Monday, November 05, 2007

Monday morning off

Got a couple of ducks this weekend. During my drive back I saw a kid holding one of those "come to our store" signs and doing a little dance on the street corner. I was at a stop light and noticed that there were numerous folks in their cars laughing and shaking their heads at the guy.

I wonder how many of those same folks who hand out money to a bum on the freeway onramp? As far as I'm concerned there is dignity in any type of work and good for this kid for being out there.

Speaking of employment, BOLI has put something in the Register Guard to help employers with their questions. Questions like "how can I verify if my employees are legally entitled to work" are covered. No wait, it's "These posters are available in English and Spanish." Silly me.

In the arena of Spanish speakers, most of Oregon wants to deport the illegal aliens from this country, DHS wants to deport a 2 year-old American citizen. Is Janet Reno the new acting director for this state agency or what?

In Fishwrapper-speak the home where the boy will be going is going to also be home to his father:

"Martinez had been scheduled for release from prison last month after serving time for a drug-related crime. The attempted rape convictions involved a teenage girl."

Drug related crime? Did he have a joint in his pocket or was he cooking meth in the nursery room? Of course, if you are a DHS spokesmouth then Martinez here constitutes a "safe and loving" situation.

And finally, if anyone has private fields they hunt geese in and want to invite me...


Anonymous said...

Thank you for the new post. It good to be moving on...I
don't agree with you on much of anything Daniel, but I do agree there is dignity in all work.

-- Eli Barnhardt

Anonymous said...

- "I wonder how many of those same folks who hand out money to a bum on the freeway onramp?"

Well, Einstein, my guess is if these people were really making fun of this kid, then they probably are far too heartless to help out the homeless! Were you trying to make some kind of a point, or were you just "musing"?

- "As far as I'm concerned there is dignity in any type of work"

Really? Even the kind done by illegal immigrants?

Oh wait, you don't believe that they work, right? They're all rapists and drug dealers to you. Right?


Anonymous said...

how does one do a hyperlink?

the link to the butcher and piehl paper from the previous post is:

Bobkatt said...

To use hyperlinks go to my blog

BEAKEER said...


R Huse said...

Well, except for all those people Clinton bombed when he wound up using half the cruise missile inventory to deflect from testimony. Remember how it got to be sort of a running joke on Leno? Oh well.

Hey, you have to wonder about the people who apparently didn't think it was so great this kid was doing a dance to drum up business. I wonder if they shake their head equally when all those kids get used to drum up support for the SCHIP program or the "new and improved tobacco tax will cure everything Healthy Kids Initiative"?

Anonymous said...

Wait a second....if a kid holding a sign can earn a paycheck, why not just give the bums on the off-ramps the signs?

Pay them an hourly wage to wear the old "Eat at Joes" type of sandwich board while pan-handling. What business wouldn't want to be associated with a disease ridden filthy bum with no self respect, a drug habit, and three teeth.

Now I KNOW that there will be some anon type posters who are going to yell at me for being cruel....not all bums are disease ridden...blah,blah,blah. I'll ask you this ahead of time: Would you let them into your home? Would you sit next to them on a bus if there were another open seat elsewhere? No? Then STFU.

eddie said...

The whole give a beggar a sign thing has been tried. It doesn't work.

Frankly, the guys spare-changing with cardboard signs end up making more than the sign guy... why would they want to change?

Kristopher said...

Yep ... they want cash, not food or help. And certainly not a starting wage job ... you know, wages equal to what ALL of us working stiffs started with for the first year or so.

Take a walk around the Beaverton transit center some evening. You can see the food the off ramp bums threw away sitting next to the trash cans there.

no illegal aliens said...

Don't you love it, Daniel? Oregon state government welcomes illegal aliens with open arms and deports U.S. citizens.

Anonymous said...

Daniel - I would encourage you to post something more worthy of discussion and debate...soon...before boredom sets in and people revert back to the far more entertaining discussion of R-Huse's enterprise.

Stevie said...

I agree with Anon 2:16. We need a new discussion!

I have a discussion idea. How about Pakistan, and the pickle Bush has created for himself. I saw a great mash-up video today, where Bush was talking about what a great friend Musharraf is, juxtaposed by Bush saying he has zero tolerance for those around the world who stifle democracy. Whoops! Maybe Bush should have realized that making friends with the devil always has a price, and it is very often a price you didn’t expect.

But then, the GOP has a long established history of making nice with people who later turn out to be not-so-nice. Saddam Hussein had no better friend than Ronald Reagan, who looked the other way while Saddam gassed “his own people”. And didn’t Reagan also provide weapons to Iran? And Bush #1 was good friends with Manuel Noriega, before we decided that Noriega was a bad guy after all. And now, Bush #2 has Musharaff, a “committed friend of democracy” who now happens to be locking up lawyers, judges and activists, suspending that country’s constitution, seizing control of the media, declaring martial law, suspending free elections, and essentially reverting back to the dictator he has always been.

