Sunday, April 30, 2006
He even aspires to higher standards, complaining today that he "feel[s] like a baby sitter here," and demands that the "bickering in the threads needs to stop," because "This is not the place for it anymore," and he has "other things to deal with than being involved in endless squabbling." He says that "Every comment will be deleted quickly," and he "will begin banning the ips that have made the comments." He says he is "going to clean house, and delete a whole bunch of comments in threads that are inappropriate [to] the topic at hand."
Of course, when one reads the comments, it is clear (to me at least) that the only comments that he has deleted are mine.
Here's a selection from the comments that good ole Vince hasn't deleted, from the time, as far as I can tell, when the personal attacks started:
April 27th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
36. “And tell me, AWCheney, when, oh when, have you or the BOCS EVER justified its profligate spending? Not in generalities, but specifically? What is that? Never? Hello! Anybody there, McFly?”
Like I have said before Mitch…just check your brains at the door. They just want to tell us how, and what, to think.
I can always depend upon JY to make my point.—AWCheney
42. April 27th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
“So no, we won’t “tak[e] a page out of PWC civics and create a budget review committee,” particularly since: (a) those who have served in that capacity have made it perfectly clear that the budget is inscrutable…”
Well, gee…is this the consequence of modern homeschooling (not that I’m philosophically opposed to it)? Are our “new conservatives so mathematically challenged, with computers at every elbow, that they lack the wherewithal to dissect a budget? My father was the chairman of that old PWC Federation of Civic Associations Budget Committee (as it was then called), and he described it as, “putting a sharp pencil to it.” No computer, you see. Now I admit, I’m mathematically challenged, but there’s got to be some people out there who aren’t…expecially among those who complain the loudest.—AWCheney
43. April 27th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Hey, I just noticed…Jimmy boy called me a crone again. Thanks for the compliment JY! For the uninitiated, in researching the term I discovered that it meant “woman of age and great wisdom.” Now young man…why won’t you heed my words?!—AWCheney
49. April 27th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Well Jimmy boy, if you are so curious about this spending, why don’t you request a copy of the budget (which is your right) and you, and some of your cronies, go over it with that “sharp pencil,” then present your findings in a public BOS meeting. I imagine your cause might achieve a great deal more credence…and perhaps some POSITIVE publicity.—AWCheney
52. April 27th, 2006 at 2:47 pmAnd here are the posts that he left, as far as I can tell, after he started deleting my comments, most in defense against the ad hominem attacks of the tax-and-spend Repubmocrat crowd:
Sorry…scratch that last comment. I misread what you said. But the research I did (Microsoft research), it was also defined that way in past lore, as well (apparently) in current. The point is, Jimmy boy, I’m simply not taking it as an insult any longer…but as a compliment.—AWCheney
53. April 27th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Seriously right now JY…doesn’t it bother you that you can never allow yourself to do the right thing in the right way? What is so wrong in presenting facts to people who might well be receptive to them? Then, if you feel the need to rant and rave, you at least have logical basis for your position. I hope you realize that at least some of these “anonymous and pseudynomous” posters view you as, at least slightly, deranged and capable of just about anything, which is why they do not post under their own names. You must be so proud of your part in creating such fear in the blogosphere. For myself, there’s been very few things in my life of which I was ever afraid, and I’ve certainly never feared people like you. You’re just a bully (perhaps because you were, yourself, bullied in life) and bullies are generally cowards. No one has anything to fear from a coward.—AWCheney
61. April 27th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Charles, perhaps you should review Comment #45 which lays out a very rational approach to conducting a citizen’s budgetary review. As Kathryn points out, it’s not an overnight process, but then the budget process itself is not an overnight thing, and it is highly complex. Are we to assume that there are no citizens out there capable of addressing the budget in a systematic, rational manner? That would be a rather sad indictment of the PWC brain pool, now wouldn’t it.—AWCheney
71. April 27th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Well Kathryn, you may have noticed that the only board member of the Taxpayer Alliance that has [apparently] chimed in here is Jimmy…even I don’t believe that he is representative! I actually believe that someone like Rick Hendrix, for instance, might be receptive to the idea of a budget review committee. We’ll see…maybe someone with a modicum of sense in the organization might actually act on the idea.—AWCheney
72. April 27th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
“My guess would be a lack of resources…”
Since, essentially, the only resources being referenced are cerebral in nature, that’s rather an indictment of your group.—AWCheney
75. April 28th, 2006 at 7:32 am
I guess they do have to put the county’s budget in crayons and pictures.
