Monday, July 31, 2006

The Orwellianism of F.T Rea

Courtesy of Waldo's invaluable, came across this nonsensical post by F.T. Rea, formerly, and perhaps presently a "real" journalist. In it, he quotes notable (for his afflication with Bush Derangement Syndrome) New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who cites a widely-held misapprehension as evidence of a lack of Liberal bias, rather than what it really is: evidence of the general ignorance of the American populace as to foreign affairs. Here's what F.T. said:
In “Reign of Error,” columnist Paul Krugman is depressed that a new Harris poll says 50 percent of Americans believe Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction when it was invaded in 2003. That figure is up from 36 percent in February of 2005, in spite of all the international reports that say nothing was found in Iraq to justify the “imminent threat” to America described by President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, et al, in the run-up to the invasion.
The problem? Well, F.T. misrepresents the facts by claiming that "the 'imminent threat' to America [was] described by President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, et al, in the run-up to the invasion." Of course, the whole point of a doctrine of pre-emption is to address a threat BEFORE it becomes imminent and that, of course, was the argument made by the Administration, for good or ill. That F.T. and the far Left have to misrepresent the argument made demonstrates the emptiness of their position.

And if F.T. wants to dispute the point, I cordially invite him to give me chapter and verse as to any time the President, Vice President, or any member of the Administration said the threat was imminent. A good discussion on the issue can be found here, and it makes the rational point that, while there may have been those in the Administration who tried to make the argument, the dominant argument was to the contrary. Indeed, the only examples that the author could find were instances of reporters putting words into the mouth of presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer:

Moreover, there are extremely few instances in which any member of the Bush administration even suggested that Iraq posed an "imminent threat."

Twice, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer affirmed questions from reporters using the phrase "imminent threat" to describe the administration's case against Iraq. As the liberal Center for American Progress pointed out, when Fleischer was asked by a reporter on May 7 of this year, "Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?" he replied, "Absolutely." And on October 16 of last year, a reporter asked, "Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth." Fleischer replied, simply, "Yes."

While Fleischer's affirmation of reporters' use of the phrase is indeed notable, it's important to keep in mind that he never uttered the words himself - hardly conclusive evidence in the matter.

In short, those who claim the Administration used the argument that Iraq was an "imminent threat" are not only misstating the facts. In fact, they are ignoring the uncontroverted evidence.

There is obviously some argument against the doctrine of preemption, and against virtually every Administration policy, and certainly, respectably people have respectably made them. However, any argument which begins from the premise that the term “imminent threat” to America was used by President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, et al, in the run-up to the invasion is a bald-faced lie, and speaks volumes about both the integrity of its advocate, and the reason of their position.

Of course, in the modern world, that's what it takes to be on the far Left.

UPDATE: Oh my! When F.T. is called out for his lies, he engages in ... more lies! Now he's questioning my legal credentials. I guess it just demonstrates how far removed he is from being an actual journalist, since a real journalist --- or anyone capable of your basic Internet search --- would have little trouble confirming that I am, as F.T. puts it, "actually ... a lawyer."

Conspiracy Theory

One of the pseudonymous conspiracy-theorist moonbats over at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, "Too Squishy" offers us his rantings on why it's a terrible thing for the PWC GOP to be prepared with a nominee in the even that their god, Chairman Sean, actually gets the job for which he appears to be well-qualified.

And get this: he trashes the GOP and those whom he perceives to be its Conservative leaders! I know this comes as a shock, Gentle Reader, but it's true. Or maybe it's just a function that the "moderates" (read: Liberal tax-and-spenders) don't have anyone who's quite ready for Prime Time.

This is the kind of thing, however, which demonstrates that there are good reasons why some people hide their identity.

Sunday, July 30, 2006

The Alice Marshall Game

From GOTV, aka Alice Marshall's Insanity, we are treated to this little pearl of wisdom:

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) called Soros "pro-marijuana" because of Soros' advocacy of decriminalizing the drug (Soros also favors clean needle programs).

Question for Davis supporters, have you ever smoked marijuana? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.
Well, gee, I guess Alice is right. But I've never smoked marijuana (never even SAW it until I interned in a U.S. Attorney's office, and then, it was in an evidence bag), and I've got no problem throwing people in jail for dealing it, and probably for smoking it to.

