One of the better commentaries on Kelo, the monstrosity of a decision issued last week by the Supremes.
No information was given as to where one might join this investment group.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Monday, June 27, 2005
A Wonderful Proposal
More than a year back, I made reference in a Potomac News column to Virginia's Tax-Me-More Fund. Opened on 2 December 2003, this fund gives the loud but overly-influential tax-increasing minority an opportunity to put its money where its mouth is. That was back in 2004. Then, even with the months-long campaign for higher taxes, contributions totaled $5,940, from only four Virginians. All were made in December 2003. No more had been made when I wrote in the Spring of 2004, when the “crying need” for more government funds had purportedly become acute, and justified the largest tax increase in Virginia history.
Now it's 2005, more than a year later. What has become of the "Tax-Me-More" Fund? Today, contributions total $5,940, from only four Virginians. All were made in December 2003. No more have been made since I last wrote.
Mark Warner hasn't contributed.
John Chichester hasn't contributed.
Russell Potts hasn't contributed.
Gary Reese hasn't contributed.
None of the Gang of 17 Repubmocrats who broke with GOP leadership have contributed.
No one in the State Senate has contributed.
On a related note, I found this post on one of my favorite websites, called the Hawaii Reporter. It's a Deroy Murdock column discussing the H.O.T. tax.
This is his proposal to respond to those idiots who complain they're undertaxed. It's a hypocrisy test. Please note, most Liberals fail.
Now it's 2005, more than a year later. What has become of the "Tax-Me-More" Fund? Today, contributions total $5,940, from only four Virginians. All were made in December 2003. No more have been made since I last wrote.
Mark Warner hasn't contributed.
John Chichester hasn't contributed.
Russell Potts hasn't contributed.
Gary Reese hasn't contributed.
None of the Gang of 17 Repubmocrats who broke with GOP leadership have contributed.
No one in the State Senate has contributed.
On a related note, I found this post on one of my favorite websites, called the Hawaii Reporter. It's a Deroy Murdock column discussing the H.O.T. tax.
This is his proposal to respond to those idiots who complain they're undertaxed. It's a hypocrisy test. Please note, most Liberals fail.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Wish I had thought of this...
What You Need to Know About Gitmo
BY JAMES LILEKS
c.2005 Newhouse News Service
Gitmo is the gulag equivalent of a Ben Affleck movie: no one's seen it, but everyone has an opinion about it. Given all the rhetoric that's been spilled about this sorta-kinda-not-really Death Camp, it's time we re-examine the facts, and remind ourselves what's really at stake. Herewith a summation.
Q: What is Gitmo?
A: Contrary to what some suggest, it does not stand for "Git mo' Peking chicken for Muhammad, he wants a second portion." It stands for "Guantanamo," a facility the United States built to see if the left would ever care about human rights abuses in Cuba. The experiment has apparently been successful.
Q: Who's in Gitmo?
A: Operation Scoop Up The Little Lost Lambs plucked men from distant countries and brought them to Gitmo to beat them deaf for no apparent reason. There are between 400 and 30 million people at Gitmo, and somewhere between zero and 15 million people have died there.
Q: That's quite the range. Do we have precise figures?
A: Well, technically, no one has died at Gitmo. Metaphorically, millions have perished, since Gitmo is the spiritual heir to assorted thug regimes -- except Saddam's, of course. Think Nazi death camps. Did you know one of the Nazis' Middle East allies was the grand mufti of Jerusalem, a Hitler admirer who was a mentor to Yasser Arafat? Funny how history works. Not ha-ha funny, but Seinfeld-ironic funny.
Q: History is boring. C'mon. Why do they hate us?
A: Because our women wear thongs, our media are naughty, our homosexuals walk around unstoned, and we refuse to let them finish Hitler's plans for the Jews. Because we are the infidel sons of monkeys and pigs who do not believe that most holy of books, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Also because we had something to do with Afghanistan.
Q: Afghana-what?
A: Afghanistan is a large, mountainous country that suffered an unimaginable geographical calamity a few years ago, when the entire nation slid off the front pages of the newspapers. Poor country: not a single runaway Caucasian bride to interest the media.
Q: Why can't the prisoners be given trials?
A: Because civil libertarians might injure themselves as they race to defend the "terrorist suspects" and collide in the airport jetways. Because the left seems to think the detainees were arrested for the crime of "being swarthy in Afghanistan," and there are no such specific charges in the U.S. criminal code. Finally, if convicted, the "terrorists" would go into the U.S. federal pens, where the food is worse and they are subject to brutal rape. We reserve that for recidivist marijuana wholesalers.
Q: What forms of torture do they use in Gitmo?
A: The interrogators make a point of handling the Quran with gloves, to indicate they accept the prisoners' definition of infidels as "unclean." But the guards occasionally suggest that the gloves are not only washed with the general laundry that might include the socks of Jews, but that sometimes the anti-static cling sheets are deliberately left out.
Q: It might all be worth it if we learned something. Have we learned anything?
A: Who knows? We have to err on the side of self-castigating doubt, reflexive suspicion of the military, and a churlish institutional bias against reporting anything other than bad news that might sap the national will. So let's assume the interrogators learned nothing.
Q: Wow. This is bad.
A: It is. It's worse than Waco, because at least those people aren't suffering anymore.
Q: When did they build this place?
A: After Sept. 11, 2001.
Q: That date seems familiar for some reason. Did something happen?
A: Not really. You can roll over and go back to sleep.
Q: Isn't it our role as citizens to be wary of government?
A: Sure. But take this quote: "I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisers to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad." That was Sen. Dick Durbin in 1998, when Bill Clinton attacked Iraq. But that was then, and this is George W. Bush.
BY JAMES LILEKS
c.2005 Newhouse News Service
Gitmo is the gulag equivalent of a Ben Affleck movie: no one's seen it, but everyone has an opinion about it. Given all the rhetoric that's been spilled about this sorta-kinda-not-really Death Camp, it's time we re-examine the facts, and remind ourselves what's really at stake. Herewith a summation.
Q: What is Gitmo?
A: Contrary to what some suggest, it does not stand for "Git mo' Peking chicken for Muhammad, he wants a second portion." It stands for "Guantanamo," a facility the United States built to see if the left would ever care about human rights abuses in Cuba. The experiment has apparently been successful.
Q: Who's in Gitmo?
A: Operation Scoop Up The Little Lost Lambs plucked men from distant countries and brought them to Gitmo to beat them deaf for no apparent reason. There are between 400 and 30 million people at Gitmo, and somewhere between zero and 15 million people have died there.
Q: That's quite the range. Do we have precise figures?
A: Well, technically, no one has died at Gitmo. Metaphorically, millions have perished, since Gitmo is the spiritual heir to assorted thug regimes -- except Saddam's, of course. Think Nazi death camps. Did you know one of the Nazis' Middle East allies was the grand mufti of Jerusalem, a Hitler admirer who was a mentor to Yasser Arafat? Funny how history works. Not ha-ha funny, but Seinfeld-ironic funny.
Q: History is boring. C'mon. Why do they hate us?
A: Because our women wear thongs, our media are naughty, our homosexuals walk around unstoned, and we refuse to let them finish Hitler's plans for the Jews. Because we are the infidel sons of monkeys and pigs who do not believe that most holy of books, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Also because we had something to do with Afghanistan.
Q: Afghana-what?