Here is the link (for the lazy Jim Young): http://www.pwcgov.org/default.aspx?topic=040024000110003526
Every dollar, every person, every program in detail is described.
How can they make it more transparent?—Anonymous
82. April 28th, 2006 at 9:26 am
# 1 - I’m younger than you, fatass.
# 2 - I agree that too much money is spent.
# 3 - You and the taxpayer alliance would rather grandstand than get off your lazy collective asses and DO something about the budget.
# 4 - If your whole lazy, freaking organization put in an hour or two a week dissecting the budget and laying out a plan, then something could be done. Maybe you could spend all the time you now waste cruising blogs and invest that in something for the betterment of PWC.—Kathryn
98. April 28th, 2006 at 5:11 pmI suppose I could go one, but AWCheney's post get more lengthy, with more belittling appellations elaborate concoctions and accusations completely without basis in fact and/or reality. Yet they're still there.
“However, to make it abundantly clear, since you apparently need pictures and crayons, the definition of the term as I was using it is “old hag.”
Oh Jimmy boy, I’m so hurt. I hear that someone is calling you a troll over at BVBL…any relation to an “old hag?” Now, THAT would be an insult (having a relationship, that is).
BTW…thanks again for recognizing my wisdom.—AWCheney
Of course, when it comes right down to it, the only posts Vince has clearly deleted are mine, in defense. I guess there are some people who are allowed to post inappropriate comments are those who attack me. Now, I wish I could say that ole Vince is just leaving AWCheney's comments up to demonstrate what a bitter old fool she is.... but somehow, I doubt it.
UPDATE: Vince explains his actions in a comment.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Saw it this afternoon (Brenda took the boys to see Ice Age). It was kind of like watching Schindler's List; it's a move you don't want to see, about things you don't want to think about.
And yet, you have to. Part of the brilliance of the film is in the fact that there are only a few familiar faces, with actors whose names just escape you, so there's really no star power. But it's compelling. It's power is in its realistic feel, and in getting more detail on events with which we are all familiar, and which --- in a few decades --- people of a certain age will be able to say right where they were when they first heard of the attacks. These were the first Americans to engage the battle against Islamo-fascism, and they did it with little more than their bare hands, knowing that, if they were going to die, they would surrender those last moments in defense of their country.
It's a film that all those who remember the events of that day has to see. It's a film that every Democrat trying to divide the country with they Bush-Hating rhetoric should be required to see. It's a movie that everyone who talks about Islam as a "religion of peace" should be required to see.
[With apologies to Republitarian] Bastards.
Aside from wondering whether she understands the word ("outcast"), I have to wonder with whom I am going to suffer such ignominy. Those who make anonymous/pseudonymous accusations against political opponents? Those in the GOP "tax-me-'til-I-bleed" contingent (with apologies to VC)? Those who engage in sleazy campaign tactics, and then try to deny responsibilty?
Gee, if that happens, I guess I'll just have to consider it a mark of honor.
Friday, April 28, 2006
I wonder what the statute of limitations is on youthful racist behavior. I guess it's somewhere between thirty years (George Allen, assuming arguendo the truth of the allegations) and sixty years (Robert Byrd, former KKK recruiter and the only Senator to vote against the nominations of both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court).
Funny, but I used to think Waldo was above this.