Let's use her "logic" a little more, though:

1. Have you ever [exceeded the speed limit]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

2. Have you ever [driven after having a few drinks]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

3. Have you ever [driven recklessly]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

4. Have you ever [taken office supplies, including paper clips and pens]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

5. Have you ever [made a rolling stop at a stop sign]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

6. Have you ever [changed lanes without signaling]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

7. Have you ever [cheated on your taxes, like failing to pay sales taxes on items ordered from out-of-state]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

Teddy Kennedy Misses the Mainstream

Well, it's Sunday, and only in the Washington Post could Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) offer his musings on "the mainstream of legal thought" in the Outlook section, rather than in the Style section, where slapstick usually appears.

The only way Teddy Kennedy could find the "mainstream" is if he drove his car off of a bridge into it.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Things That Make You Scream "Aaaaaaaaaaahhh!"

Thanks to Doug Mataconis, we learn that the "artist" who gave us "Trailer Trash Birthing" ... er, "Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston," a sculpture of a nude Britney Spears on a bearskin rug giving birth, has released another work of "art," and hence, the title (which works on a number of levels).

This abomination also reminds me of a biblical admonition, something to the effect that "If thine right eye offend thee, pluck it out."

Believe me: this offends.

And if that were still the standard, I'd be investing in eye patches.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Caddigan v. Stewart for GOP Nomination

Well, according to Ben Tribbett and Vince Harris, Maureen Caddigan will run for the GOP nomination for PWC Board of County Supervisors Chairman.

If true --- while I respect Ben, Vince might just be making it all up --- then this virtually guarantees a Stewart nomination (Ben only calls it "Lean Stewart"). As I have said elsewhere, Maureen does not travel well outside of the Dumfries District, where she is no doubt "all that," as those who have dared to stray from her orbit --- yours truly included --- learn quickly. So it is entirely doubtful that she could win the GOP nomination, much less the County.

Actually, it seems to me that the former is even less likely than the latter. After all, simply having an "R" next to her name will garner her votes from those who don't know her.

Oh, to be sure, there are those who are spinning this as a Connaughton move. Who knows? They might even be correct. But it is difficult for me to believe that Connaughton is a puppet master here, particularly considering that Maureen supported Chairman Sean's opponent in 1999, Democrat incumbent Kathleen Seefeldt. It is equally difficult for me to believe that Republicans will not remember this fact and hold it against Maureen.

If growth is the issue, and Republicans are dominant in PWC, then it is looking very good for Corey Stewart. Maureen Caddigan is most assuredly in the tax-and-spend mode of Sean Connaughton, and she was tax-and-spend before tax-and-spend was cool, working hard for a "meals tax" twice rejected by voters in referenda (Chairman Sean was MIA in those battles in the mid-Nineties). So I can agree with Ben on one thing: she is definitely a "moderate" in the Chairman Sean mold. That is, she wants the GOP label for its electoral power, but spends like a Democrat.

It will be interesting to see how serious County Republicans are about protecting the GOP "name brand."

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Home-Area Girl Among Hill's 50 Most Beautiful

While it's a list I never would have made when I was interning on the Hill (even if interns were eligible), it's nice to see that a girl from Central Pennsylvania, Maureen Ryan, made The Hill's list of the "50 Most Beautiful People" on Capitol Hill. She's the six-foot redhead at the top of the page. I think she may have been born the year I interned for Congressman George Gekas (R-17).

I can only imagine that, with her on the other side, the girls at Shikellamy didn't win too many games against Danville's girls' basketball team.

Where Are The Intermeddlers?

Back in 1998, Delegate Bob Marshall made headlines, along with Governor Jim Gilmore, when they tried to intervene to prevent the removal of Hugh Finn's feeding tube, an action sought by his wife. Finn, who was in a persistent vegetative state, was kept alive by a feeding tube, providing him with food and water, but was not subject to any extraordinary measures to maintain his life (no respirator, etc.).

And oh, how the far Left savaged them for interfering with family decisions.

