Sunday, December 24, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Saturday, November 04, 2006
every one of them polled 5-10% heavy on the democrat side. This willskue the polls. The polls have been wrong on every election I can remember of late.
My second prediction is this: If they do fail to take the House and
Senate, get ready for vote challenges and lawsuits everywhere. TheMSM has been proclaiming the dems the victors for weeks, and when they loose, they will naturally think that it was stolen.
I really believe this will be a real ugly one.
Friday, November 03, 2006
As you may have noticed, my link list isn't up yet. When you migrate your blog, any thing manually coaded in to your blog doesn't migrate, so save a copy of your old template, so you can add page elements containing your links and buttons(Orblogs, sitemeters etc.) later. I will do so tomarrow.
Now being involved in construction I fully understand weather related catastrophies, maybe not the roofer's (it looks like there is no framing to put a roof on), but the report says that the owner has not responded to phone calls from the tenants or the news crews. For two days - nothing.
Sunday is the 5th, most landlords consider the rent late by then, I bet he'll swing by wondering were the money is.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
1) John Kerry did infer a lack of education or smarts on the part of our soldiers. No debate, it's a fact. Here's the comment.
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."That was no mangled joke. It was a candid moment. He grew up privileged in an era were the comment was true. Remember that he only joined the Navy after it became clear that he was not going to get another education deference from the draft.
2) It is important. Here's a little background on why it matters. It is a great example of how many people from his party think about the military. Remember Jack Murtha.
3) It shows us that we really did make the correct choice in 2004. In his first explanation, he claimed that he was trying to make a joke about The President. Well if you are going to talk about education, let's be honest. President Bush got better grades at Yale than Senator Kerry. He then went on to get an MBA at Harvard Business School - no easy feat. And probably more telling, He beat you in 2004 didn't he Senator.
4) While we're on the subject of smarts, you would think that someone as smart as Mr. Kerry holds himself out to be, and the most recent Presidential Nominee representing your party, trying to run the table in an election next week, would be smart enough not to give the Republicans anything to remind the voters of the type of people who would be in charge of the House and Senate if they win. The republicans main message is "no matter what the problem, Palossi, Reid, Kerry & Hillary can not be the answer. The recent condescending arrogance from Kerry is a great reminder of this.
The only question I have is "how can somebody with his head so far up his butt get his foot in his mouth so often?"
Sunday, July 16, 2006
48 decided cases from circuit courts, 18 of them were from the 9th Circuit. Doesn't that just make you proud?
found via SCOTUSblog, which I found via an article by Howard J. Bashman at Law.com.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
There are two indicators that I looked at in the summary to see which way the court leaned.
1) If one assumes that Chief Justice Roberts is a tad more conservative than Chief justice Renquist was, then you could argue that the court slid slightly to the right. Roberts voted in the majority 92.4% of the time in the 2005 term in crontrast to Renquist being in the majority only 78.3% in the 2004 term.
2) Justice Kennedy - the new swing vote, and arguably more reliably conservative than O'Connor - voted in the majority 88.4% time in 2005 compared to 85% in 2004. Definitely a good indication.I highly recomend that everyone download this document. It has break downs by case, and many many other bits of valuable information.
I found this info via SCOTUSblog.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
You gotta know that Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove are just dying to have this battle. I don't really think it's smart to go into court just to be told just how many different ways the public or the press could have known who she was, and were she worked.
"Mrs. Plame, Isn't it true that you drove your own car to Langely every day?I really don't think that she really wants to go into court and make all of the details of her life, career, and that of her political hack husband's a matter of public record.
"...And isn't it true that secret agents never do that?"
"Mrs. Plane, Isn't it true that your husband said in his own bio that he was married to a CIA agent?"
"Did you ever go out in public with your husband? Did he ever try to hide were he lived? Do you share a residence with him?"
"and didn't he list you as his wife in Who's Who in America?
"Oh, by the way Mrs. Plame, how long exactly had it been since you had been undercover?"
"Your Honor, I'm through with this witness."
I've long felt that the size of contributions to candidates should be unlimited, but there should be instant and full disclosure, and no contributions to in state candidates can come from outside the state, or maybe even more strict, no money can come from outside of the candidates district.
But then that leads to a couple of other issues. 1) How do you deal with interest groups, and 2) how do you address the funding of ballot measures?
What about people like Loren Parks. He lived in the state of Oregon for many years, made his money here, but for the last few years has lived in Nevada. I'm sure that he still has businesses here, owns property here, and still has many ties to Oregon, so shouldn't he still be able to be active in Oregon politics.
Then there are nationally run companies, headquartered somewhere else in the United States that could be effected by a candidate's policies, or by a ballot initiative passing or failing. For example, wouldn't you expect that all three big auto makers to weigh in on issues relating to auto related transportation? What about cell phone companies fighting cell phone taxes.