UPDATE: Waldo makes the valid point in comments that I seem to be attributing accusations of racism to him. That's not fair, and to the extent that the reader may draw that conclusion, it is not fair. Such accusations were made in comments, and Waldo has little control over that content.
Chairman Sean was quoted in response to the efforts of the NRA:
The National Rifle Association had a link on its Web site giving all Prince William County board members' e-mail addresses.
The Web site said that outlawing buckshot might have been a signal that the county was ready to ban all hunting in Prince William County.
Chairman Sean T. Connaughton, R-at large, said Prince William County is not about to ban hunting.
"That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard," Connaughton said.
"The NRA has not done itself any great service in this issue, because they knew about the potential of going from buckshot to slugs, yet waited until after the meeting began to ask people to contact us," he said.
The county supervisors have no intention of doing anything to restrict hunting. There are too many deer in the county and the herds need thinning to keep deer from becoming a nuisance, Connaughton said.
"We're just seeing a rapid growth in the number of deer and we're not going to do anything to inhibit hunting and culling of the deer population in Prince William County," Connaughton said.
Connaughton said the NRA didn't do its homework about Prince William County.
"To put out that information like this is clearly erroneous," Connaughton said.
I guess that some people, when they've made a huge mistake, attack those who dare to point out that mistake.
I don't necessarily endorse the particulars fo the NRA's actions, but the fact is that the organization drew attention to the BOCS's arguably ill-considered and certainly precipitous decision to ban buckshot for deer hunting. As I've stated in another post and in comments, it seems to me that the issue is one of safety, and in a rapidly developing and suburbanized area, buckshot is safer for the public. I realize that others have views that differ, and express concerns about getting a "clean kill," but --- so long as we're not talking about banning hunting --- the public safety issue is more important.
What is disturbing is Chairman Sean's response. Apparently the Weapons Control Board --- made up of appointees of the BOCS --- made an ill-considered recommendation, based upon a falsely asserted recommendation of State Game Commission. Moreover, according to the published agenda, the only item which was supposed to be on the agenda on 18 April was a motion to schedule a public hearing, not an effort to amend County hunting regulations.
The NRA called attention to this ill-considered action, controversy ensued (with the fullest discussion occurring in the blogosphere, by, inter alia, Greg Letiecq), and the majority of Board members, to their credit, decided to reconsider their decision.
So why is Chairman Sean mad at the NRA? Because it suggested that the action was a precursor to banning hunting altogether? Over the top, to be sure (Chairman Sean is absolutely right about the need to cull the County's deer population), but is that a reason to attack? Sadly, it looks as though, as usual, Chairman Sean attacks when the more appropriate course would have been to thank the NRA for informing interested persons of ill-considered actions by the BOCS. Why? After all, when he ran for the GOP nomination for Lieutenant Governor, he pandered to the Virginia Education Association and obtained its endorsement. Is this simply another effort by Chairman Sean to pander to elements outside of the Conservative coalition?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
If Kentucky law does not proscribe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (which most states, and Federal law, do not), expect this lawsuit to die a prompt death.
We've come a long way (and not to the better, I might add) since the days when my mother had to sign in and out of her dorm at her Lutheran university (only five miles from her home).
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Prince William County Unanimously Votes To Reconsider Limiting Hunting!
Thanks to all your calls and e-mails, the Prince William County Board of Supervisors unanimously decided to reconsider a ban on the use of buckshot within the county. This prohibition would have allowed only shotguns loaded with slugs to be used for hunting in Prince William County and could have been the start of a ban on hunting in Prince William County.
Please contact the Board members below and thank them for their reconsideration of this anti-hunting resolution.
Of course, this relates to an e-mail received last week, and a post that I had here. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the comments, including a few cheap shots at a slander site. One doubts that they'll add "and right" to their list of particulars.
It's kind of funny, really. As it seems now, the Board scheduled a public hearing, without making it apparent that it was going to have a vote. They got rolled by the staff (who said it was acting on a request from a State agency), and unexpectedly voted for something that seems less inclined toward public safety (I'm perfectly willing to concede that there are good arguments on both sides on the ammunition issue as to humane hunting).
