Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Ever looked at a Van Gogh and said "I could do that"?

Maybe you were hoping, like I was, that after all the new years eve arrests for drunk driving our policy makers would wise up and allocate some resources to our state police. Or maybe you were frustrated, again, with the time of your morning commute and the fact that you drive 20mph past signs that suggest 55mph. You're hoping that some transportation dollars will build some more roads so that you can get to work.

Hah, there is no intention of this. Instead we have...

McLoughlin Blvd. Enhancement Project in Oregon City, Oregon. The City of Oregon City, the county seat of Clackamas County, Oregon, and the Regional Arts & Culture Council in Portland, Oregon, invite artists/teams residing in Oregon or Washington to submit qualifications for a public art design team opportunity in Oregon City. The total art budget is $160,000.

Maybe you are an aspiring artist. Maybe you could use $160,000. Unfortunately there is another requirement for this project: you must HATE cars.

You see Oregon City and ODOT are very concered that this area is "designed primarily to accommodate motorized vehicles moving through the area" so this "project seeks to reduce barriers for pedestrians and cyclists."

So who is paying for this public art whose purpose is to make it harder for you to drive through the area?

"The project has been funded through Federal transportation allocations and Oregon City Urban Renewal funds. "

Urban Renewal is money that should go to local schools and police but thankfully will instead help build a "skatepark."

Hold onto your wallets update:

Wonderful how the next morning after the call for the public artist(s) for the above project we have the Fishwrapper telling us a worthless story about artists "looking for a home" in Oregon City. But the best paragraph is this:

""There was a big interest in having a gallery," said Orzen, who coordinates the city's annual First City Arts Faire. The problem now is how the venture would pay its bills, she said."

Ooooh, ooooh, pick me, pick me, I know how they could pay their bills!!! Use tax dollars!


Anonymous said...


Like the aspiring young Pot Heads don't need a place to deal and work off the rush?

Daniel said...

I thought that's what public schools were for...

Anonymous said...

we are going to a work from home work force, who needs roads. Just the school buses that take kids 3 blocks to school. walking is not good!!!

Anonymous said...

Daniel: "I'll leave the redemption up to Jesus. Society needs to protect itself from sociopaths."

How did society protect us from YOU when you were gangbanging and dealing drugs? Did we do a good job?

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:47

Jesus said those without sin can cast the first stone!!!

What sins do you have in your closet?

I'm am sooooo tired of reading about what Daniel did in his past (try to remember this is his past not his present or his future).

GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!


Anonymous said...

But Deb, actions speak louder than words. I really don't about Daniel's past, honestly. And I am dealing in the present as I think he continues to spew the present. If I think someone is lying to me or ducking a question, for some reason, I'm going to call them on it. I'm also going to assume that everything that comes out of that person's mouth (or on their blog in this case) is pure BS and worthy of scorn.

As I've written before, Daniel promotes very harsh punishment for crimes (of the sort that he has committed), but seemingly excuses the leniency he received from the state (he served no time) as acceptable in his specific case, all the while claiming he has paid his debt to society?

Moreover, Daniel also seems to assume that if you're doing something wrong and get caught, tough. You shouldn't try to manipulate the legal system into letting you out of it. Take responsibility for your actions. Yet he appealed to the state. Twice!

What a crock!

Failing to take responsibility for your actions while demanding that others do so is a present wrong against others rather than a past one.

Agitating for harsh punishment for others for crimes that you yourself have committed and received no punishment for is arguably the highest form of hypocrisy, and, in my view, immoral and unchristian.

Anonymous said...


Point taken on what you state however this post had nothing to do with crimes that people have committed it had to do with excessive spending by the government. What does that have to do with Daniel's past?

Daniel probably should have paid more for his crimes but that did not happen however it is still a crime that will go with him the rest of his life.

It just seems like no matter what the subject matter is someone has to bring up his past. I will admit I have no idea what all he did in his past nor do I care. I like his blog because it deals with issues that affect my family and am interested in what others think.

That saying of let bygones be bygones is really a good saying. Even practice what you preach.

Thank your reply to my comments.


Anonymous said...

oops guess I should of read before posting I meant "Thank you for your reply to my comments"


Anonymous said...

Daniel, pedestrians have the right-of-way. That's the LAW. Deal with it.

Daniel said...

Anon, I will definitely respond to geniune questions but so much of the "you were a dirtbag" comments come from people who are simply unreasonable. (so many anons, they all lump together)

I have never excused any "leniancy" I got from law enforcement, I was a dirtbag and should have been locked up. Unfortunately I was well versed in "my rights" to be a dirtbag. The sort of rights promoted by liberal ideaology.

As for my appeals, they were automatic, almost all appeals are. I did not ask for them, in fact I asked them to be stopped. I had no idea they went on as long as they did until I received a notice in the mail (from an old address) years later. I immediately asked again for them to be stopped.

But I'm not sure what your point is. Should I now advocate lenient punishment for criminals? Should I oppose exclusion zones? Mandatory minimums? Sorry, regardless of my bad behavior in the past, in fact, because of my bad behavior in the past I support all of these and more.

Anonymous said...

Pedestrians have the right-of-way? Pedestrians do not have the right of way to cross an intersection against a "red hand" while the traffic has a green light. That goes for crosswalks with signal lights. Please, mister, step into the intersection against the "red hand" while the semi truck has the green light and see how quickly that truck doing 30 mph can stop in ten feet.

Alright Daniel, I just want to point out another "illegal immigrants come to America to commit crimes and make our lives miserable" story.

I watched "The O'Reilly Factor" on 04 Jan. 2007, I became outraged, folowed by my usual "go figure" reaction at the Minnesota court commissioner that allowed a repeated child sex offender, 25-year old Paulo Sheispan-Landero, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, to go free on a $5,000 bail!

Landero was accused of molesting a 12-year old girl three times. Under Minnesota's "Jessica's Law" he would be facing a 25-year prison sentence. Instead, Landero walked out of the courthouse with literally the "get out of jail for free" card.

Landero has two prior conviction, one was battery, and has been deported to Mexico once before, where he also has a home there, but later returned to Minnesota a week later after his deportation.

The court commissioner, Lawrence Gazeley, wouldn't comment to "The O'Reilly Factor" on FoxNews Channel. The judge handling Landero, William Atkinson, wouldn't comment either.

Anonymous said...

Don't be a smartass BJDORR. I did not say or imply that pedestrians have the right to step in front of a semi or walk when it says don't walk. If you've lived in Oregon for any length of time and/or you have a driver's license, then you know full well what "pedestrians have the right-of-way" means. If you don't, please don't drive. Ever.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I drive, my masked Anon one. By the way, my comments were based on my several observations of others while I'm waiting to cross the street at a signaled intersection. I will continue to drive my SUV too.

Anonymous said...

Leave it to a conservative to put "rights" -- as in democratic rights -- in quote marks. Pretty much sums up their ideology.

What is the Constitution, after all? Just a goddamned piece of paper. Shred it, by God! Christian -- excuse me, "Christian" soliders, onward!