Tuesday, January 31, 2006
While it might come as news to most Post readers and reporters, this town reflects a majority of Americans.
And who should get off the plane, but Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. Walked right past me, within spittin' distance.
Quite a test of self-restraint.
However, I did hear someone down the concourse give "The Yell" a few minutes later.
Having attended law school in Atlanta, one could hardly avoid Dr. King's legacy if one wanted to. His church was there, and his son, Martin Luther King III, was on the Atlanta City Council at the time, and we had at least one mutual friend. Mrs. King must've been quite a woman, raising her very successful children alone after her husband's assassination.
The Rev. Bernice King, the Kings' youngest daughter, was a law school classmate at Emory, a candidate in the joint J.D./Divinity program. Nice woman. Took a couple of classes together, and while we were no more than acquaintances, she was kind enough to accept my invitation to a Federalist Society program my chapter sponsored at which Clarence Thomas, then Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, spoke.
Condolences to Mrs. King's friends and family.
Monday, January 30, 2006
I covet your prayers for Harry, his wife, Mattie, and his entire family, for a full and speedy recovery.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
'Course, as I recall, the Italians once elected a porn star to their national legislature.
Is this a case of hoping that the pendulum has swung the other way?
Saturday, January 28, 2006
It's been an amazing series of posts, comments, charges, countercharges, and rumor-mongering.
TC (Vince Thoms) himself said, on 6 January, that "Word has come to me from someone close to the 10th District Committee that a secret coup d'etat is being planned, to oust Chairman Rich and install Heidi Stirrup instead."
"Secret coup d'etat." Gee. Can we use any more loaded disparagements?
Noting that Mrs. Stirrup is married to Gainesville Supervisor John Stirrup, TC also alleged that "Supervisor Stirrup ... has long been rumored to want to eventually run for Congress after Wolf's retirement." A bunch of commenters complained about power-mongering, and then there was one who said that Heidi's candidacy is the "first step in a planned challenge of Frank Wolf by John Stirrup and the right-wing.... Mark these words: if Heidi Stirrup wins the 10th District Chairmanship, John Stirrup will challenge Frank Wolf in two years." A number also pegged Frank Wolf as a "moderate to liberal."
Two days later (8 January), TC opined that "The only reasons I can imagine for this are that Rich is not 'conservative' or the more plausible one..that John Stirrup might primary Frank Wolf from the right."
Where do these people get this stuff?
As I said in my post, there are a few good, non-ideological reasons why Heidi would be a better Chairman than Rich (who, as far as I know, is not what some would call a "RINO"; to the best of my knowledge, Rich has never done anything ideological; he's just always done things to advance Jim Rich, first and foremost).
For example, for a long time, the entire HoD delegation in the Tenth was Republican; no more.
And I still hold Rich in contempt for his effort to remove duly-elected State Chairman Pat McSweeney with misrepresentations and distortions (TC was about five at the time). Probably only those of us who were present in the upstairs conference room at the Obenshain Center remember (you know, the fruits of having "labored in the vineyard"), but Rich attempted to present as "facts" obvious falsehoods.
Perhaps the best reason of all is in the fact that Rich consistently writes the Call for the Tenth District Convention to set an early filing deadline for Chairman (at least once, just ten days after the call was issued, but not yet published), in the hope that he can avoid any challenge at all. I've since learned that he did the same thing this year (the link is here, though not direct: hit "more details" in the center panel to download the Call). Uhh, all you Tenth District Republicans out there? If you wanted to run for Chairman, you can't. The deadline to file passed on 9 January. Rather odd that those who make pretensions to support for an "open" GOP so strongly support someone who works so hard to avoid any challenge to his authority. Like big-government advocates who fear free citizens with guns, I suspect that Jim Rich has good reasons to fear an open process. His behavior is nothing less than fixing the system to protect his own posterior.
And I can't imagine that John Stirrup would want to run against Frank Wolf, and I think he would be a fool to do so. Succeed him? Perhaps. I haven't spoken to John about this, but running his wife for Tenth District Chairman strikes me as a rather ineffective step toward such a goal, even if she were to win.
As for TC's implicit condemnation of "power hungry people ... try[ing] to hijack the system" is rather bold talk from a supporter of Chairman Sean. It wasn't too long ago (May 2004) that he tried to pack a PWC GOP Committee meeting with supporters --- many known Democrats who never showed up again --- in response to his loss of a straw poll at the County Convention that he, and/or his strategists, was too stupid or lazy to pack, i.e., trying to do illegitimately what he could have done legitimately just a few weeks earlier.