And rather than question the manner in which this happened, there are some people out there who thought it would be more fun to attack me.
The reporter/news reader also discussed his defense. It seems, after all, that Moussaoui wants to be put to death, but his attorney are arguing that he should not be, because that would make him a martyr, and that's what he wants.
Perhaps someone can explain to me the ethics of this one. After all, Canon 7 of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility holds that "A Lawyer Should Represent A Client Zealously Within the Bounds of the Law." To that end, Disciplinary Rule 7-101(A) holds that "A lawyer shall not intentionally fail to seek the lawful objectives of the client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules, except as provided by DR 7-101(B)."
Now, death is a penalty permitted by law, and it appears to be Moussaoui's objective. I have all the respect in the world for attorneys who represent criminals, because they are an important part of the legal process. And certainly, I hope that Moussaoui promptly roasts in Hell for his crimes. But even so, if he embraces some Islamicist perversion of martyrdom, how can his attorneys ethically try to deny him that martyrdom at the hands of American justice?
There are plenty of people who have moral and/or practical objections to the death penalty. The former are probably insoluble, but the death penalty is clearly constitutional, the moral pretensions of activist judges to the contrary notwithstanding. The latter are doubtless subject to debate, though there can be no doubt that a Moussaoui will not be able to participate in terrorist plots once he has assumed room temperature.
Nevertheless, I have professional questions, if not objections, to attorneys who utilize as their argument that the jury should not give their client what he so desparately seeks. I don't know Moussaoui's attorneys, or their politics. But it seems to me that they are dangerously close to pursuing their own political/ideological ends than in pursuing their client's goal.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Another demonstration that, while my sense of humor is sometimes wanting, I can still appreciate those who are truly funny.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts regarding the Board of County Supervisors recent action regarding the use of buckshot. It is clear that there are additional issues that must be considered in this decision that were not previously brought to our attention and I anticipate that the Board will move to recall last week’s vote and send the issue back to the originating agency for further review.
I will certainly keep you posted as new information becomes available about this important issue.Yours-
Martin E. Nohe
Coles District Supervisor
Sadly, it takes the usual, New York Times/politically-correct line on the Hill. Here's my favorite:
Once upon a time, not that long ago really, there was such a thing as a Yale man or a Dartmouth man or, closer to here, a University of Virginia or Washington and Lee man, each believed to be an identifiable subset of the male species. By the mid-1960's, there were still almost 250 all-male colleges, heirs to a long tradition of male entitlement going back to the beginnings of higher education in America.And God forbid that the New York Times would write about all-male colleges without mentioning the Love that Dare Not Speak ... er, Will Not Shut Its Mouth:
So when Tim Samsa, a Hampden-Sydney senior, casually remarks, "This place is very homophobic," he's passing on information, not making a criticism, or when another student walks by in a T-shirt reading "Welcome to America — Now Speak English," he doesn't seem worried about offending anyone. (Of the 1,000 or so students enrolled at Hampden-Sydney, 8 percent are members of minority groups, 67 percent are Virginian and almost 89 percent are from the South.)More telling is the note that "gay Hampden-Sydney graduates participated in a recent seminar on gay issues." Apparently, none wanted their name associated with it.
On the other hand, gay Hampden-Sydney graduates participated in a recent seminar on gay issues. And a theater teacher, Shirley Kagan, a Williams College graduate from New York who considers herself a feminist and a liberal, says she finds her students at Hampden-Sydney to be curious, open-minded and responsive.