A: Afghanistan is a large, mountainous country that suffered an unimaginable geographical calamity a few years ago, when the entire nation slid off the front pages of the newspapers. Poor country: not a single runaway Caucasian bride to interest the media.
Q: Why can't the prisoners be given trials?
A: Because civil libertarians might injure themselves as they race to defend the "terrorist suspects" and collide in the airport jetways. Because the left seems to think the detainees were arrested for the crime of "being swarthy in Afghanistan," and there are no such specific charges in the U.S. criminal code. Finally, if convicted, the "terrorists" would go into the U.S. federal pens, where the food is worse and they are subject to brutal rape. We reserve that for recidivist marijuana wholesalers.
Q: What forms of torture do they use in Gitmo?
A: The interrogators make a point of handling the Quran with gloves, to indicate they accept the prisoners' definition of infidels as "unclean." But the guards occasionally suggest that the gloves are not only washed with the general laundry that might include the socks of Jews, but that sometimes the anti-static cling sheets are deliberately left out.
Q: It might all be worth it if we learned something. Have we learned anything?
A: Who knows? We have to err on the side of self-castigating doubt, reflexive suspicion of the military, and a churlish institutional bias against reporting anything other than bad news that might sap the national will. So let's assume the interrogators learned nothing.
Q: Wow. This is bad.
A: It is. It's worse than Waco, because at least those people aren't suffering anymore.
Q: When did they build this place?
A: After Sept. 11, 2001.
Q: That date seems familiar for some reason. Did something happen?
A: Not really. You can roll over and go back to sleep.
Q: Isn't it our role as citizens to be wary of government?
A: Sure. But take this quote: "I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisers to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad." That was Sen. Dick Durbin in 1998, when Bill Clinton attacked Iraq. But that was then, and this is George W. Bush.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
A Truly Appalling Supreme Court Decision
When I was in law school, my property professor was more theoretical than most. He offered what he described as the "Swiss cheese theory" of property in America. The analogy was apt because the question was whether there were more holes than cheese.
The answer to that question was altered today, when the Supremes blew another big hole in property rights in Kelo v. City of New London
Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Justices O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, got it right. Even made O'Connor somewhat poetic. An excerpt:
Justice O’Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
The answer to that question was altered today, when the Supremes blew another big hole in property rights in Kelo v. City of New London
Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Justices O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, got it right. Even made O'Connor somewhat poetic. An excerpt:
Justice O’Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:Justice Thomas was even stronger in dissent:
“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority … . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean… . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.
Justice Thomas, dissenting.If this Court doesn't change soon, the Constitution is doomed.
Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that “the law of the land … postpone[s] even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property.” 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 134135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for “public necessity,” but instead for “public use.” Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a “ ‘[P]ublic [P]urpose’ ” Clause, ante, at 910 (or perhaps the “Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society” Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is “legitimate” and the means “not irrational,” ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a “public use.”
I cannot agree. If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 12, 813. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.
Suzanne Fields on the War Against the Family
The Washington Times' Suzanne Fields has a wonderful piece today on the far Left's continuing war against marriage and the family.
Back in what I supposed some could call my more "moderate" days, I used to think that conservatives and/or Christians who complained about litigation challenging legal definitions respecting the traditional "family" were alarmists. No more. As Fields notes at the outset, "Not so long ago such questions would have been raised only in a science fiction tale. Not any more. They're questions seriously discussed in college classrooms, advocacy seminars and in forums to challenge lawyers, judges and policy-makers. The idea is to change family law as we know it. Marriage is targeted for deconstruction."
As Fields accurately tells it, the war is terribly fashionable:
This is or should be a red-flag issue. Anyone who claims to be a "conservative" who can't stand up for the fundamental building block of civilized society truly has a radical agenda at work.
Back in what I supposed some could call my more "moderate" days, I used to think that conservatives and/or Christians who complained about litigation challenging legal definitions respecting the traditional "family" were alarmists. No more. As Fields notes at the outset, "Not so long ago such questions would have been raised only in a science fiction tale. Not any more. They're questions seriously discussed in college classrooms, advocacy seminars and in forums to challenge lawyers, judges and policy-makers. The idea is to change family law as we know it. Marriage is targeted for deconstruction."
As Fields accurately tells it, the war is terribly fashionable:
Influential advocates from politically correct academic and legal organizations sneer at traditional marriage as another bad example of "ethnocentric" thinking that promotes "old-fashioned ideological stereotypes." These advocates accuse the law of dismissing "diversity." By diversity they mean the experience of racial minorities, women, single parents, divorced and remarried persons, gays, and lesbians. A large body of social science and psychological data demonstrate that not all forms of parenthood are equally child-friendly, but these advocates say that's merely a point of view to be replaced by "close relationship" law.The bottom line, of course, is that the war on traditional marriage is quite at home among those in the nihilistic, narcissistic far Left: "So before we start tampering with our respect for traditional marriage, we should pay heed to what we know that works. If we don't want to do that for our selfish selves, we must do it for the sake of the children."
This is or should be a red-flag issue. Anyone who claims to be a "conservative" who can't stand up for the fundamental building block of civilized society truly has a radical agenda at work.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
A Pathetic Literary Foray
With apologies to Paul Henning and Flatt & Scruggs, I offer this little ditty about Virginia's favorite flake and Governor wannabe, Senator Russ "Chamber" Potts (RINO-Winchester), to the tune of the "The Ballad of Jed Clampett," theme song from The Beverly Hillbillies:
The Ballad of the Winchester Billygoat
Jeff Schapiro of the Richmond Times-Dispatch as "Jethro"
Leslie Byrne as "Granny"
Sean Connaughton as "Ellie Mae"
Marc Fisher of the Washington [com]Post as "Miss Jane Hathaway"
and Barnie Day of the Augusta Free Press as "Mr. Drysdale"
The Ballad of the Winchester Billygoat
Let me tell you a little story about a man named Russ,Starring: Russ "Chamber" Potts as himself
A poor mountain boy, known mainly as full o' pus,
And then one day, he was rootin' through a pile,
And up through his throat, came a' bubblin' bile
("Governor, I'll be; mansion; higher taxes; far right! far right!")
Well the first thing you know old Russ's got a goal
Media folk said "Russ, the people gotta know'd"
Said "Ole Richmond is the place you oughta be"
So he loaded up his truck and he went out on the road
(interstates, that is, gridlock, obscene finger gestures)
Well now it's time to say goodbye to Russ and all his bile
He'd like to thank you folks for lettin' him drop a pile
You're all invited back again to this locality
To have a heaping helping of his generosity
(Chamber Potts; taxpayer handouts is what he's for,
Nice media folks Y'all come back now, ya hear?)
Jeff Schapiro of the Richmond Times-Dispatch as "Jethro"
Leslie Byrne as "Granny"
Sean Connaughton as "Ellie Mae"
Marc Fisher of the Washington [com]Post as "Miss Jane Hathaway"
and Barnie Day of the Augusta Free Press as "Mr. Drysdale"
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Rusty's Union Buddies
State Senator Russ "Chamber" Potts (RINO-Winchester) has received an endorsement from a public-sector labor union. While running as an "independent" for Governor of a state in which public-employee monopoly bargaining was made illegal years ago. By a Democrat-controlled legislature.
Is there anybody serious who would still call him a Virginia Republican?
Is there anybody serious who would still call him a Virginia Republican?
Only in Washington
One of the joys of living in D.C. is that there are things that can only happen here.
D.C. Police Chief's car stolen.