Oh well, at least Bush is still friends with those democracy-loving Saudis! Oh, wait…

Anonymous said...


You've got your history all wrong. Better look up exactly WHY we provided aid to those folks. then look up WHY and how they became the enemy.

Reagan did not look the other way after the Iraqi gas attack. He led the way in imposing sanctions, etc.. Plus, remember the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Well, who would you support in a war? Iraq or Iran, wha had attacked our embassy (U.S. Soil) held hostages for 444 days, and financed the bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Lebanon? I think I'd rather throw arms and support at whoever was at war with Iran.

Better look up also who Kennedy supported, Clinton Supported, Carter...etc... They had some pretty bad mo-fo's in thier pockets as well.

Anonymous said...

It is more accurate to say that American political elites, regardless of what party they are from, have traditionally backed reactionary, criminally-minded political leaders abroad (who have little popular support in their own countries) because they've regarded such figures as the ones who will support U.S. geopolitical and financial interests. They all do this. And if we use the same standards that we apply to dictators who are no longer useful to us, then it's likely that every American president from Truman to the current White House occupant would have been charged and convicted of war crimes.

R Huse said...

Anon 2.16

Sigh - Yet another person with the giggly sexual maturity of a fifth grader.

Hard to know whether to feel sorry for them, or their spouse/partner.

Anonymous said...

yeah, both me and my partner yearn for the day that i'm mature enough to introduce the electric catheter into our sex-life...and then maybe, one day, i'll be ready to wear the sperm-stopper, or whatever the fuck you call it, on a business trip...because god knows i struggle with those pesky erections while traveling on business...and master sure wouldn't approve!

Anonymous Virilinous

Anonymous said...

Question for RHuse: When you use one of those stainless steel ass speculum thingamajigs, do you ... um, giggle?

Mike said...

So I am trying my hand at political blogging. I know, I know...just what we need; another political blog! Doh!

I'm not going to be very good at it. It's mostly just a bunch of YouTube videos that I thought were either 1) interesting or 2) very telling about our political culture. I am trying to give the conservative independent point of view so it isn't going to be completely fair and balanced...don't tell me it's not, I already know. It is just my opinions on what I think about the political landscape.

So, if you would be so kind to go visit, it would make me happy. Feel free to comment on whatever you like. I have already archived about a year's worth of stuff just to get it going.

R Huse said...

Well, you know, for people who proclaim not to have a lot of interest you guys sure do seem to cruise the site a lot.

Either way though, its good for ratings. Im just wondering when one of you rocket scientists will figure it all out.

"Geee, why does he allude to his business in his profile, but yet not provide a direct link?"

Cracks me up every time, you guys just don't get it at all do you?

Stevie said...

Anon 4:52,

With all due respect, it might be you who needs to crack open a history book.

With regard to Reagan and Hussein, you’re engaging in a bit (actually, a lot) of revisionist history. Not only did Reagan NOT lead the way in imposing sanctions against Iraq as you claim, but he actually blocked such Congressional efforts in 1988. What Reagan DID do after Hussein’s gas attacks against the Kurds was extend $500 million in foreign aid to Iraq, against the advice of his own Secretary of State, George Schultz. And even Richard Armitage, Reagan’s Asst. Secretary of Defense, acknowledged Reagan’s lack of action against Iraq when he said, ''In retrospect, it would have been much better at the time of their use of poison gas . . . if we had put our foot down.''

So Anon 4:52, where on earth did you get the silly idea that Reagan “led the way” in imposing sanctions?!? As a simple matter of historical record, your claim isn’t true. Which means you’re either displaying ignorance or dishonesty here. Not good, in either case.

Now, if you want to argue that Reagan’s appeasing of Iraq was justified because of what Iran was doing at the time (despite what duplicitous, so-called conservatives often say about appeasing dictators today), then fine. But don’t make up your own facts in the process.

In addition, your question above, “Well, who would you support in a war?”, employs the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Your question assumes that the U.S. had to support one side or the other, when in fact, both sides represented governments whose values are pretty much antithetical to everything America holds near and dear. In fact, the enemy of my enemy is NOT always my friend.

Didn’t you right-wingers learn that after 9/11?!? Given Bush’s current dilemma with Pakistan, apparently not.

R Huse said...

Look, the idea that either party has a monopoly on cozying up to dictators when it has served our interests is a little ridiculous. They all have done it. Sometimes it has worked out, sometimes it has not.

Sometimes a dictator is the best you can do in terms of foreign policy. Its not always the situation that waiting in the wings is democracy and human rights, if only this dictator wasn't supported by the US.

And for anyone who thinks the GOP has the edge on this, sorry, Roosevelt was the one who took up with Stalin. Roosevelt did the best he could with the cards history dealt.

Anonymous said...

bobkatt, thank you for teaching people how to put a hyperlink in a post. But ... I think you actually put in one too many "<"'s. No "<" before the word "link".