I support Heidi for Chairman. She is an accomplished woman who will run an open, honest, and fair process. She won't write the rules to protect her own posterior. That alone makes here eminently preferable to the likes of Jim Rich.
With that having been said, though, I find TC's disparagement of her candidacy despicable. A "secret coup d'etat"? The only "secret" was Jim Rich's early filing deadline, a clear effort to avoid any challenge whatsoever. Nevertheless, TC (and some of his commenters, perhaps more of them) attempt to smear her efforts as somehow illegitimate.
Everything might be fine in the Tenth with Jim Rich as Chairman. Frank Wolf obviously thinks so --- he's already endorsed Rich --- but it might not be unreasonable to assume that Congressman Wolf's main concern is a GOP that gets him reelected.
'Fact is, while the Tenth used to have an entirely GOP delegation in the House of Delegates, it doesn't any more. And I've never known the Tenth District Committee to make any substantial efforts to advance the GOP in the State Senate. So far as I know, and I'd be happy to be corrected on this, the Tenth District Committee has never made substantial efforts to support a Republican challenger to at least one Democrat State Senator that I can identify from the District: Chuck Colgan, from Prince William.
One wonders whether those who are attacking Heidi's candidacy are doing so out of a failure to recognize some deficiencies in District operations, or because they don't think they are deficiencies, i.e., because the Republicans who have been defeated --- Dick Black: Bob FitzSimmonds; Dave Mabie --- are not the "right" kind of Republicans.
Whether you like Heidi Stirrup or not, there are obviously reasons why Republicans could hope to do better in the Tenth Congressional District. And one cannot help but wonder whether the position of her attackers grows more out of their hatred for intra-party rivals than out of their concern for the continued prosperity of the GOP.
Certainly, their bile makes it clear that "hatred" is not too strong a word.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Turns out the Poodle --- having heard from his masters at the New York Times --- has decided that Democrats ought to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to be the next Association Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
There is no cause but an ideological one for this course. And the voters resolved that question in the 2004 presidential election.
Republicans should suffer no nonsense on this issue. If Democrats attempt to filibuster the Alito nomination, Republicans should vow to vote against any nominee of a Democrat President if that individual is deemed "too Liberal."
'Seems that our estimable Senators have passed a Marriage Amendment identical to that passed by the House.
And oh, how the far Left is in high dudgeon over daring to protect the language. It's precious. High school student Ben Kyber calls it "A Sad Day." I guess reading comprehension is yet another defect in our public schools.
Then there are the boys and girls over at Raising Kaine, who call it "A Sad, Sad Day in Virginia History," and have claimed over and over again that judging people according to their behavior is somehow inappropriate. They actually list the votes, and I note that my State Senator, Toddy Puller (gulp!), is one of those eleven nihilists ... er, Democrats, who voted against it. Chesty must be turning over in his grave.
And for all his reasonableness on the Kaine tax increase, Virginia Centrist also likes the idea of re-defining the fundamental unit of human civilization to satisfy the demands of perverts.
Even the Richmond Times-Dispatch, usually a bastion of reasonableness, is editorializing against it. Norm Leahey takes his shot here.
I'm planning a rather long post (when I get the time to write it!) on the subject, but this isn't about virtually anything that the far Left and partisans of the radical homosexual agenda claim it is. What this is about is standing athwart the efforts of the far Left to exercise the power of government to change society and the language to suit their whims. It is about raw political power, nothing more. Decent Virginians and Americans will have to stand in the way of these efforts, and now that the battle has been joined, it is necessary to defeat the demagoguery and misdirection of the far Left in order to protect the integrity even of our language.
It is a sad day when we have to do that, but hardly for the reasons that the nihilists on the far Left claim it is.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
So what does the Washington Post think the answer is?
Does the Post advocate allowing an investigation by school officials? Allowing reporting to police and investigation by them? A stern talking to by school officials to both child and his parents?
Nope. None of these. What does the Post advocate as the answer?
You guessed it! More gun control, in the form of more "gun safety laws" and "stricter federal laws on access to handguns."
Color me surprised.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
I first met Chris when he was running Delegate Jack Rollison's last primary campaign, which lost to Jeff Frederick. One can only hope that Chris learned the wages of political sin, i.e., trying to raise taxes while claiming to be a conservative, small-government Republican.
That should put a little crimp in Democrat braggadocio!
Congratulations to Delegate Peace!
Monday, January 23, 2006
What happened was this: I made reference in a post that Chairman Sean had made "disturbing comments at a PWC Committee of 100 debate on public employee unions."