Gotta love it!
D.C. Police Chief's car stolen.
Gotta love it!
Monday, June 20, 2005
Conservative vs. Moderate/Lefty Blogs
Something I've notice about conservative vs. moderate/Lefty blogs. The former will almost certainly have link to blogs with a range of opinion in sidebars. The latter will almost never have anything but the party line.
Sure, there are exceptions. But that seems to be the trend.
And remind me, again, who is it who is "open-minded" and "tolerant"?
Sure, there are exceptions. But that seems to be the trend.
And remind me, again, who is it who is "open-minded" and "tolerant"?
Hold-On-To-Your-Wallet Mode
One reason that I'm so skeptical about so-called "moderate" Republicans is the fact that they frequently sound so much like Democrats and/or other assorted far Lefties. And maybe I'm old-fashioned --- OK, so I am decidedly old-fashioned --- but I'm of the school holding that language and rhetoric mean something.
So when a "Republican" uses the same disparagements as the Democrats ....
The same holds true for strategy. So when Gordon C. Morse says in yesterday's Washington Post that "Maybe what Virginia needs is a better class of conservative," I'm pretty sure that this former speechwriter for Virginia Democrat Governor Gerry Baliles doesn't have Republicans' or Conservatives' best interests at heart. What he really wants, of course, is the kind of "conservative" who's more like a Democrat.
With that having been said, I'd say his criticisms of spending in recent GOP administrations is pretty fair. It at least identifies correctly that the problem is profligate spending. Unfortunately, as you would expect from a Democrat, it claims that the rather minor car tax cut is the root of all evil, when it is a small part of the overall increase in state spending during the relevant period.
Likewise, I agree with his assessment of the Kilgore proposal on referenda. I have been consistently critical of all the tax referenda, including those for meals taxes in Prince William County conducted in 1994 and1995, and that championed by former Delegate Jack Rollison in 2002. They permit elected officials to evade responsibility for their spending decisions, and the taxes that must be raised to pay for them. Moreover, such referenda permit elected officials to browbeat a populace into submission, if they have a mind to do it, by frequent and repeated efforts to win the same tax increases.
And, of course, one of the things that we never heard from Mark Warner, and certainly not from Democrat apologist Morse, is the suggestion that the solution to "Virginia's fiscal mess" is a good dose of reductions in state spending.
So when a "Republican" uses the same disparagements as the Democrats ....
The same holds true for strategy. So when Gordon C. Morse says in yesterday's Washington Post that "Maybe what Virginia needs is a better class of conservative," I'm pretty sure that this former speechwriter for Virginia Democrat Governor Gerry Baliles doesn't have Republicans' or Conservatives' best interests at heart. What he really wants, of course, is the kind of "conservative" who's more like a Democrat.
With that having been said, I'd say his criticisms of spending in recent GOP administrations is pretty fair. It at least identifies correctly that the problem is profligate spending. Unfortunately, as you would expect from a Democrat, it claims that the rather minor car tax cut is the root of all evil, when it is a small part of the overall increase in state spending during the relevant period.
Likewise, I agree with his assessment of the Kilgore proposal on referenda. I have been consistently critical of all the tax referenda, including those for meals taxes in Prince William County conducted in 1994 and1995, and that championed by former Delegate Jack Rollison in 2002. They permit elected officials to evade responsibility for their spending decisions, and the taxes that must be raised to pay for them. Moreover, such referenda permit elected officials to browbeat a populace into submission, if they have a mind to do it, by frequent and repeated efforts to win the same tax increases.
And, of course, one of the things that we never heard from Mark Warner, and certainly not from Democrat apologist Morse, is the suggestion that the solution to "Virginia's fiscal mess" is a good dose of reductions in state spending.
Mapping Primaries
Picked this up from John Behan over at Commonwealth Conservative. Kenton Ngo at 750 Volts has posted his Primary 2005 Mapping project, mapping out the primary results by jurisdiction. It graphically demonstrates how poorly Chairman Sean traveled among Republicans outside of Northern Virginia. It also demonstrates the weakness of Leslie Byrne even among Democrats outside of Northern Virginia.
Sure, it's only primary results. But if Dickie Cranwell looks at this, he'd better have some antacid handy.
Sure, it's only primary results. But if Dickie Cranwell looks at this, he'd better have some antacid handy.
Friday, June 17, 2005
WaPo's Latest Effort To Transform the GOP
Whenever the Washington Post tries to give advice to the GOP, Conservatives should hold on to their wallets. Witness their recent endorsement of Chairman Sean -- to the unitiated, Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Sean Connaughton -- for the GOP nomination for Lieutenant Governor. Was there anything more guaranteed to lose Chairman Sean votes in a GOP primary?
But now, there's today's lead editorial. You really just want to laugh. State and local governments are flush with billions in unanticipated revenues. Other journals are reporting massive increases in revenues, such as state revunues up 23% in May, and annual revenues running nearly 5% higher than the 10% increase anticipated, for a more-than 15% increase.
On the same day that such figures are reported, only the Washington Post could editorialize about the need for discussion of "how to raise the tens of billions of dollars needed for transportation over the next decade or two." How about using the billions in unanticipated revenues coming in right now!
But my favorite line is the end:
The GOP can hardly stand for slower socialism and expect the electorate to put its candidates into office. Why should voters elect slower socialists when you can vote for Democrats and get the real thing? What is necessary now is a united Republican call that the revenues derived from these "good times" should be used for the benefit of all taxpayers in the form of roads and transportation, not merely as a vote-buying scheme for the government-dependency class.
We shall see.
But now, there's today's lead editorial. You really just want to laugh. State and local governments are flush with billions in unanticipated revenues. Other journals are reporting massive increases in revenues, such as state revunues up 23% in May, and annual revenues running nearly 5% higher than the 10% increase anticipated, for a more-than 15% increase.
On the same day that such figures are reported, only the Washington Post could editorialize about the need for discussion of "how to raise the tens of billions of dollars needed for transportation over the next decade or two." How about using the billions in unanticipated revenues coming in right now!
But my favorite line is the end:
Virginia has gotten itself in trouble before by shrinking tax revenue and making new spending commitments during flush times, as it did in the late '90s under the last Republican governor, James S. Gilmore III. By assuming that the good times would roll indefinitely, Mr. Gilmore laid the groundwork for a financial crisis inherited by the current governor, Mark R. Warner. For Virginia to repeat that mistake two or three years after lifting itself from the trough would be disastrous.Leave it to the Washington Post to make a valid observation (about unneeded "new spending commitments," though it's probably talking about car tax relief), but ignore the reasons why state spending increased irresponsibly in the late '90s: socialist welfare spending increased, while the roads and other transportation infrastructure were ignored. So what does the Washington Post call for now? More socialist welfare spending, and more taxes for transportation.
The GOP can hardly stand for slower socialism and expect the electorate to put its candidates into office. Why should voters elect slower socialists when you can vote for Democrats and get the real thing? What is necessary now is a united Republican call that the revenues derived from these "good times" should be used for the benefit of all taxpayers in the form of roads and transportation, not merely as a vote-buying scheme for the government-dependency class.
We shall see.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Confession
Maybe I was entirely too pleased with Bill Bolling's victory, but I gotta confess: when the returns came in at 10 p.m., on Tuesday night, I had to treat myself to a nice, tall Crown Royal Special Reserve on the rocks, and a Fuente Fuente Opus X.
Sorry, Steve.