Then, in the last two years, there was the even-more prominent case of Terri Schiavo. Even more politicos, including the United States Congress, tried to intervene on her behalf, when her "husband" --- who had already taken up with another woman and had two children with her --- sought (eventually, successfully) to remove her feeding tube.

And oh, how the far Left, Death Caucus savaged any who dared to speak out against denying her food and water, and interfering with her "husband's" decision to starve her.

Now, there's Abraham Cherrix, a sixteen-year-old boy on Virginia's Eastern Shore with Hodgkin's disease. On Friday, 21 July, an Accomack County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court judge ruled that Abraham must report to a hospital by this afternoon for testing, evaluation, and treatment as doctors deem necessary. He also found that Abraham's parents are neglectful for risking his health by permitting him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diate and herbal supplements supervised by a Mexican clinic.

Now, I agree with the judge as to his assessment of the Cherrix's decision. Were I Abraham's parents, and with all due respect to the well-known first-rate qualities and advances of Mexican medicine, I wouldn't treat him according to that clinic's recommendations. In fact, I think Abraham's parents --- like Abraham --- are a little loopy.

But my initial post might have left the impression that I agree with the judge's intereference with the family's decision, which is decidedly not true. I apologize for the confusion.

And while I know my limitations, and that I just can't read everything out there, I am mightily confused by the reaction by the far Left side of the Virginia blogosphere.

The silence from the far Left of the Virginia blogosphere on this judge's interference with the Cherrix family's decisionmaking process --- Doug Mataconis has been all over this story --- is positively deafening.

Or maybe they only support the privacy of family decisionmaking when it involves ending an innocent's life.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Get Your Talking Points Straight

Corey Stewart must be something pretty special, for all of the bile being poured out against him in the Squishy element of the Virginia Blogosphere. However, his opponents haven't quite gotten their talking points straight.

There's one element that seems to doubt my source as to the impending Convention, even though it was gold (and the only thing that made my post a scoop was simply that I posted it more quickly than anyone else; it was based upon an e-mail sent to the County GOP Committee's membership).

And then there are those who are suggesting that the speed with which the Committee is moving is somehow premature. This, of course, is belied by the fact that PWC Dems are doing the same thing, according to one of their bloggers.

And then there's the line that this is some sinister plot to make Corey's nomination a foregone conclusion, somehow "rigging" the process.

I don't know who will win a convention. I do know that it is cheaper to nominate through convention, and saves the taxpayers money. Of course, saving taxpayers money is not high on the list of priorities for Corey's opponents/Chairman Sean's sycophants. I also know that I will be little issue to it, if scheduled for 19 August, as I will be out of the country on that date.

What appears clear is that those who have little say in the County GOP --- because they aren't really Republicans, after all --- are launching a preemptive strike against a guy who might just actually govern like a Republican.

They have good cause to fear it. Proof of the wisdom of geniunely Conservative governance will likely have the same effect upon their ideology that sunlight has on a vampire. And bloodsuckers have good reason to fear sunlight.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

John Dean's New Book

Was in BJ's after church this morning, and briefly perused John Dean's new book, Conservatives Without a Conscience.

I haven't read the book, and I certainly won't enrich Dean by purchasing it, even at BJ's price. Vivian Paige is fond of it; Shaun Kenney rightly calls it "silly."

Dean is just the latest in a ... well, rather short line of "conservatives" who have attempted to capitalize on demonizing the GOP and its dominant ideology from an "insider's" view.

But let's remember, after all, that John Dean probably was never really a "Conservative." After all, he was part of the Nixon Administration, an administration "Conservative" only in comparison to the naked socialism advanced by its predecessor and in comparison to Hubert H. Humphrey and George "No Enemies to the Left" McGovern. And let's remember, too, that the guy was part of the corruption of the Nixon Administration. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about his role:
Dean pled guilty to obstruction of justice before Watergate trial judge John Sirica on October 19, 1973. He admitted supervising payments of "hush money" to the Watergate burglars, notably E. Howard Hunt, and revealed the existence of Nixon's enemies list. On August 2, 1974, Sirica handed down a sentence of one to four years in a minimum-security prison. However, when Dean surrendered himself as scheduled on September 3, he was diverted to the custody of U.S. Marshals and kept instead at Fort Holabird (near Baltimore, Maryland) in a special "safe house" holding facility primarily used for witnesses against the Mafia. He spent his days in the offices of the Watergate Special Prosecutor and testifying in the trial of Watergate conspirators Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson, which concluded on January 1, 1975. Dean's lawyer moved to have his sentence reduced, and on January 8, Sirica granted the motion, adjusting Dean's sentence to time served.
If he weren't trashing true "Conservatives," would MSM types like Keith Olbermann be giving him the time of day? Doubtful.

