Monday, June 19, 2006

Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines shows her true colors, and they are NOT red, white & blue

"I don't see why people care about patriotism."

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."

Gwen Ifill cites "excessive security" as she derided President Bush's trip to Baghdad

She had no legitimate gripe about the trip. No commentary on what he had to say. Only a snide comment about Â?excessive securityÂ? for the trip.
"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

Gay Pride On Father's Day?

I'm no fan of gay pride events, but I pretty much don't care. Live and let live. But man, do you have to do it on Fathers Day? For the most part, you get to have your events and demonstrations, can't families have a day to honor things and people important to them, without someone trying to crapping all over it. Bet they made their fathers proud.

Happy Father's day

Happy Father's Day to my Dad and my Stepdad. Both of you are truely loved and appreciated.
Today we will get the whole family together and burn some meat. I'm looking foward to spending time with my daughters.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Vic Atiyeh - Debunking Oregon Myths

I was wondering aimlessly through channels today and came across the latest installment of Washington County Public Affairs Forum and I see Governor Vic Atiyeh giving a speech titled Debunking Oregon Myths. It was interesting hearing him talk about many of the pivotal events in Oregon's recent history, and how many of the predictions about the results have come true. He was very classy in his critiques, and they went to both the left and the right.

Go get the mp3.

Friday, June 16, 2006

Oregon congressional delegation voted NOT to support the war on terror

But you knew that. I wouldn't expect it any other way. The vote was for H RES 861 (16-Jun-2006, 11:17 AM) Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

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


RESOLUTION

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.

Bye Bye Foxworth

Really, it's the only thing you could expect Mayor Potter to do. They had to come out saying that their investigation revealed no wrongdoing. Did you really think that, while facing a lawsuit, they would come out saying "he did it"? I would be willing to bet that after the lawsuit dust clears, Foxworth will "decide" to retire.

Monday, June 12, 2006

A response to gabe's question at landgazing - Hispanics in our culture: Should we feel ashamed?

Gabe at landgazing asked (after an all to common home remodel experience) a thoughtful and interesting question about Hispanics doing our labor jobs.

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

Naked Cycling in Portland Last Night.

I Found this at Metrobloggong Portland.

The Bike Portland story and PICTORIAL here.

So I wonder.....
1) Did they have a parade permit?
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?
What a place we live.

There Is No Such Thing as Too Much Barbecue

NPR's All Things Considered has an essay column called This I Believe. Denver restaurant critic Jason Sheehan has an essay titled There Is No Such Thing as Too Much Barbecue. Pretty much sums up everything good about barbecue.

Summarry :
"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 is wrong about Joel Achenbach

The popular Washington Post blogger Joel Achennach wrote this on Thursday morning after the news of Zarqawi's death.

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

Oregon Conservatives Shoot Themselves in The Foot Again.

This is probably not good for Saxton. The Constitution Party Of Oregon has probably nominated Mary Starret Today. Dead fish Rapper Story here. Victoria Taft blogged it here.

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.