Sorry, Steve.
An interesting blog
An interesting blog to learn how some Prince William/Northern Virginia squishes are thinking.
When I was at Hampden-Sydney College (a men's college), there was a lot of graffiti on the bathroom walls. All of it was unsigned. Most of it was scandalous, but a lot of it was just hateful. There was the one about a student who was called a "raging papist" because he said something supportive of the Catholic position on abortion in an ethics class. How "raging"? Well, now he's a Catholic priest. Then there was the virtual campaign against a classmate, challenging his manhood. He's now a correspondent on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show," does the wise-a** "Mr. Goodwrench" commercials, and has a wife and two children.
To be sure, people have a First Amendment right to anonymity. But just because one has the right to say something doesn't mean it's appropriate or wise to do so.
And when we're talking about political commentary, history and context matter. I put my name on these little missives because you, Gentle Reader, have a right to judge my rhetoric against my record. If I've been inconsistent, I deserve to be called on it.
But then, there's the cowardly anonymity of the posters on the aforementioned squishblog. What do they fear? That the conservative majority in Prince William County will exact retribution? Or deny them when they want something from us? Or simply recognize them for what they are when able to attach identities to those who might put on a different public face? Might it be because they want to wax demagogic in anonymity, and attack as "mean-spirited" those who throw similar rhetoric in their faces?
Maybe their pretensions to wisdom will be measured against their dismal electoral record. Some of my critics like to make note of the fact that I was twice unsuccessful in bids for public office. And while it might be so that the reader can take note of my personally dismal electoral record, it all too frequently comes off as just hateful. But how about them? They certainly want to claim to be Conservatives and Republicans, but how do we know that they are? They sound a lot more like lefties who just want to sow dissension in the GOP. And even if they aren't, I'm willing to bet a fair number have been supportive of a series of GOP candidates who haven't had any more success than I at the polls.
It's no wonder they maintain anonymity. They make vile, vicious, peurile, and sophomoric attacks upon the elected (note, "elected," as in, got the most votes) leaders of the County GOP --- you know, the ones who took Prince William County from where it was in 1990 to unarguably dominant status in 2005 --- and do so behind a cloak of anonymity so they can't be held responsible. They responded to this post with a personal attack.
Like I said. Cowards.
When I was at Hampden-Sydney College (a men's college), there was a lot of graffiti on the bathroom walls. All of it was unsigned. Most of it was scandalous, but a lot of it was just hateful. There was the one about a student who was called a "raging papist" because he said something supportive of the Catholic position on abortion in an ethics class. How "raging"? Well, now he's a Catholic priest. Then there was the virtual campaign against a classmate, challenging his manhood. He's now a correspondent on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show," does the wise-a** "Mr. Goodwrench" commercials, and has a wife and two children.
To be sure, people have a First Amendment right to anonymity. But just because one has the right to say something doesn't mean it's appropriate or wise to do so.
And when we're talking about political commentary, history and context matter. I put my name on these little missives because you, Gentle Reader, have a right to judge my rhetoric against my record. If I've been inconsistent, I deserve to be called on it.
But then, there's the cowardly anonymity of the posters on the aforementioned squishblog. What do they fear? That the conservative majority in Prince William County will exact retribution? Or deny them when they want something from us? Or simply recognize them for what they are when able to attach identities to those who might put on a different public face? Might it be because they want to wax demagogic in anonymity, and attack as "mean-spirited" those who throw similar rhetoric in their faces?
Maybe their pretensions to wisdom will be measured against their dismal electoral record. Some of my critics like to make note of the fact that I was twice unsuccessful in bids for public office. And while it might be so that the reader can take note of my personally dismal electoral record, it all too frequently comes off as just hateful. But how about them? They certainly want to claim to be Conservatives and Republicans, but how do we know that they are? They sound a lot more like lefties who just want to sow dissension in the GOP. And even if they aren't, I'm willing to bet a fair number have been supportive of a series of GOP candidates who haven't had any more success than I at the polls.
It's no wonder they maintain anonymity. They make vile, vicious, peurile, and sophomoric attacks upon the elected (note, "elected," as in, got the most votes) leaders of the County GOP --- you know, the ones who took Prince William County from where it was in 1990 to unarguably dominant status in 2005 --- and do so behind a cloak of anonymity so they can't be held responsible. They responded to this post with a personal attack.
Like I said. Cowards.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Who Supports You Says a Lot About You
As GOP Primary Day approaches, it's useful to consider who, exactly, is supporting Sean Connaughton for Lt. Governor. Tom Davis' fair-haired boy and stalking horse for the latter's statewide ambitions (ambitions which, by the way, I might even be willing to support). To be sure, Chairman Sean has more than a fair number of local sycophants and pissboys who are enthusiastic behind his candidacy.
One would expect Coles Supervisor "Big" Marty Nohe to support him. After all, Connaughton got a Republican incumbent thrown out of office to make way for Nohe. Never mind that this wasn't the original plan. You see, Connaughton originally backed Tom Burrell, who then infuriated local Republicans and embarrassed Chairman Sean by announcing as an independent, and then by withdrawing from the race entirely. Nevertheless, when Burrell did so, Chairman Sean threw his support to Nohe, demonstrating that the pitfalls of a successful political movement is that you can get any idiot elected to public office, and frequently do.
That's one reason why Chairman Sean holds me in such disregard. You see, I blew the whistle (in my late, unlamented Potomac News column) on Burrell and his dishonorable tactic. When I did so, there was a furious exchange of e-mails between myself, Chairman Sean, former Occoquan Supervisor Ruth Griggs, and former Prince William Taxpayers Alliance Chairman and gadfly Ella Shannon, among others. Out of this little exchange came the revelations that Burrell was Connaughton's candidate, part of his vendetta against former Coles Supervisor Mary Hill.
Connaughton even has some respectable support. Congressman Tom Davis is a big backer. Some local supporters, like Clerk of Court Dave Mabie and Brentsville Supervisor Wally Covington, I even like and respect, and forgive them of their indiscretion. I assume that he's paying former County GOP Chairman Bill Kling, and that Kling isn't giving him a discount for his services.
But then you look to other supporters, and you just have to scratch your head.
There's Jonathan Pick, who appeared at a press conference last year to support Chairman Sean's proposed budget, a model of profligate spending, and announced his support for Chairman Sean's statewide ambitions. Well, perhaps not a model; it was every bit as bloated as every other County budget during Sean's tenure. An Internet search at the time revealed that Pick was a Deaniac, supporting Howard Dean's campaign for the Democrat presidential nomination. Well, maybe it wasn't the same "Jonathan Pick." 'Cept this one was from Woodbridge, Virginia. A more recent search lists him (of Woodbridge) as a member of the "Tim Kaine for Governor" meetup on meetup.com, and the only individual who actually showed up at a meeting. But I'm more certain that he authored two or three letters published in the Potomac News in support of homo "marriage."
Whysoever would Pick support a self-styled "conservative" Republican like Chairman Sean?
Then there's the neighbor of mine. Now, while I don't know this neighbor's name, I do know his or her vehicle. It is one of the few in the neighborhood with dependably Lefty bumperstickers. The most recent has been "Another Family for Peace," popular among anti-Bush far Lefties. But another one appeared recently: "Connaughton for Lt. Gov."
Whysoever would an anti-Bush Lefty support a self-styled "conservative" Republican like Chairman Sean?