I also agree with Ben, from the GOP perspective, that Jackson Miller is still favored to win, though I suspect that I feel more strongly about it than Ben does. As I understand it, Miller is the more Conservative of the two, and the strongly showing by Steve Chapman in the 2005 primary demonstrates that GOP voters in the 50th do not want a representative who can be rolled by a Democrat Governor to raise unnecessarily their taxes. As much as everyone revered Hal's father, Hal is no Harry Parrish. I certainly don't believe that he rises (or descends) to the level of Winston Churchill's son (about whom one English commentator noted, upon learning that his cancer surgery removed only a benign growth, "'Tis a pity. They removed the only part of him that isn't malignant."). However, Hal is widely reputed to have some baggage.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
It's despicable. I've exchanged a few e-mails with Michelle over the years, and she's a very impressive and enlightened young lady. Huge supporter of Right to Work principles while a columnist in Seattle.
New inferior officers will be elected, along with magisterial district chairmen.
A brief Executive Committee meeting is scheduled to occur immediately after the meeting.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Now you can plan accordingly, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Not Broadway or London.
UPDATE: Drudge now reports that the performance has been cancelled.
Everything I've heard about Miller indicates he's a superior candidate. Met him once, and could easily support him (for what my support as a resident of Jeff Frederick's district is worth).
However, Miller's association with that site should give people pause. Its vile, gratuitous, and unattributed attacks on Chapman --- whether true or not; whether justified or not --- should cause a serious man like Miller to avoid association with it. That he chooses to ... well, I was under the impression that he's better than that.
UPDATE: Well, it's been cancelled/postponed. One can only hope that Jackson Miller came to his sense about those with whom he was about to associate.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
I'm torn between considering it as Left and Far Left, or simply Dumb and Dumberer.
UPDATE: It seems that the far Lefties over at Raising Kaine were there, too, and rather than relate facts, Josh offers a gratuitous slander in the comments.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Even the San Francisco Chronicle managed to get it right, in their headline the next day:
It's too bad that so many have forgotten that day, in lieu of indulging their visceral hatred of George W. Bush.
But then again, hate campaigns are very popular, even in the "Conservative" blogosphere, or what pretends to be.
I received this from the NRA-ILA just a few minutes ago.
Prince William County Board of Supervisors to
Consider Proposal to Ban Hunting with Buckshot, Today!
Your help is needed immediately, Tuesday April 18!
Virginia Prince William County of Board of Supervisors is meeting at 2:45 p.m. today to consider banning the use of buckshot, commonly used in hunting.
Please immediately contact members of the Board of Supervisors below and
strongly encourage them to oppose this anti-hunting measure.
Virginia's Hunting Heritage is at Stake!
Prince William County Board of Supervisors
Sean T. Connaughton
Phone: (703) 792-4640
Phone: (703) 792-6190
Martin E. Nohe
Phone: (703) 792-4620
Maureen S. Caddigan, Vice Chairman
Phone: (703) 792-4645
John T. Stirrup, Jr.
Phone: (703) 792-6195
John D. Jenkins
Phone: (703) 792-4668
Corey A. Stewart
Phone: (703) 792-4643
Hilda M. Barg
Phone: (703) 792-4646
UPDATE: Well, the follower(s) who lack respect for their betters and have little to offer but hate campaigns have decided to attack again. I guess he/she/they don't understand the difference between "professional due diligence" owed by professionals and the need to take action when politicians are about to vote on something. Alas, the difference between the theory and practice of public policy, leavened with a little attack upon the guardians of the Second Amendment.
UPDATE 2: The measure passed, with Supervisors Stewart and Stirrup voting against. The Washington Examiner has a story on it, as does the Potomac News. It seems that, contrary to the bloviations (and gratuitous attacks) of some, it wasn't just an issue upon which a public hearing was scheduled, but rather, a substantive vote.
And there was an interesting story in today's Emory Wheel, the campus newsletter of my law school alma mater.
It seems that the Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech are being sued over enforcement of a speech code which discriminates against observant Christians and Jews. You know: the ones who are against sin and therefore oppose the radical homosexual agenda.
The suit alleges that Georgia Tech restricts students' First Amendment rights by punishing "acts of intolerance," by not funding political or religious student groups and through the "religious indoctrination" of the school's Safe Space diversity program.The really interesting comments come from the advocates of the radical homosexual agenda. You know them: they're the ones who assert that sexual perversion is an immutable characteristic, but call their organizations "_____ Pride." Question: how can one legitimately take "pride" in something over which one has no control? Oh, never mind.