Dean is and seems to have always been, at his heart, little more than a sleazy opportunist. He is certainly a turncoat if, indeed, he ever was really a Conservative.

Membership Insurance Scam

The Washington Post had a great story today about a tactic used by "political groups to inflate their membership rosters -- and their bottom lines -- by taking dues from people with no interest in the groups' politics." It was a fascinating story, starting out as follows:

In 2001, Jennifer B. Chace heard an insurance broker's pitch for a new insurance company.... She jumped at the offer, but first, the broker told her, she would have to sign an application -- already filled out -- that would entitle her to a low group rate.

With that signature, Chace, a Florida dentist in the market for ... insurance, unwittingly joined one of Washington's most prominent ... organizations, ..., she would later testify.

Now, lest you think that this was a story about a public school teachers scammed into joining the National Education Association to enjoy its virtually useless professional liability insurance, it was a story about a tactic "marketing tax-free medical savings accounts" used to boost membership in the conservative Citizens for a Sound Economy (now known as FreedomWatch).

It's really amazing what the WaPo considers scandalous. Although this appears to be a story fed to a reporter by a plaintiffs' lawyer, the Post consistently ignores the scandal of what is legal in its own back yard --- the practice of District and Maryland groups "inflat[ing] their membership rosters -- and their bottom lines -- by taking dues from people with no interest in the groups' politics."

I guess if it's labor unions doing so, well, that's just perfectly fine with the WaPo.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

PWC Convention Set?

With the news that Chairman Sean's nomination to a Bush Administration post may be on the fast track to Senate confirmation, I received an e-mail today announcing that the County GOP convention to nominate his successor may well be scheduled for Saturday, 19 August.

It's a pity. The Youngs will be on their summer vacation on that day, and will miss their first County GOP Convention in more than a decade.

Given the summer vacation schedule of many families, one wonders whether it wouldn't be wiser to delay the convention until early September, if possible.

UPDATE: As one might expect, those who hate Conservatives --- or anyone else not on the Chairman Sean, tax-and-spend bandwagon --- are viewing this on the most sinister way possible, at least, sinister as they foolishly measure it. One speculation is that:
If this is indeed the date of the convention than it really can only favor one candidate. That is right, you guessed it, Corey Stewart. It is no secret that Stewart prefers deciding this in a convention and that he and his supporters (including Tom Kopko) would be the ones pushing for such a quick resolution.
Of course, someone who makes such speculation merely demonstrates his singular ignorance as to the provisions of the Party Plan. As the County Committee must approve the date and manner of any nominating process, this is hardly the plan of some Corey cabal to frustrate the will of the County GOP. To the contrary, it's about the leadership that Tom Kopko was elected to exercise.

UPDATE: It's always entertaining to read some comments, especially from those who like to pretend that they know what's going on. Indeed, one reads "NoVA Scout's" comment and wonders if he has ever held a leadership role in any party organization (tending to disprove my suspicion that he is Chairman Sean). Obviously, he is not familiar with the only "rigging" that I have ever witnessed or have been aware of, to-wit: that performed by the Young Republican Federation of Virginia in 1993. As for Craig's assertion that he has "been told that the convention was in the bag should it happen and that a convention would be set up to favor Stewart," this sounds suspiciously like the plaintive whinings of someone who knows that he or she cannot win a fairly-run Convention --- no one has suggested that there has been anything but in PWC --- and simply wants to hobble their opponent. If Craig doesn't choose to reveal his source for this scurrilousness, it should be judged accordingly.

I have no problem revealing my source for this information (probably should have to begin with), but it was simply a general mailing from Chairman Tom Kopko, sent by Secretary Grant Bell. I simply happened to get it out there firstest. Here it is, with irrelevant portions omitted.