The third is more dubious. A member of the church that I attend has always impressed my as someone not especially politically active but, if anything, a Democrat. Yet I noted on this individual's car a "Connaughton for Lt. Gov." sticker. Indeed, this individual once showed up at last year's May meeting of the Prince William County Republican Committee where, in a fit of pique over his embarassment at losing a straw poll at the previous month's County Convention, Chairman Sean tried to seize control of the County Committee by packing a meeting with people who had never shown up before. Precious few returned, too.
Whysoever would Democrats support a self-styled "conservative" Republican like Chairman Sean?
And then, of course, there are the Connaughton sycophants --- call them Connaughtonites --- in Prince William County: the appointees; the hangers-on; the people who've never risked anything to take a stand for principle in their lives, probably because they have none; the people who expect a payoff when Chairman Sean realizes his ambitions. Not all Connaughton supporters are such people. As much as it pains me to say so, Ella Shannon is not among these less-than honorable types (there are other reasons for her vile rhetoric, now enlisted in Chairman Sean's cause), nor is Southbridge Homeowners Association President Jim Riley. But they seem to be particularly thick among the blogosphere (see below for their comments).
Yeah, you can sure tell a lot about a candidate by those who back him. And aside from the usual types who hope to gain advancement from their association with Chairman Sean, there are enough people who make it quite clear that conservative Republican is not a claim that can be sustained.
One would expect Coles Supervisor "Big" Marty Nohe to support him. After all, Connaughton got a Republican incumbent thrown out of office to make way for Nohe. Never mind that this wasn't the original plan. You see, Connaughton originally backed Tom Burrell, who then infuriated local Republicans and embarrassed Chairman Sean by announcing as an independent, and then by withdrawing from the race entirely. Nevertheless, when Burrell did so, Chairman Sean threw his support to Nohe, demonstrating that the pitfalls of a successful political movement is that you can get any idiot elected to public office, and frequently do.
That's one reason why Chairman Sean holds me in such disregard. You see, I blew the whistle (in my late, unlamented Potomac News column) on Burrell and his dishonorable tactic. When I did so, there was a furious exchange of e-mails between myself, Chairman Sean, former Occoquan Supervisor Ruth Griggs, and former Prince William Taxpayers Alliance Chairman and gadfly Ella Shannon, among others. Out of this little exchange came the revelations that Burrell was Connaughton's candidate, part of his vendetta against former Coles Supervisor Mary Hill.
Connaughton even has some respectable support. Congressman Tom Davis is a big backer. Some local supporters, like Clerk of Court Dave Mabie and Brentsville Supervisor Wally Covington, I even like and respect, and forgive them of their indiscretion. I assume that he's paying former County GOP Chairman Bill Kling, and that Kling isn't giving him a discount for his services.
But then you look to other supporters, and you just have to scratch your head.
There's Jonathan Pick, who appeared at a press conference last year to support Chairman Sean's proposed budget, a model of profligate spending, and announced his support for Chairman Sean's statewide ambitions. Well, perhaps not a model; it was every bit as bloated as every other County budget during Sean's tenure. An Internet search at the time revealed that Pick was a Deaniac, supporting Howard Dean's campaign for the Democrat presidential nomination. Well, maybe it wasn't the same "Jonathan Pick." 'Cept this one was from Woodbridge, Virginia. A more recent search lists him (of Woodbridge) as a member of the "Tim Kaine for Governor" meetup on meetup.com, and the only individual who actually showed up at a meeting. But I'm more certain that he authored two or three letters published in the Potomac News in support of homo "marriage."
Whysoever would Pick support a self-styled "conservative" Republican like Chairman Sean?
Then there's the neighbor of mine. Now, while I don't know this neighbor's name, I do know his or her vehicle. It is one of the few in the neighborhood with dependably Lefty bumperstickers. The most recent has been "Another Family for Peace," popular among anti-Bush far Lefties. But another one appeared recently: "Connaughton for Lt. Gov."
Whysoever would an anti-Bush Lefty support a self-styled "conservative" Republican like Chairman Sean?
The third is more dubious. A member of the church that I attend has always impressed my as someone not especially politically active but, if anything, a Democrat. Yet I noted on this individual's car a "Connaughton for Lt. Gov." sticker. Indeed, this individual once showed up at last year's May meeting of the Prince William County Republican Committee where, in a fit of pique over his embarassment at losing a straw poll at the previous month's County Convention, Chairman Sean tried to seize control of the County Committee by packing a meeting with people who had never shown up before. Precious few returned, too.
Whysoever would Democrats support a self-styled "conservative" Republican like Chairman Sean?
And then, of course, there are the Connaughton sycophants --- call them Connaughtonites --- in Prince William County: the appointees; the hangers-on; the people who've never risked anything to take a stand for principle in their lives, probably because they have none; the people who expect a payoff when Chairman Sean realizes his ambitions. Not all Connaughton supporters are such people. As much as it pains me to say so, Ella Shannon is not among these less-than honorable types (there are other reasons for her vile rhetoric, now enlisted in Chairman Sean's cause), nor is Southbridge Homeowners Association President Jim Riley. But they seem to be particularly thick among the blogosphere (see below for their comments).
Yeah, you can sure tell a lot about a candidate by those who back him. And aside from the usual types who hope to gain advancement from their association with Chairman Sean, there are enough people who make it quite clear that conservative Republican is not a claim that can be sustained.
Pot. News Letterwatch -- Special Tax Advocate Edition
Wow! Sometimes, you read a letter in the paper, and you just scratch your head. Or wonder what the author's been smoking. Or wonder whether the lunacy of Howard Dean as DNC Chairman is trickling down, or is an example of the scum rising to the top.
Witness today's Potomac News. Frequent letter writer and perennial tax advocate Kevin Raymond was there again (sorry: no link, as the Pot. News doesn't put letters on its website). Never mind that Raymond, an activist Democrat, was endorsing Harry Parrish (RINO-Manassas) for Tuesday's GOP primary. And never mind Raymond's dismissal of those who believe that taxpayers are already paying enough, or anyone with whom he disagrees, as "right-wing," or "right-wing zealots." After all, that's how far Left Dems dismiss anyone to the left of Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao. How about the old classic "running dogs of capitalist oppression," Kevin?
You don't even have to scratch your head and try to remember whether Kevin, who speaks with a dismissive tone about Harry's opponent because "he moves a lot --- to qualify as a resident of an area he seeks to 'represent' --- much like a 'rent-a-candidate," cast similar aspersions on the candidacy of Hitlary Rodham Clinton during her 2000 candidacy to represent New York --- a state in which she had never lived --- in the United States Senate. I don't remember that he did, but then, he never seems to apply objective standards when there's an opportunity to savage a Conservative.
The most outrageous line from Kevin is that "Small groups of right-wing political insurgents are stealing elections because they know the rules --- one of which is to get their people out to vote on primary day."
Think about it for a minute (more than Kevin apparently did). Elections are "stolen" because people get out and vote in a way that Kevin doesn't like?!?!? And by knowing and following the rules?!?!?!
It's nice to know that Prince William's Democrats fit right in with their national party and its leadership. No wonder the County GOP has so many RINOs. Misguided? To be sure. But at least they're not insane.