These questions would then extend to political Action Committees and other interest groups. Wouldn't one expect the NRA to make it's voice heard if a governmental body in Oregon were to try to ban hand guns within it's jurisdiction?
What sounds like a simple solution gets muddy and complicated real fast.
I found this via Mike Caudle's blog in a post titled "New Conservative Coalition in Oregon Has Abramoff Ties"
Monday, June 19, 2006
Again in England, in an interview in the Telegraph.
"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."
"I know it was a, you're flying into a war zone so these precautions are necessary. But I wonder to what degree anybody in the White House thought maybe it might undermine our point if we have to take such excessive security precautions in order to go claim victory or whatever it was the President was trying to accomplish?"Gwen, It is a war zone. He has never said that we won, only that we're winning.
found via Orbusmax.
story at Newsbusters.org.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Go get the mp3.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Yes - Walden
No - Blumenauer, DeFazio, Hooley & Wu
Here's the roll call
Republican - yes = 214 , no = 3, present = 2, not voting = 12
Democratic - yes = 42, no = 149, present = 3, not voting = 7
Independent - no = 1
TOTALS - yes = 256 , no = 153, present = 5, not voting = 19
It amazes me how this could not be supported. It is a simple resolution, and doesn't carry the weight of law.
I've reprinted the text in its entirety below. (copied from the Library of Congress)
109th CONGRESS 2d Session
H. RES. 861
Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 12, 2006
Mr. HYDE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;
Whereas for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States;
Whereas it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance;
Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first popularly-elected President in that nation's history has taken office;
Whereas the continued determination of Afghanistan, the United States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be required to sustain a sovereign, free, and secure Afghanistan;
Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions;
Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors;
Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
Whereas the Iraqi people, with the help of the United States and other Coalition partners, have formed a permanent, representative government under a newly ratified constitution;
Whereas the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East;
Whereas United States Armed Forces, in coordination with Iraqi security forces and Coalition and other friendly forces, have scored impressive victories in Iraq including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi;
Whereas Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq;
Whereas the United States and Coalition servicemembers and civilians and the members of the Iraqi security forces and those assisting them who have made the ultimate sacrifice or been wounded in Iraq have done so nobly, in the cause of freedom; and
Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;
(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;
(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;
(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and
(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Monday, June 12, 2006
As a house painter and someone who is married to a Hispanic woman, I might be able to give a little insight. While trying to avoid the obvious political hot buttons, my response is this:
1) No you shouldn't feel as though you are "subjugating" them. They are here willingly, working for an agreed upon wage, whatever that may be. You might be surprised at the hourly pay they are actually receiving.
2) If they are second or third generation immigrants, then you are correct, they have had many opportunities afforded them, and the job they are doing is largely their decision. If they are relatively new arrivals, then they are happy (I am not saying satisfied) with their position in life, as it is much better than in Mexico. Also, they tend to enjoy manual labor type jobs - many take pride in quality workmanship. Most of my wife's brothers and cousins are self employed contractors of various trades in Texas. They do this type of work by choice, as all of them are high school grads, and some of them went to college.
3) Keep in mind that they are not doing jobs that Americans won't do, they are doing them for wages most Americans won't accept.
4) You said:
"When I looked at them, they didn't even smile. I myself tried to smile and nod warmly, yet one just gave me an obligatory acknowledgment and went on with his work."This is most likely because they didn't speak English, and they felt inferior. My wife says that many Hispanics (coming from a very friendly and outgoing culture) will avoid contact with "gringos" because they speak poor English. They also may not want to do anything other than exactly what the boss said to do.
Finally, Maybe the only thing you (and most Americans these days) need to feel a little guilty about is that you didn't specify that you wanted all Americans (legal immigrants or citizens - Hispanic or otherwise) working on your house. This would require that you were willing to pay more, probably a lot more for the job. I routinely lose jobs to painters who under bid me by sometimes half, and low and behold, when I see them doing the job, it's a bunch of Mexicans doing the work, with "gringo contractor" nowhere to be found.
It seems to me that we as a society need to decide what our priorities are. We shop at big box stores for the convenience and the price, but complain about the societal affects that they have. We complain about high gas prices, pollution, and dependence on "foreign oil", but our SUV's, pick-up trucks and" beemers" all have V8's getting bad mileage. Similarly we want our home improvements done cheap, quickly, and with decent quality, but then there isn't enough money to pay the laborers a "living wage."
Sunday, June 11, 2006
The Bike Portland story and PICTORIAL here.
So I wonder.....
1) Did they have a parade permit?What a place we live.
2) If so, then did they actually say that it was going to be a Naked ride?
3) What city official or employee actually approved the permit?
4) If no permit, then were there any attempts to stop or interrupt the festivities.