July 21, 2006

Dear Friends,

A few updates that I hope you find useful:

  1. Pr. Wm. GOP Convention – Aug 19 (tentative): your Vice Chairman, Karen Ulrich, is busy researching location availability for the latest possible date, Saturday, August 19. Mark it on your calendar. Conventions have been the custom as most people feel they are fairest and Karen will have information in hand for our decision, if needed, on the 31st.
  2. Attention BOCS Chairman Candidates! I am accepting suggestions for convention committee members through July 29 at 9pm. Please send me any preferences for the Nominations, Credentials, Rules, and Elections convention committees.

If you have questions or suggestions, please feel free to write or call me. Updates are also posted on our website!


Tom Kopko
Chairman, Pr. Wm. County Republican Committee (

Friday, July 21, 2006

Rank Dishonesty

Was looking over posts as Waldo Jaquith's indispensible, and came across a link to the "Commonwealth Coalition," which has the goal of defining deviancy down by defeating this year's constitutional amendment to constitutionalize marriage.

And what should greet me? An honest picture from some Castro Street gay "pride" parade? Two men? Two women? A polygamist family? A man looking lovingly into the eyes of "man's best friend"?

No, instead, the Commwealth Coalition greets us with a late middle-aged couple, a man and a woman. Apparently, the picture changes, but I never came across a single picture honestly portraying the goals of the Marshall/Newman amendment's opponents.

Who do they think they're kidding?

Another Teenager Running TC?

Well, I just got finished responding to some idiocy over at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, Too Conservative. If, as I suspect, the author will be embarrassed when his foolishness is challenged, I'm copying his post below:

In a peculiar move best explained by election year posturing, the House of Representatives yesterday overwhelmingly approved a bill that would bar federal courts from reviewing controversies arising from the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance.” (H.R. 2389) To this old, crusty defender of the Constitution, this comes across as a fairly radical assault on the constitutional structure of the Republic, so destructive that it only could be the work of anarchists or (gasp!) liberals. Should Congress be defining by statute which constitutional issues are immune from judicial review? If so, do you have a little list of the constitutional controversies you think the federal courts should be barred from considering? How do you feel about a liberal Congress banning federal courts from reviewing gun control legislation?

Should I be concerned about this kind of nonsense, or do we all know it’s just Showtime? A House vote only gets legislation part-way to law. Do any of you think this should pass the Senate? Surely none of the Old Dominion’s conservative constitutionalists in the Congress participated in this silliness today. (Oops - just checked the Roll Call - not a pretty sight).
Here is the legal brief in response:

NoVA Scout, you call this “a fairly radical assault on the constitutional structure of the Republic, so destructive that it only could be the work of anarchists or (gasp!) liberals.” You then ask “Should Congress be defining by statute which constitutional issues are immune from judicial review?”

Thank you for providing evidence that, as I have long suspected, your self-promoting “credentials” are nothing by empty puffery, particularly in light of your oh-so-jealously guarded anonymity.

Did you even go to law school? If you did, you should get a refund, because I don’t know of a Constitutional Law course or textbook (it appears on page 39 of my edition of Gunther) anywhere that does NOT teach Ex Parte McCardle, 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 506, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1869), in which the Supreme Court declined to decide the case, noting that its appellate jurisdiction had been removed by Congress, pursuant to its authority under Art. II, sec. 2, of the Constitution, which limits the Supremes’ appellate jurisidiction, “both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

It’s right there, in black and white. It’s wonderful that the Congress is exercising one of its clearly-defined powers to limit judicial tyranny. In your vicious and obviously ill-informed criticism, you have demonstrated that you are neither a “crusty defender of the Constitution,” nor a “Conservative,” but rather, a reactionary Liberal (as opposed to “liberal”).

Now, if someone could only remind Congress of those other, clearly-defined LIMITS on its power….

On the other hand, while this surely provides evidence that NoVA Scout is no constitutionalist, and probably not a Conservative, it also demonstrates that, his self-professed "credentials" to the contrary notwithstanding, he may well be not much of an attorney, either.

Given TC's history, maybe he's his own "Amen!" chorus, too.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

God? Stem Cells? Guess Which One Liberals Have More Faith In?