"Because of the conclusive nature of the Institute's statements on religion and homosexuality, Plaintiffs are made to feel like outsiders to the Institute's orthodoxy," the suit states.
The suit seeks unspecified damages and an injunction against Tech's policies.
"We want those unconstitutional policies off the books," French said.
Georgia Tech's Community Guide says acts of intolerance include "any attempt to injure, harm, malign or harass a person because of ... sexual/affectional orientation" and "denigrating written/verbal communications ... directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs."
The suit says Tech has targeted the Georgia Tech College Republicans - of which Malhotra is the chair and Sklar is a member - because of three of the club's activities: a letter dismissing the campus gay rights group Pride Alliance as a "sex club," a display condemning feminism and The Vagina Monologues, and an "affirmative action bake sale" in which students were charged differently based on race or gender.
Administrators reprimanded Malhotra [one of the Plaintiffs] for the letter, which she wrote in conjunction with other College Republicans, ordered the students to paint over part of their anti-feminist display and forced them to close the bake sale, French said.
"There's no indication that statements supportive of affirmative action are being shut down," he said. "These issues are not so settled by society that they're not subject to free speech and debate."
Tech junior Scott McKee, the Pride Alliance president and a student coordinator of Safe Space, said the program merely provides factual information about the beliefs and actions of different religions regarding homosexuality, without advocating one belief system over another. [Translation: We get our space to trash religious convictions and the standards of 5000 years of civilized society, but those nasty bigots who dare to judge people according to their behavior better shut up.]The article also celebrates the fact that notoriously politically-correct Emory, "As a private university, ... is immune to a similar lawsuit." The story is accompanied by an editorial (the link is posted above) denouncing the plaintiffs as "both right and wrong," and makes a ringing endorsement of those wishing to mainstream perversion: "The student body needs to support the Pride Alliance and denounce the students' comments."
McKee said he thinks the speech codes are necessary and allow constructive debate.
"I think there's a very fine line between free speech and hate speech," he said. [Translation: Free speech for me, but not for thee (hat tip to Nat Hentoff)].
French said 70 percent of the nation's 400 "leading universities" have speech codes. There are several other legal challenges pending across the country at schools including Penn State University and the California State University system, he said, but a court has never upheld a speech code. Many lawsuits are settled out of court. [Translation: Georgia Tech is going to lose, and is going to lose big, but its far-Left administrators are fighting the good fight!].
Emory Pride Co-president Walt Whinnery, a College sophomore said Emory Pride has been in contact with Pride Alliance, and members have offered their support if needed.
"When a situation like this happens in the same city, you're concerned about the mind-set of someone filing a lawsuit like this, and you wonder, 'Is this something a lot of people believe?'" he said.
Saralyn Chestnut, the director of Emory's Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Life, said she advocates free speech but that students "have an obligation to treat members of the community with dignity and respect." [Full quotation: "students 'have an obligation to treat members of the community with dignity and respect,' unless they're radical homosexual activists, and then they're free to trash the faithful."].
McKee said he hopes the suit is resolved quickly and fairly.
"Most people that I've talked to about it disapprove of this sort of action and are very disappointed that students are willing to waste so much of the Institute's time and money in a manner like this," he said. [Translation: Lawsuits perverting the Constitution to attack laws we don't like are good; lawsuits relying upon the plain language of the Constitution to attack our assaults on free speech are bad].
Well, maybe alma mater ("fostering mother") is too strong a term.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Now, if the wife and kids would only get back from Atlanta....
Saturday, April 15, 2006
It seems that the children (or child) who contribute[s] to and read(s) the official Trash Steve Chapman website have found me worthy of a parody.