Witness today's Potomac News. Frequent letter writer and perennial tax advocate Kevin Raymond was there again (sorry: no link, as the Pot. News doesn't put letters on its website). Never mind that Raymond, an activist Democrat, was endorsing Harry Parrish (RINO-Manassas) for Tuesday's GOP primary. And never mind Raymond's dismissal of those who believe that taxpayers are already paying enough, or anyone with whom he disagrees, as "right-wing," or "right-wing zealots." After all, that's how far Left Dems dismiss anyone to the left of Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao. How about the old classic "running dogs of capitalist oppression," Kevin?
You don't even have to scratch your head and try to remember whether Kevin, who speaks with a dismissive tone about Harry's opponent because "he moves a lot --- to qualify as a resident of an area he seeks to 'represent' --- much like a 'rent-a-candidate," cast similar aspersions on the candidacy of Hitlary Rodham Clinton during her 2000 candidacy to represent New York --- a state in which she had never lived --- in the United States Senate. I don't remember that he did, but then, he never seems to apply objective standards when there's an opportunity to savage a Conservative.
The most outrageous line from Kevin is that "Small groups of right-wing political insurgents are stealing elections because they know the rules --- one of which is to get their people out to vote on primary day."
Think about it for a minute (more than Kevin apparently did). Elections are "stolen" because people get out and vote in a way that Kevin doesn't like?!?!? And by knowing and following the rules?!?!?!
It's nice to know that Prince William's Democrats fit right in with their national party and its leadership. No wonder the County GOP has so many RINOs. Misguided? To be sure. But at least they're not insane.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Latest Lefty Sobriquet --- The "Free Lunch Crowd"
Came across a new blog today (well, new for me) written by a Charlottesville Democrat. In it, he attacked an old friend of mine --- Grover Norquist, to be specific --- as a member of "the free-lunch crowd."
Now, it's not the first time I've heard this disparaging term. In fact, it seems ever more popular among Repubmocrats who can't get enough of our tax dollars. And quite frankly, I resent it. The implication seems to be that I'm demanding a "free lunch" from the government, so-called "services" which I don't want to pay for. While that would be an economically sound position to take --- it is economically rational to reduce individual expenses to the greatest extent possible --- it is certainly not my position. Nor, do I suspect, is it the position of those who are standing up against the greedy hands of the local, state, and federal goverments, which are all laying claim to an ever greater portion of our national income.
But it's not a free lunch that I'm after. Indeed, I'm certain that most anti-tax Conservatives feel much more like a goose whose being fattened up so that his liver can be made into pate, i.e., force-fed, than someone bellying up to the cafeteria buffet for a free lunch. But let us consider the various taxes paid by the Youngs, to the state and local governments, and exactly what I'm really getting for them:
As to gas taxes, for example, I'm paying for two cars, which I drive on overly-congested roads. Why are they congested? It's not because I've haven't paid for the lunch, since I pay gas taxes. I'm sitting on congested roads because my lunch was sent to Southside Virginia, Roanoke, and the Richmond areas. My lunch is sitting in the middle of the Coalfields Expressway.
And what about property taxes? They've gone up 50-60% in recent years, but I'm not getting any more services. My fire station was built years ago. Montclair has its own security. I buy books and use the Internet; I don't go to the publicly-funded library. My children go to private school, but I'm still paying for that lunch for someone else's child, as well as my own.
And what about state taxes? Well, nothing from the general fund goes into roads at all, let alone Northern Virginia roads. So once again, my lunch went elsewhere.
So please, Lefties, spare us the sanctimony of insulting us as the "free-lunch crowd." In fact, it is your constituency --- i.e., those whose votes you are trying to buy --- who actually constitute the "free-lunch crowd," since you are trying to buy votes with money earned from the productive class, as opposed to the bigger government/leech class.
Now, it's not the first time I've heard this disparaging term. In fact, it seems ever more popular among Repubmocrats who can't get enough of our tax dollars. And quite frankly, I resent it. The implication seems to be that I'm demanding a "free lunch" from the government, so-called "services" which I don't want to pay for. While that would be an economically sound position to take --- it is economically rational to reduce individual expenses to the greatest extent possible --- it is certainly not my position. Nor, do I suspect, is it the position of those who are standing up against the greedy hands of the local, state, and federal goverments, which are all laying claim to an ever greater portion of our national income.
But it's not a free lunch that I'm after. Indeed, I'm certain that most anti-tax Conservatives feel much more like a goose whose being fattened up so that his liver can be made into pate, i.e., force-fed, than someone bellying up to the cafeteria buffet for a free lunch. But let us consider the various taxes paid by the Youngs, to the state and local governments, and exactly what I'm really getting for them:
As to gas taxes, for example, I'm paying for two cars, which I drive on overly-congested roads. Why are they congested? It's not because I've haven't paid for the lunch, since I pay gas taxes. I'm sitting on congested roads because my lunch was sent to Southside Virginia, Roanoke, and the Richmond areas. My lunch is sitting in the middle of the Coalfields Expressway.
And what about property taxes? They've gone up 50-60% in recent years, but I'm not getting any more services. My fire station was built years ago. Montclair has its own security. I buy books and use the Internet; I don't go to the publicly-funded library. My children go to private school, but I'm still paying for that lunch for someone else's child, as well as my own.
And what about state taxes? Well, nothing from the general fund goes into roads at all, let alone Northern Virginia roads. So once again, my lunch went elsewhere.
So please, Lefties, spare us the sanctimony of insulting us as the "free-lunch crowd." In fact, it is your constituency --- i.e., those whose votes you are trying to buy --- who actually constitute the "free-lunch crowd," since you are trying to buy votes with money earned from the productive class, as opposed to the bigger government/leech class.
Hillary Clinton on Shame
Every once in a while, you hear of a Democrat saying something at which you just guffaw. Scared Patrick last night when I heard this. Here's what the Hildabeast said at a recent fundraiser, according to the New York Times:
What more can you say, but that she knows from whence she speaks?
I know it's frustrating for many of you; it's frustrating for me: Why can't the Democrats do more to stop them? I can tell you this: It's very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they're doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don't care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth.Wow, Hillary Clinton calling someone else "shameless."
What more can you say, but that she knows from whence she speaks?
5 August 2004 E-Mail to Readers
This is an e-mail to which an anonymous poster on "Commonwealth Conservative" referred. I put it here so that it can be judged on its own merits. Names and e-mail addresses have been omitted.
Dear friends,
Please forgive the impersonal nature of this missive, but desperate times require desperate measures. OK, so maybe that's an overstatement.
In any case, I met today with [Publisher] and [Managing Editor] of the Potomac News. I wanted to update you on what has been happening, and what I would humbly ask you to do.
You will recall the earlier e-mail that I sent to you. Well, that's [Managing Editor]'s story, and she's sticking to it. My column has been discontinued because it is, according to [Managing Editor], "boring," "repetitive," and "mean-spirited." It was quite clear from the outset that her extreme hostility to me was (with difficulty) held in check in the meeting, with her making the specific comment that "she promised she wouldn't get angry." Why she would worry about that speaks volumes about her attitude.
Moreover, that the criticisms were never (and I repeat, never) conveyed to me renders [Publisher]'s decision to stick with his dismissal questionable in the extreme. I am not even to be given the opportunity to address the "problems" that [Managing Editor] cites as the reasons for her decision.