Jerry Fuhrman may have put it best:
How is it that people who reject out of hand the whole notion of a deity put such blind faith in something called a stem cell?
Meanwhile, here's what former Virginia Governor Marky Mark had to say about it:

President Bush vetoed legislation yesterday— his first ever use of the presidential veto — that would help to unlock the potential of stem-cell research that could change the lives of millions of Americans with potentially curable diseases.

As with so many Americans, this issue is personal for me. I have a daughter with juvenile diabetes and a mother with Alzheimer’s disease. These are among the host of diseases for which stem cell research could produce a cure.

In the Bush administration, politics has trumped science: on climate change, alternative energy research, and on medical advancement that could save lives. This country needs an administration that believes in science and brings hope to the many Americans and their families suffering from these horrible diseases. Please join me in asking Congress to overturn President Bush's veto. Sign the petition today.

Why does it not surprise me that the guy who cooked the numbers to give the impression that we "needed" a tax increase expresses unqualified faith in stem cell research.

OK, OK, so I changed the link. To something more appropriate, I think.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Life in a Small Town

Checking the headlines in my hometown paper, I learned that the community pool in my hometown celebrated its 30th anniversary today. I have a lot of fond memories of that pool and my teen years in a small town. My Boy Scout troop even worked regularly in the recycling center which contributed to its initial upkeep.

Friday, July 14, 2006

The Official TC Smackdown Post

Our friends over at NovaTownHall proudly boast their designation by Vincent Harris of "Too Conservative" as the "Worst Blog."

Well, it appears that young Vincent may well be a complete and utter fraud. A new pseudonymous blog calling itself "Velvet Elvis" makes quite a few damning claims about Vincent, demonstrating that he may be posting on his own blog under pseudonyms to give a false impression of readership/comments/support for his activities.

I don't know if it's true. I lack the technical skills to have performed such an investigation myself, or even to judge whether the facts alleged are true.

I do know this: Vince misrepresented himself when he started his blog, and I was certainly critical of his actions when he came out of the anonymity closet. And a number of posts after 6 July have disappeared since this revelation (if true) came to light.

While hardly of the same calibre of the Janet Cook fraud suffered by the Washington Post a few years ago --- she had to surrender a Pulitzer won for a fraudulent story about an eight-year-old heroin addict --- Vince has certainly had an impact in Virginia politics (Ben Tribbett once declared him the most influential Virginia teenager since Pocahontas). It would be truly sad if the facts alleged by "Velvet Elvis" are true, and as someone skeptical of all anonymous/pseudonymous Internet activities, I note that these allegations, also, are unaccompanied by someone willing to sign his or her name to them.

I also know this: those of us who condemn/oppose anonymity/pseudonymity will have been given a huge boost if these allegations are true.

UPDATE: Charles has posted his thoughts.

UPDATE 2: Well, Shaun Kenney has the scoop (sorry for the lack of a link). Jim Riley is Velvet Elvis. Whambamthankyouma'am in the comments was correct.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

The End of an Experiment

Well, I tried it for a while, and I don't think I like it. I've had a lot of traffic over the last few weeks (thanks to Chad), and I suspect that some people wanted to comment, but couldn't figure out how to do so. After all, even normally discerning people like Republitarian was under the impression that I didn't allow comments.

So I've enabled the normal Blogger comments. You can still comment through Haloscan, but perhaps the most effective and accessible means is the normal way.

Soooo, have at me!

Traitors are Heroes, and Other Democrat Insanity

It seems that prominent Fairfax Democrat Alice Marshall has declared "heroic" a soldier who volunteered, and now is refusing lawful orders.

More Democrat insanity.

College Democrats Campaign

Via Drudge, there is apparently a site up with pictures of a leading candidate for President of the Komsomol ... er, College Democrats in drag.

I wonder if we can expect a lengthy expose from Lowell about the deep meaning of this behavior?

Oh, wait! Perhaps what we can really expect is a post about how we're supposed to accept and support this deviant behavior.