Mitch responded with this:
I have to say I still don't understand your comments regarding the Committee of 100 debate (which I attended) and the "right-to-work" question. Sean stated that he would talk to any and all parties involved in a question. Period. I think that speaks volumes about any leader, a willingness to listen to whatever anyone, including opponents, have to say and evaluate it as opposed to simply dismissing it out of hand. He never stated that he supported unions or gave any indication that he ever would. He merely said he wouldn't refuse them an audience. Suggesting any more from that debate is simply unfair and a distortion of the facts.Mitch's memory apparently failed him, but because I had written about it at the time, I responded with this, at some length, because reason takes up more space that catch phrases. Indeed, while useful (look at all the content to be gleaned from Chairman Sean's), they frequently are used to hide meanings:
No, Mitch, that's not all he did.So there it is. I don't think Chairman Sean is stupid. I just don't think that he answered my question --- which gave him a wonderful opportunity to expound on the evils of special privileges for public employees unions --- either fully or particularly honestly. I don't think he ringinly endorsed the union boss agenda for greater power and permanent, government-subsidized perpetuation of the far Left, but at the same time, he used language and catch phrases which should give anyone with an understand of those issues pause.
The question was this: “Virginia protects its workers with a Right to Work law and bars public employee monopoly bargaining. With these principles in mind, would you seek and/or accept the endorsement[s] of the Virginia Education Association and/or the Virginia AFL-CIO? Additionally, would you support any effort to impose a ‘meet-and-confer’ requirement on Virginia’s public employers?” I drafted this question, and as I recall, I did not know at the time that Chairman Sean had been endorsed by the Virginia Education Association, an endorsement which should disqualify almost any "Republican" candidate for further consideration in a contested nomination.
Chairman Sean’s answer was, to say the least, distressing, not the least because he never squarely answered the question (contrary to your representation). Your memory appears to be faulty; mine is refreshed by the fact that I happened to write a memo about it at the time. But you assert that he answered by saying that "he would talk to any and all parties involved in a question. Period."
But that doesn't answer the question. I asked a very specific question about a very specific issue which relates to the granting of preferred legal status to labor unions (i.e., while you have a right to speak, government officials have no obligation to listen to you, and meet-and-confer legislation creates an obligation of public officials to listen to union bosses) in the competition for scarce public resources, one with which any locally-elected leader should be familiar. If you don't concede that Chairman Sean wasn't familiar with the issue, then he's ignorant. If you do, then he evaded squarely addressing a fundamental "good government" question.
What he did answer was that his father was a “union man” in New York (not necessarily damning; his website indicates that he was a police officer), and then launched into various motherhoods about the GOP being a “big tent” (read: “We shouldn’t stand for anything”) and indicated that he is either too stupid to know the difference between rank-and-file union members and union bosses, or too dishonest to admit to supporting the latter’s agenda. I do not believe that he is stupid.
Chairman Sean also seemed to indicate his support for imposition of a preferred status for public employee union bosses vis-a-vis state and local governments. He also cited the “fact” that Ronald Reagan was endorsed by the NEA. While I assume that Reagan was never endorsed for President by the NEA, it has since been suggested to me that he may have been endorsed by the California affiliate for Governor, in the days before the extreme radicalization of the NEA, and it is that endorsement to which Chairman Sean may have been referring.
But what he did say is enough to give pause to those who hold that Virginia's ban on public employee monopoly bargaining is good government.
And I'm still trying to figure out how support for the enrolled and engrossed law of the Commonwealth of Virginia --- you know, like its definition of marriage and prohibition of sodomy --- is, in TC's words, "far-far-far-far right" or "out of touch with voters."
UPDATE: And with all of that having been said, I don't assert that Chairman Sean has done anything in his current office to raise a concern on this point. Under the Commonwealth's law, he couldn't. But the question was raised in the context of his aspirations to statewide office, where he could do something. And given his endorsement by the Virginia Education Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association, there was --- in retrospect --- good reasons to raise these questions. My recollection is that, to this day, Chairman Sean has refused to release the VEA's questionnaire, or his answers to it.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
As I've said to Chris Casey, on his website, as a matter of law, the HOA's have the better of this constitutional argument, since every member of a homeowners' association knowingly and intelligently waives his right to post political signs when he buys his property.
That having been said, if Montclair changes the regulations, I'd be among the first to post political signs on my property come election season.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Turns out that there's a homo-loving child out there who takes joy in making specious arguments against the considered wisdom of 5000 years of human civilization, and in name-calling against those who defend the language and traditional values. Goes by the name "Willis." He has posted "Delete this comment!!" and other peurile and sophomoric postings not fewer than three dozen times. I've had to delete more childish Willis postings than spam postings.
Sooooo, from now on, I'll simply moderate the comments before they appear here. And Willis?