It's very flattering. And I give these bozos credit for coming up with the correct name. To the extent that I observe and comment upon their activities and behavior, I am --- most assuredly --- a "Septic Tank Observer." I leave it to you, Gentle Reader, to discern the nature of that which I am observing.
'Course, it's a little funny that those who attempt to dismiss and belittle me spent soooo much time in setting up and posting to a site attacking me. It belies their assertion of my irrelevance.
UPDATE: Vince and his readers find it funny, even though the thread has been hijacked by those seeking to trash Marty Nohe (when have we sparred recently, Marty?). Figures. I guess a juvenile should be expected to demonstrate a juvenile sense of humor.
UPDATE 2: The genius behind the slander-site has a really great thread here. Not a single person with the guts to attach his name to his slanders.
It's an interesting strategy: set yourself up as an opponent to someone whose accomplishments and record make yours pale in comparison (hence, his pseudonymity), belittle and misrepresent the nature and content of virtually anything your opponent says, and then dismiss him as mentally ill.
Childish, but interesting.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
was happy to see all of the students who showed up at Freedom with flags from Uruguay, Mexico, El Salvador, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Peru and Bolivia, and others who carried placards that read "We love the U.S.A. That's why we want to stay" and "Immigrants Are Not Criminals."Gil Sanchez wrote today that Puerto Rico is, of course, an American Commonwealth, and that its citizens are American citizens, too.
'Course, it makes you wonder about the quality of education in our County schools.
It seems that some are "spreading rumors and threats through chatrooms, Websites, blogs and text messages."
The only difference between the perpetrators of this phenomenon and the Chapman-haters out there is the number of gray hairs on the heads of the perpetrators, or the relative lack of hair.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
I understand and appreciate Ben's dismay. I would share it were the partisan concerns reversed as it offends --- as it apparently does Ben's --- sense of partisan hygiene. Those who seek a partisan nomination bear a higher burden to support (and have supported) the party's candidates, whether Democrat, or Republican.
I think Harris Miller would be a much easier opponent for George Allen to dispatch. But, were I a partisan Democrat, I would find the facts related by Ben to be very difficult to justify.
On the other hand, saying that Harris Miller supported Republicans may be the nicest thing Ben's ever said about Miller.
I am in the LA region on business. Given that I have some clients in cases other than the one for which I traveled here, I thought it a good opportunity to meet with them, and asked them to set up a meeting. They did, at a hotel. When I arrived (15 minutes late; I've traveled from the second-worst traffic in the nation to the worst), we went into a conference room.
After a very good meeting, as I was leaving, I asked if they had paid for the room. They hadn't yet, so I offered to do so, as part of the Foundation-provided free legal representation. They absolutely refused, and forbade me from doing so.
I don't charge my clients a fee, and these were rather low-wage workers. But they wouldn't let me pay for the room. They wanted to make a contribution. You know: other than standing up against a labor union, putting their jobs at risk with a potentially hostile employer, and a frequently indifferent and/or hostile adjudicative body.
Like I said: I am privileged to represent the finest people in the world.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Today's WaPo contains an article discussing his support for socialized medicine.
Apparently, Romney supports a bill to require state residents to purchase medical insurance, comparing the notion to automobile insurance.
Now, never mind the fact that, if one declines to purchase medical insurance, the only one harmed by that failure in the event of an unfortunate incident is the individual (not so with automobiles, where the life and property of others can be adversely affected), but the notion that individuals should be required to buy medical insurance completely ignores the right of individuals to self-insure.
I am a little sick of the health care debate. Partisans for socialized medicine constantly cite the figure of "45 million uninsured." I heard someone ask the interesting question the other day: "How many of that 45 million are illegal aliens?" Another relevant question might be: How many are wealthy, and choose to pay fees for services? Maybe there are scholarly studies answering these questions, but my guess is that they don't come from any far-Left thinktanks.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE! Put more simply, no one should have the right to make a claim upon my earnings in order to subsidize the bad decisionmaking/pathologies of others. My governing principle is very simply: there is absolutely nothing my children should be denied to pay for the treatment of someone who smoked three packs a day for 40 years after the Surgeon General's report on cancer sti... er, cigarettes. Or, for that matter, even to pay for vaccinations for the children of people too poor to pay for their own children's health care.