Perhaps I am wrong, but that I am not to be permitted to correct these "problems" suggests to me that the real reason for the discontinuance remains unconceded by the Powers That Be at the Potomac News. Thus, while they vehemently deny political motivation, when the uncommunicated complaints about my column justify dismissal without an opportunity to address them, it seems quite clear that the only justification remaining is ideological. And while whether they publish my "rantings" is a decision they are entitled to make, it seems to me that they should not be permitted to misrepresent the real reasons, which seem to be nothing so much as political and ideological. Indeed, they even conceded that circulation spikes on Wednesday (when my column runs), though [Managing Editor] attributes that to the weekly food section. Perhaps she is correct, though enough have said that they buy the paper on that day because my column appears that I can at least hold out the possibility (hope?) that I contribute somewhat to that spike in circulation.
Of course, you can judge for yourselves whether her assessments are accurate, or even fair. It seems to me that no one who generates the volume of mail that I do can be called "boring." As for "repetitive"? Well, this seems to have been precipitated by two things: (1) my recent columns dealing with Chairman Sean Connaughton's efforts to muzzle his conservative critics; and (2) my reference to Bill Clinton as "the Great Prevaricator," which particularly seems to set Susan off. As to the latter, the reference is not original to me; as you know, Ronald Reagan was dubbed the "great Communicator." It seems only fair to echo that sentiment, applying Bill Clinton's most prominent characteristic. Besides, Paul Greenburg dubbed him "Slick Willie" well before I knew what an op-ed was. As to the former? Well, as I pointed out, the paper was not covering those long-term, three-month efforts at all. Both vehemently denied affiliation with or even a fair amount of respect for Chairman Sean.
Perhaps the real reason for the discontinuance was alluded to by [Managing Editor], who was prefacing a comment with that I "have an agenda," at which point I interrupted with laughter because anything she said afterward couldn't be taken seriously, as all opinion columnists "have an agenda."
The point, it seems, is that I have an agenda with which she disagrees, and I express it with some style and forcefulness. It's the old story of confusing being articulate with being extreme or "mean-spirited." I was also criticized because I used the knowledge I have of the rise of the GOP in Prince William to cite past examples of inconsistencies, which apparently render my criticisms "personal," or "mean-spirited." You know: that old, illegitimate conservative tactic of using someone's own words and actions against them. Some call it holding them responsible. The managing editor of the Potomac News calls it "mean-spirited." Of course, that doesn't stop her from publishing letters highly critical of me which can be characterized as nothing if not "mean-spirited."
In any case, the meeting was left without satisfactory or even rational explanation for my "dismissal," save for these previously-uncommunicated complaints, and [Publisher]'s comment (perhaps pro forma) that he might reconsider at some unspecified later date.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
A Few Rules
You know, I knew it was inevitable. Sooner or later, some horse's ass would post something that attacks me. And you know what? The nice thing about being the site owner is that you don't have to put up with that! You can respond, or you can simply delete it. Be advised that I reserve the right to do either, and the application of my rule will be entirely self-serving, frequently random, and usually arbitrary and capricious.
And a special word of contempt for anonymous posts: if you don't have the guts to put your name on it, you probably shouldn't have said it. That's particularly true of comments insulting your host. Doing so is not only craven and cowardly; it's dishonorable. Don't expect me to just take it, and don't expect to be able to read it here for long. If you want to attack me, get your own "I Hate Jim Young" blog. There's certainly room in the blogosphere for it.
But just for grins, I thought I'd go ahead and put the post here. After all, this commentator is so gutsy that he or she lacks the courage to attach his or her name to the post. What courage! What fortitude! Someone who calls me names, but lacks the guts to attach his or her own. There are names for that, too: coward; craven; pathetic. It's funny, because it sounds a lot like Jim Cech, the Harold Stassen of Montclair. Or maybe little Krissie Nohe, wife of Connaughton pissboy Marty Nohe (RINO - Coles). Anyway, here it is.
Then there's just the plain old lies which are symptomatic of the far Left.
1. The anonymous author accuses me of "choos[ing] to attack someones character as opposed to participating in a lively discussion on the issues." Of course, it's just a charge. Nowhere are the particulars given and, of course, nowhere do I attack anyone's character.
2. The anonymous author attributes significance to the fact that "Mr Stuart and Mr Stirrup ... both BARELY won their seats, ran to Sean Connaughton to carry them across the finish line, and were beat by Mr. Connaughton by almost 20% in the 2003 elections." Well, first, they weren't running against Mr. Connaughton (though I'm glad to see the author finally discovered that "Mr." requires punctuation). Second, Corey and John (I'll use their first names because they're friends) didn't have buffoons as opponents, explaining their close races. Corey ran against a credible Democrat and a credible Libertarian, and was attacked by the Republican incumbent before Election Day. John was running against the GOP incumbent (who opted out of the primary after requiring it) and a credible Democrat. And third, Sean was running against a buffoon, explaining his runaway victory.
3. The anonymous author claims that I "feel the need to attack those who differ with them simply to make themselves feel better. " No, I attack ideas. Perhaps what my anonymous critic objects to is the fact that I attach the appropriate identities to those who espouse those ideas, and have a keen memory for their records. You know, that illicit and discredited Conservative tactic of holding a far Lefty's own words and record against him.
But let us consider what my anonymous critic considers "open discussion amongst people who respect one another." Apparently it is calling a Conservative, i.e., me, "a sad and pathetic man," "a self-agrandizing ass," a "kool aide drinker [who] will never come into any position of signifigance within Prince William" (probably significance as defined by my cowardly critic; and it's funny, because I've already assumed a substantial "position of significance in Prince William, as one of the County's opinion leaders), and "a dying breed" (failing to appreciate the signficance of "dying" and "murdered"). Apparently, for my anonymous critic, "open discussion amongst people who respect one another" and "a lively discussion of the issues" is telling your opponent to "Get a life." 'Guess that's why he lacked the guts to put his or her name on his or her post.
It'll really be a genuine pleasure to see these arrogant, asinine, hypocritical, sanctimonious fools get their comeuppance when Chairman Sean gets the thrashing he so richly deserves on Primary Day.
And a special word of contempt for anonymous posts: if you don't have the guts to put your name on it, you probably shouldn't have said it. That's particularly true of comments insulting your host. Doing so is not only craven and cowardly; it's dishonorable. Don't expect me to just take it, and don't expect to be able to read it here for long. If you want to attack me, get your own "I Hate Jim Young" blog. There's certainly room in the blogosphere for it.
But just for grins, I thought I'd go ahead and put the post here. After all, this commentator is so gutsy that he or she lacks the courage to attach his or her name to the post. What courage! What fortitude! Someone who calls me names, but lacks the guts to attach his or her own. There are names for that, too: coward; craven; pathetic. It's funny, because it sounds a lot like Jim Cech, the Harold Stassen of Montclair. Or maybe little Krissie Nohe, wife of Connaughton pissboy Marty Nohe (RINO - Coles). Anyway, here it is.
Wow. You really are a sad and pathetic man aren't you? Many people have feelings that are just as strong as yours and yet they take the time to politley respond to items they may agree with you on. You however sir feel the need to be a self-agrandizing ass that chooses to attack someones character as opposed to participating in a lively discussion on the issues.Where to start with this contributor? There's the name calling ("You ... are a sad and pathetic man"; "You however sir feel the need to be a self-agrandizing ass"). There's the lack of ability to spell, punctuate, and/or edit ("politley"; "kool aide"; "signifigance"; "someones"; "self-agrandizing"; "Mr Stuart and Mr Stirrup").
Democracy and freedom are built upon open discussion amongst people who respect one another. An ideological close minded system is developed by people that chose not to respect others and their opinions, but rather feel the need to attack those who differ with them simply to make themselves feel better.