5) and finally.... Shouldn't this type of thing fall under all of the public decency standards that the rest of us have to live by?
"I believe -- I know -- there is no such thing as too much barbecue. Good, bad or in-between, old-fashioned pit-smoked or high-tech and modern; it doesn't matter. Existing without gimmickry, without the infernal swindles and capering of so much of contemporary cuisine, barbecue is truth; it is history and home, and the only thing I don't believe is that I'll ever get enough."
I found this via Anthony St. Clair's blog AntSaint.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Hugh Hewitt blogged a critique of the column here. Then he talked about it on his radio show. He asserted that Mr. Achennach tried to draw a moral equivalence between Zarqawi and the American Pilot who dropped the bombs. Hugh read the post several times. He had several guests (Christopher Hitchens, Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson) on the show who responded negatively, and James Lileks who defended the post.
Being at work, I was not able to read the full post for myself, I could only rely on the radio show for my judgment, and I tended to agree with Hugh's assessment. When I got home I read the entire Achennach post, all of Hugh's posts, and read Radioblogger's transcripts of the day. I still agreed with the assessment.
Then yesterday, Hugh had Joel Achennach an the air for an interview. I've got to say, when I heard the author read the paragraph in question, I had a different take on the meaning. Throughout the interview, Mr. Auchenbach was defensive, and apprehensive, and Hugh took advantage of it.
ScratchingPost has a great blog on the interview.
My take is this: Mr. Auchenbach meant nothing negative about our soldiers and was not trying to draw a moral equivalence between terrorists and our pilots. He does however lean a tad left, but most of his audience leans even harder left and saying what Hugh wanted to say would cause a fire storm of criticism. Also, I think that being a thoughtful lefty, and a patriotic American, Mr. Auchenbach would have a hard time making the simplistic broad statements that Hugh wanted him to make without a lot of necessary explanation and qualifications.
I think Hugh could have found a better example of bias to pick on.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
I am getting so tired of conservatives in this state wanting all or nothing. "If the party nominee doesn't agree with my ONLY issue, then I'll take my ball and go home". Let's get a Republican Governor elected, no matter how moderate, get some control over state agencies and spending, and go from there. Mary Starret, if elected, could not do a darned thing about abortion that Ron Saxton hasn't already said that he would do.
I want abortion abolished too, but if Roe v. Wade was overturned tomorrow, it would still be legal in Oregon, as it was before the ruling. The next step would be to put a measure on the ballot (you know that the RHINO's in Salem won't touch it). How do you think that will go over.
We can win this election, and eventually this issue, if we stop being so selfish and think about ALL that is at stake.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Jason represented everything that I want in a governor, with the exception of supporting the President's position on amnesty. I would have voted for him anyways, if he would have risen to the challenge of debating it with Lars Larson. Lars would have disagreed with him but probably would have supported him in the end.
We have had too many governors and other public officials that have shied away from public accountability and reasonable confrontation by their constituents. Lars represents the single largest platform in the state to not only get your message out, but for the constituents to talk with and question their elected officials. Today was a perfect example with Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams. Lars disagrees with him on almost everything, but because he is willing to answer tough questions, he gets fair and civil treatment on the show.
I truly hope that Jason runs again, and assuming that he learns from this experience, I believe he will win.
The following is a copy of an email that I sent to Senator Atkinson this evening.
Dear Senator Atkinson,
I was flipping through stations this evening and saw you on "Answers For A Thirsty World" originally broadcast on 5/11/06. I have to say I am very impressed. I really like how you truly believe in your convictions, and your belief in servant leadership.
I supported you until that fateful day on Lar's show. I would still have voted for you, even with your response to the illegal immigration questions. The reason I did not was that you did not want to stand for your position. Lars can be tough, but he is fair. I can't stand the thought of another Governor that will not answer tough questions, and be accountable for their decisions. Lars has even said that he may not have pulled his support for you based on that one position, but your lack of willingness to debate it, and "face the fire" so to speak is why he made that decision.. I have to agree. I think that if you had participated in the rest of the "round table" events, and spoke from your heart like I saw you do tonight, you would have won. I did not know half of the things about you that I heard tonight.
Lars has a huge audience, but I would venture to say that very few of his listeners agree with everything he says. What we agree with are his core principles, and his insistence on accountability from public leadership.
I really hope you run next time, and I will support you if you are willing to "face the fire".
Thursday, April 06, 2006
From Steve McCoy at the Reformissionary (some were posted in the comments)
* Jack Bauer's calendar goes from March 31st to April 2nd; no one fools Jack Bauer.
* If everyone on 24 followed Jack's instructions, it would be called 12.
* If you wake up in the morning, it's because Jack Bauer spared your life.
* Superman wears Jack Bauer pajamas.
* There have been no terrorist attacks in the United States since Jack Bauer appeared on television.
