (police reports and/or case numbers help) and I'll post about it with equal indignation and clucking.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Did voters take advantage of a policy that lets a sufficient number of interested people refer a vote by our elected representatives to the people? Is that election happening later this month? Did you register to vote in that election? Are you voting? Just asking. Because if this passes, it won't be a "government mandate."
Re: “Mayor's Budget Unveiled: Here's Our Live Blog”
That's our fault for the bad crop. Can't abide anyone crapping on an artist unfairly. If you remember the 100 days of Charlie Hales story, it ran much larger and made more sense as a paint-by-numbers illustration. We'll be able to use the illo from this week's budget story, TK, from now on.
RSSGoing to Seattle?
Re: “Portlanders Are Being Sued for Stealing a Terrible Movie”
I'll share that the cookie jar was a white elephant prize at the Mercury office party like two years ago. It does not contain cookies, tossed or otherwise.