You sir are the latter. Your inability to have an open discourse with people that do not share your opinion is the exact reason why you and all of your fellow kool aide drinkers will never come into any position of signifigance within Prince William.
And FYI- The two people in your group that have (Mr Stuart and Mr Stirrup) both BARELY won their seats, ran to Sean Connaughton to carry them across the finish line, and were beat by Mr. Connaughton by almost 20% in the 2003 elections. You sir are a dying breed.
So get off your soapbox. Stop putting others down. Stop spreading propaganda. Get a life.
Then there's just the plain old lies which are symptomatic of the far Left.
1. The anonymous author accuses me of "choos[ing] to attack someones character as opposed to participating in a lively discussion on the issues." Of course, it's just a charge. Nowhere are the particulars given and, of course, nowhere do I attack anyone's character.
2. The anonymous author attributes significance to the fact that "Mr Stuart and Mr Stirrup ... both BARELY won their seats, ran to Sean Connaughton to carry them across the finish line, and were beat by Mr. Connaughton by almost 20% in the 2003 elections." Well, first, they weren't running against Mr. Connaughton (though I'm glad to see the author finally discovered that "Mr." requires punctuation). Second, Corey and John (I'll use their first names because they're friends) didn't have buffoons as opponents, explaining their close races. Corey ran against a credible Democrat and a credible Libertarian, and was attacked by the Republican incumbent before Election Day. John was running against the GOP incumbent (who opted out of the primary after requiring it) and a credible Democrat. And third, Sean was running against a buffoon, explaining his runaway victory.
3. The anonymous author claims that I "feel the need to attack those who differ with them simply to make themselves feel better. " No, I attack ideas. Perhaps what my anonymous critic objects to is the fact that I attach the appropriate identities to those who espouse those ideas, and have a keen memory for their records. You know, that illicit and discredited Conservative tactic of holding a far Lefty's own words and record against him.
But let us consider what my anonymous critic considers "open discussion amongst people who respect one another." Apparently it is calling a Conservative, i.e., me, "a sad and pathetic man," "a self-agrandizing ass," a "kool aide drinker [who] will never come into any position of signifigance within Prince William" (probably significance as defined by my cowardly critic; and it's funny, because I've already assumed a substantial "position of significance in Prince William, as one of the County's opinion leaders), and "a dying breed" (failing to appreciate the signficance of "dying" and "murdered"). Apparently, for my anonymous critic, "open discussion amongst people who respect one another" and "a lively discussion of the issues" is telling your opponent to "Get a life." 'Guess that's why he lacked the guts to put his or her name on his or her post.
It'll really be a genuine pleasure to see these arrogant, asinine, hypocritical, sanctimonious fools get their comeuppance when Chairman Sean gets the thrashing he so richly deserves on Primary Day.
Pot. News LetterWatch
Haven't done this for about a week, but asinine comments (and editing) seems to be the watchword for Prince William's homegrown fishwrapper. Aside from the front-page puff pieces about our own RINO, Sean Connaughton, we've had a week of really horrendous commentary:
There was the letter from Valerie Kreidler of Manassas on 28 May, commenting on a story about a "Pacifier." The headline? "Pacif[ ]er Sounds Risky." Nice editing!
Then there was the letter on the same day from Jennifer Randolph, trashing Delegate Michele McQuigg as someone on the "far right." Of course, isn't anyone who uses the phrase "far right" clearly someone of the "far left." Randolph needs to pick her targets better, too. She was trashing a letter written by Jonathan Pick, who has written to endorse Sean Connaughton and fag marriage (and trashed Bob Marshall in the same letter). Yeah, there's a right wingnut for you!
On Monday, 30 May, Kurt Doehnert raised his head again, advocating --- you guessed it! --- higher taxes. Doehnert was one of the most frequent and vocal supporters of the efforts to impose a meals tax on County residents, and now he decries Pot. News columnist Jim Simpson for complaining about higher taxes.
Just once, I'd like to find out what people like Doehnert believe government should not spend money on. These people never know of government spending they don't like (well, 'cept for the military). They just want more. That's why voters don't (and shouldn't) take them seriously.
Just a day earlier, on Sunday, 29 May, the other Dale City Tax Twin, Kevin Raymond, likewise trashed those who believe the government is sapping too much from the public. Poor Kevin! He's still embittered about the meals tax (1993 and 1995), even though it's been demonstrated to have been unnecessary. Kevin complains that "If passed, the county would have raised almost $500 million in new revenue by now...."
Uhhhh, has Kevin missed the fact that the County has raised much more than that in higher property taxes, which is what should pay for local government schools?
Kevin says those of us who opposed the tax "did an enormous disservice to county citizens." What does an enormous disservice to County citizens is tax advocates like the Dale City Tax Twins who vocally advocated higher taxes (supposedly for the schools), but remained silent while tax revenues increased and the money was spent elsewhere.
There were two bright spots in the Sunday Pot. News, though. Brenda Seefeldt contributed one of her irregular letters, talking about sex ed. And Gordon Bradburn wrote a wonderful letter trashing Chairman Sean. Recommended reading, whether Republican or Democrat.
There was the letter from Valerie Kreidler of Manassas on 28 May, commenting on a story about a "Pacifier." The headline? "Pacif[ ]er Sounds Risky." Nice editing!
Then there was the letter on the same day from Jennifer Randolph, trashing Delegate Michele McQuigg as someone on the "far right." Of course, isn't anyone who uses the phrase "far right" clearly someone of the "far left." Randolph needs to pick her targets better, too. She was trashing a letter written by Jonathan Pick, who has written to endorse Sean Connaughton and fag marriage (and trashed Bob Marshall in the same letter). Yeah, there's a right wingnut for you!
On Monday, 30 May, Kurt Doehnert raised his head again, advocating --- you guessed it! --- higher taxes. Doehnert was one of the most frequent and vocal supporters of the efforts to impose a meals tax on County residents, and now he decries Pot. News columnist Jim Simpson for complaining about higher taxes.
Just once, I'd like to find out what people like Doehnert believe government should not spend money on. These people never know of government spending they don't like (well, 'cept for the military). They just want more. That's why voters don't (and shouldn't) take them seriously.
Just a day earlier, on Sunday, 29 May, the other Dale City Tax Twin, Kevin Raymond, likewise trashed those who believe the government is sapping too much from the public. Poor Kevin! He's still embittered about the meals tax (1993 and 1995), even though it's been demonstrated to have been unnecessary. Kevin complains that "If passed, the county would have raised almost $500 million in new revenue by now...."
Uhhhh, has Kevin missed the fact that the County has raised much more than that in higher property taxes, which is what should pay for local government schools?
Kevin says those of us who opposed the tax "did an enormous disservice to county citizens." What does an enormous disservice to County citizens is tax advocates like the Dale City Tax Twins who vocally advocated higher taxes (supposedly for the schools), but remained silent while tax revenues increased and the money was spent elsewhere.
There were two bright spots in the Sunday Pot. News, though. Brenda Seefeldt contributed one of her irregular letters, talking about sex ed. And Gordon Bradburn wrote a wonderful letter trashing Chairman Sean. Recommended reading, whether Republican or Democrat.
Recess Appointments?
National Review Online has endorsed (http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/ editors1200506010905.asp) a recess appointment for John Bolton to be UN Ambassador, allowing him to serve until the end of 2006. The reasons are compelling, and it's worth a read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)