Vast majorities in the GOP have made their opposition to socialized medicine. Mitt Romney has now virtually guaranteed that he will never win the GOP nomination for President.
Monday, April 03, 2006
McTiernan directed Die Hard, Predator, and The Hunt for Red October. Even managed to make Alec Baldwin credible as Jack Ryan.
Sad. I hope he is innocent.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't know his, but assuming that there are some out there as computer illiterate as I, to comment, you now have click on the time of the post, which will lead you to a page showing only the post, and a link to comment. Let me know how you like it.
We shall see.
UPDATE: I've had fewer comments, so a little reminder: while Blogger comments have been disabled, you can still comment. Just click on the time-stamp, which will give you access to Haloscan comments.
This makes no sense. By that time, any special sessions should be concluded, and --- while I could be wrong and would be happy to be corrected --- there seems to be no reason to not wait until the general election in November. It would be an unnecessary expense for the County and City of Manassas.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
It happened while I was driving on Route 234 this morning, on my way to the GOP Convention.
And I realized that, for all these years, I've been wrong.
Republicans really DO win more elections when they promise to govern like Democrats.
Chairman Sean really HAS lowered my taxes.
Bill Clinton really IS an honest man.
Governor Tim Kaine really DOESN'T want to raise my taxes.
Senator John Chichester IS a statesman of historic proportions.
Congressman Tom Davis really IS a tool of the far Right.
Government schools really ARE better.
As a result, I've decided to atone for the error of my ways, and turn this blog over to Anke Cheney, NoVA Scout, and Mitch Cum-stain. And indeed, all anonymous/pseudonymous bloggers will be welcome. They really are the most courageous, honorable people I know, with admirable convictions that all should emulate.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
Contrary to the efforts of some to characterize it as such, this was not a particularly ideological race. On one side, there was Brian Murphy, supported by Delegate Scott Lingamfelter, Bob FitzSimmonds, and others. On the other, the victorious Kopko, endorsed by Delegate Jeff Frederick, and Supervisors Corey Stewart and John Stirrup.
Apparently, BOCS Chairman Sean Connaughton largely stayed out of the race. Indeed, he didn't even show up at the County Convention. One cannot help but wonder if he shows up only when he wants something (as in 2004, when he was running for the GOP nomination for Lieutenant Governor).
It was good to see an event where some of the old warhorses --- former Supervisor Tony Guiffre; Ruby & Riley Kroh; Dave Mabie --- who helped bring the GOP to preeminence in Prince William were there.
What this race was about seemed mainly to be the question of the competence of the leadership of the County GOP. And Kopko, whatever his faults (he has been savaged in some places), at least has come up with a plan to help build the GOP. Indeed, while I supported Kopko, I was very concerned that the passion necessary to defeat an incumbent was not there.
Brian Murphy, on the other hand, seemed all too willing to listen to that contingent of opportunistic Republicans who, if the Democrats were dominant, would probably be on the other side of the aisle. Perhaps that has changed --- I respect many of his most prominent supporters --- but you know the old phrase about "Fool me once...." As someone more glib than I said after the votes were counted, "Brian's main theme seemed to be 'Vote for Me; It Hasn't Been So Bad.'"
For what it is worth, thanks to the wisdom of the author of the County's Party Plan, Brian's ability to contribute in a leadership role continues; he remains a voting member of the Executive Committee as Immediate Past Chairman.
UPDATE: Well, OK, not really an "update." Charles Reichley, who must've been busily pecking away at his keyboard during the Convention or within minutes of adjournment, has a much more detailed discussion here, and it was up before my post. Charles includes a discussion of a dispute which modesty (ha, ha) forbade me from discussing. I corrected one small factual error, which Charles graciously acknowledges.