* When someone asks Jack Bauer how his day is going, Jack replies, "Previously on 24..."
* Jack Bauer doesn't speak any foreign languages, but he can make any foreigner speak English in a matter of minutes.
* When Google doesn't know the answer, it asks Jack Bauer for help.
* When life gave Jack Bauer lemons, he used them to kill terrorists. Jack Bauer hates lemonade.
* If you’re holding a gun to Jack Bauer’s head, don’t count to three before you shoot. Count to 10. That way, you get to live 7 seconds longer.
* Jack Bauer was never addicted to heroin. Heroin was addicted to Jack Bauer.
* Jack Bauer is the leading cause of death in Middle Eastern men.
* My parents told my little brother and I that Jack Bauer was "just a television character". We are now orphans.
* When Jack Bauer and Chuck Norris met for the first time, they didn't shake hands. They fought to the death. Jack Bauer won.
* Jack Bauer removed the "Escape" button from his keyboard. Jack Bauer never needs to escape.
* Jack Bauer makes onions cry.
* Superman's only weakness is Kryptonite. Jack Bauer laughs at Superman for having a weakness.
* Jack Bauer has been to Mars. Thats why there's no life on Mars.
* After running out of ammo, Jack stood in the line of fire, took 3 shots to the chest, and used them to reload.
* Jack Bauer got Helen Keller to talk.
* If Jack Bauer was in a room with Hitler, Stalin, and Nina Meyers, and he had a gun with 2 bullets, he'd shoot Nina twice.
* Kim Bauer was an accident. Not even the pill can stop Jack Bauer.
* Jack Bauer isn't tough as nails, nails are as tough as jack bauer.
* If it looks like chicken, smells like chicken and tastes like chicken, but Jack Bauer says it's beef, it's freakin' beef.
* Killing Jack Bauer doesn't make him dead, it just makes him angry.
* You're only conscious because Jack Bauer doesn't want to carry you.
* When Kim Bauer lost her virginity, Jack Bauer found it and put it back.
* Jack Bauer won a game of Connect Four in three moves.
From Bill Streger:
* When Jack Bauer was a child, he made his mother finish his vegetables.
* When the boogie man goes to sleep, he checks his closet for Jack Bauer.
* Jack Bauer once called the Vice President "Mr. President", but realized his mistake and shot the President. Jack Bauer is never wrong.
* During the commercials, Jack Bauer calls the CSI detectives and solves their crimes.
* Jack Bauer can get McDonald's breakfast after 10:30.
Theological Jack Bauer Facts from The A-Team Blog (A little understanding of Bible history helps here.)
* Jack Bauer believes in Divine Election because he understands what it means to control everything.
* Jack Bauer is a Complimentarian- everyone submits to him.
* Jack Bauer once questioned the authenticity of the Bible, so he brought the authors back to life and tortured them until he was convinced they were telling the truth.
* Jesus will return when Jack Bauer dies. The problem is that he keeps coming back to life.
* Jack Bauer knows whether the earth is “young” or “old,” but no one’s successfully tortured it out of him.
* For Jack Bauer, confrontation is the only form of evangelism.
* 1/3 of the angels fell when Jack Bauer kicked them out of heaven for not telling him who they worked for.
* Jack Bauer is proof of Intelligent Design.
* Luckily, the Egyptians gave in after the 10th plague because number 11 was going to be Jack Bauer.
* The 10 spies gave a bad report because they saw Jack Bauer.
* Jack Bauer is his own accountability partner and community.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Oregonian story here.
NW Republican blogged it here.
Friday, March 24, 2006
"WASHINGTON — President Bush Thursday becomes the longest-sitting president since Thomas Jefferson not to exercise his veto, surpassing James Monroe."
Here's the mony quote from the article:
Bush said Tuesday that the veto threat has helped him reduce the rate of domestic spending: "One reason why I haven't vetoed any appropriation bills is because they met the benchmarks we've set."
Does he really wonder why he has lost the base and his ratings are in the tank?
Thursday, March 23, 2006
In one paragraph she manages to denigrate Jim Ludwick of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, Rep. Linda Flores, KPAM talker Victoria Taft, Kevin Mannix, Ron Saxton, and indirectly Lars Larson.
The funny thing is that all of her facts regarding immigrants and relevant state policies are true, accept that conservatives are talking about ILLEGAL immigration. You know, the kind that is AGAINST THE LAW.
She even states " it is already required by law that you be a citizen to be eligible for state services." But our beef with the State and Feds is that they are not enforcing the law.
I don't know of a single person who cares about this issue that is racist. (my wife is third generation American, from Mexico, and my three stepsons are all 100% of Mexican descent)
My pastor always says that "someone with experience is never at the mercy of someone with an argument."
Keep up the good work Daniel, and knowing this about you makes me appreciate your writing even more.