Yours go straight into the trash can. Look at the bright side: it's probably the first thing you've ever earned in your life.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
The real tragedy is that Taliban Johnny wasn't tried for treason.
For the record, I --- for one --- never posted a comment there.
15 years old
Driving at 4:00 a.m.
Coming home from visiting her ex-boyfriend
Sunday, January 15, 2006
- Chairman, Vic Bras
- 1st Congressional District Vice-Chair, Martha Nickerson
- 10th Congressional District Vice-Chair, Cindy Kennedy
- 11th Congressional District Vice-Chair, Ernestine Jenkins
- Treasurer, William Westhoff
- Corresponding Secretary, Pete Frisbee
- Recording Secretary, Ellen Miles
The Prince William County Republican Party holds a County Convention every two years, and has had to hold its meeting in high school auditoria every time to accommodate those participating. Every individual seeking election on those seven occasions (when PWC split from the consolidated County/Manassas Committee in 1991) has been elected.
Remind me again: which party is "inclusive," and the "party of the people"?
Thursday, January 12, 2006
One thing that I hope --- but am unsure whether to expect --- to see is a ringing endorsement of school choice (vouchers and/or tax credits) as a cost-cutting measure.
Too frequently, the debate over school choice gets caught up in the social-issues slanders that the far Left uses to disparage the notion of parental choice in education as a double-secret scheme to destroy government schools. And while that might not be a bad idea --- I have come to wonder whether the separation of school and state is not more important to liberty than the separation of church and state --- it's not a necessary result of an active school choice program.
It's a fairly simple proposition, really. Give parents vouchers and tax credits. Perhaps the most frequently-cited number is about $3,500, which was --- a few years back --- about half of the average per-pupil expenditure in Prince William County. 'Course, right now, it's about 90-95% of the cost of tuition at my son's private, Christian school.
OK. Now this isn't too hard to follow, but our "friends" on the far Left (the NEA and its apologists) seem to have a problem with simple math, so read carefully. Maybe they're simply products of government schools. Here goes:
If every parents get a voucher for half the average per-pupil expenditures (let's call that number $7,000), and an uncertain number of parents (let's call that number x) utilize those vouchers to send their children to private schools, it will deny to schools x x $3,500. But it will also free up x x $3,500. Now what to do with that other x x $3,500? Well, if total education spending is not reduced (something even our Republican-controlled legislature seems pathologically incapable of doing) per-pupil expenditures can increase by 50% in the public schools. So school choice isn't necessarily --- or even probably --- an instrument to defund the government schools on a per-pupil expenditures basis. Even if that x x $3,500 is not plowed back into government schools, per-pupil expenditures would remain flat.
Of course, with an unknown number of parents withdrawing their children from government schools and choosing Christian or private non-religious education, the demand for government-school teachers, staff, and bureaucrats will be diminished. That, of course, is the rub for government-employee unions. Lesser need for educrats means fewer members; fewer members mean less dues; less dues to spend on politics means less power.
So the opposition of the chief defenders of big government is not based upon concern for children, or parents, or efficiency, or some belief in the mythical separation of church and state. It's about dues and income for the union-boss political machine. It's about government control.
But one has to wonder why there are some Republicans who virtually reflexively oppose school choice. Is it because it is supported by Christian Conservatives? The evidence would seem compelling. After all, so-called moderates who recoil from "social-agenda" Conservatives frequently tout their "fiscal conservatism." Since there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about a voucher or tax credit program --- so long as parents control the voucher --- even for Christian schools, a well-administered voucher or tax-credit program would serve both the ends of social-agenda Conservatives and fiscal/limited-government Conservatives ... if fiscal Conservatives were actually interested in reducing the size, scope, and power of government. That they fail or refuse to recognize the positive fiscal benefits of a voucher/tax-credit program should cause one to question their commitment to smaller government and, indeed, whether they are any kind of Conservative. Other than the kind of "conservative" that defends reactionary Liberalism.
Don't confuse advocates of government schools with advocates for education. Quality education is far down on their list of priorities, and is only incidental to their agenda. Efficiency isn't even on the radar.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Professor Bainbridge has the following observation on the Alito hearings.
After catching up on the first day of the Alito hearings, one conclusion seems inescapable; namely, that Alito is more machine now than man; twisted and evil. He yearns to take liberals, women, minorities, gays, small children, and puppies to the Dune Sea, and cast them into the pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the all-powerful Sarlaac, in whose belly they will find a new definition of pain and suffering as they are slowly digested over a thousand years. (Or maybe it's the slavering maw of Cthulhu the Great. I zoned out for awhile during Durbin's opening remarks.)
Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. Schumer and Leahy's feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side. As for that that slimy piece of worm-ridden filth, Ted the Hutt, he'll get no pleasure from these hearings. You can either profit by this or be destroyed. The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am.
God, I wish I were this funny/original! Somebody said the "Cthulhu the Great" reference is to Lovecraft, but I'm a Stephen King fan, so I'd appreciate any enlightenment offered.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Here is Young's Corollary: Beware anyone who makes pretensions to "civility."
Recently, some commenters --- safely cowering in anonymity/pseudonymity --- to our friends over at NoVA Squishes ... er, "Too Conservative," have taken to launching attacks upon me. I suppose I should be used to it, but the boys over at the now-quiescent Not Jack Herrity have dubbed me "Thin Skin," for what that's worth.
Of course, both Chad Dotson at Commonwealth Conservative and Shaun Kenney at his eponymous blog have recently discussed the behavior of the cowering types and the evils of their practices. But it seems that those commenting at NoVA Squishes ... er, "Too Conservative" have elevated the hypocrisies to an art form. And just to be clear, these comments are not directed at those running the site.
One of the more popular cuts against me apparently is that I'm "mean," or "vulgar." I suppose belittlement to any extent is acceptable, just as long as one refrains from identifying an idiot as an idiot.
For example, there's Krissie Kjome Nohe, who apparently doesn't like belittling. That is, of course, unless it's the right target: me. She said at TC that:
Krissy is with a Y not an IE. And I stopped using it in Middle School. But, as your name calling ways show, your maturity seems to be stuck at about the 7th grade, I will let you, and you alone, continue to use it.But here is what Krissie later says to me: " J. Willie Young - Only if you use the 'Y.'"
Then there's Anke Cheney (posting as "awcheney"), who posted this little slander: "Kris, there's truly no point in assuming this person to be a gentleman...he's never given any indication of it before." 'Course, this was the same Anke Cheney who managed Harry Parrish's primary reelection campaign against Steve Chapman, engaging in a campaign of dirty tricks, but quoted in the newspapers as stating that "the campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the charges against Chapman" and immediately proceeding to affirm that the campaign had "report[ed] them when they came to our attention." And this was the same "lady" who inundated my mail box a few months back with missives using phrases like "pissing matches," and calls me and my "allies" (whoever they are) "fanatics," "extremists," and "right-wing radicals."
I'm not frequently given to quoting Scripture --- my degree is in law, not theology --- but I do seem to recall something to the effect that, before thou removest the mote from thy neighbor's eye, though shouldst remove the boulder from thine own.
All too frequently, people appeal to purportedly "objective" standards as a point of attack against those who disagree with them. But they are objective standards that they are perfectly willing to abandon when it serves their personal ends.
Then there are those wits who --- doubtless sarcastically, and conscientiously anonymously --- are suggesting that I should be a candidate. While I've no doubt that I could do a better job than the present Chairman, I don't know how Tom would do. Anyway, here's the little exchange:
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
So I believe. I believe that Joe Paterno's time is not past. I believe that, when I first heard the joke about Bear Bryant crawling into bed, and his wife commenting "God you're feet are cold!," and he said, "Dear, you can call me 'Paul,'" it was really about Joe Paterno. I believe that Penn State was robbed in its game this year against Michigan, when officials put two seconds back on the clock, allowing Michigan to score in the last second to win the game. And I believe that Penn State has a legitimate claim on this year's National Championship.
But you don't have to be a Penn State fan, or even a football fan, to recognize that last night's Orange Bowl (screw FedEx) has a legitimate claim on being one of the best college football games ever. Joe Paterno's Penn State Nittany Lions vs. Bobby Bowden's Florida State Seminoles. Two coaches with more than 700 victories between them, a match-up not likely to be repeated in our lifetimes, or even in this century. Triple overtime.
Sure, there were imperfections. Two kickers who were the difference. Lots of penalties. Sadly, quite a few injuries, including one cheap shot on Penn State's star linebacker, one the great Jack Ham calls a great.
But when you get down to it, you couldn't turn the game off. The lovely and gracious Mrs. Young has to get up waaaay too early to go to work, and she couldn't go to bed. As I said to her, "You wouldn't be the woman I married if you could." I'm blessed with a wife who is both a Trekkie and a football fan.
And last night's game in Miami was one of the most thrilling and exciting moments I can remember in college football, rivalling Penn State's low-scoring victory over Alabama for the National Championship in the Sugar Bowl a few decades back. It was a privilege to watch.
And I'll bet that there are quite a few East Coast offices where the start-up this morning will be quite slow.