Monday, July 10, 2006

Getting Mental At Raising Kaine

Well, it seems that Lowell Feld over at Raising Kaine has had just a leeeetle too much Kool-Aid. Of course, one learns that alone by noting his numerous links to the misnomered far-Left nitwits ... er, outfit called the Center for Media and Democracy, an outfit which bills itself as
"Countering propaganda by investigating and reporting on behind-the-scenes public relations campaigns by corporations, industries, governments and other powerful institutions," but one which never seems to include labor unions promoting their agendas with forced union dues as among those "other powerful institutions."

In a post of 308 words, Lowell manages only ten actually to identify what he derisively calls the "Orwellian bizarro world" of the National Right to Work Committee (I'm the guy with the beard in the background, and was merely a spectator) Apparently, this is established because the Committee "works toward laws that prohibit 'compulsory unionism.'"

Of course, as a propagandist for the far Left, perhaps Lowell knows from whence he speaks when discussing an "Orwellian bizarro world."

Now, Lowell doesn't bother to give us a single word to explain that "compulsory unionism" phrase further, so I will: it simply means that the Committee wants to prohibit laws and practices by which employees are forced to join or pay dues to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

Instead of actually addressing the issue, though, Lowell treats us to his bizarro fantasies of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (quick: Name the other psychotic who used that phrase in all seriousness?). That goes from minimum wage laws to the political propaganda of the United Auto Workers union.

It's really a pretty pathetic post, and if this is the best that a paid staffer for the Webb campaign can come up with, I'm looking forward to the Allen victory party. Wow! The UAW says something. Must be true!

Let's just make it clear, though. We can conclude that Lowell thinks that an individual should be forced to pay dues to a labor union as a condition of getting and/or keeping a job. Even Chris Matthews (in 2000) was shocked by Ralph Nader's position on that one. Since that is the sole principle for which the Committee works (it defines "single issue"), one can only describe it in derisive terms as holding an "extreme anti-labor position" if one disputes that principle. A principle, BTW, held by a clear majority of union MEMBERS, and 75% of all Americans. I know, I know: it must be a false consciousness that those (like Lowell) in the vanguard of the proletariat have to overcome.

And a personal little shout out to Lowell. Hey, maroon! Paul Weyrich is the President of the Free Congress Foundation, NOT Morton Blackwell. Even the far Left loons whose website to which he links get that one right, as does the Free Congress Foundation's informational website. Of course, Morton Blackwell is Virginia's Republican National Commiteeman and runs the Leadership Institute.

Tip of the hat to Greg Letiecq for bringing Lowell's imbecilic post to my attention.

True American Ally Wins World Cup

I couldn't care less about soccer. I went to one game at RFK, once, when my wife's company scored some free tickets, and understand why the announcers get so excited when a goal is scored: it's an uncommonly boring game.

But I must confess to an undue amount of satisfaction that American ally Italy won soccer's World Cup over those cheese-eating surrender monkeys in France.

It belies the notion that there ain't no justice.

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Schaudenfreude Over Ken Lay's Death

Jim Pinkerton had it right on Fox NewsWatch tonight.

Imagine, if you will, the reaction of the far Left if Ann Coulter had suggested delight over the prospect of the prison rape of the likes of Bill Clinton, or Governor Jim Guy Tucker, or Louisiana Congressman Bill Jefferson.

Then compare it to the comments in this Washington Post essay by Henry Allen:
now that he's died of a heart attack in the luxury of his Colorado getaway while awaiting sentencing for his crimes, none of his victims will be able to contemplate that he's locked away in a place that makes the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel look like Hawaii; that he might be spending long nights locked in a cell with a panting tattooed monster named Sumo, a man of strange and constant demands;
Why does this guy still have a job?

Actually, Allen does go on to ask a very good question: "Is it possible that a micron below the surface of our liberal and enlightened beliefs lurks savagery?"

Gee. Ya think?

Actually, Henry, the "surface of [y]our liberal and enlightened beliefs" is nothing more than a fraudulent veneer.

If you don't like it, post your comment here.

Friday, July 07, 2006

An Image from Pennsylvania's Flood

Believe it or not, there's a baseball field underneath all of that water. Decades ago, I played Little League baseball there.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

In Need of a Geography Lesson

Came across this story in today's Anchorage Daily News.

Someone needs to let Ms. Holland know that Puerto Rico is part of the United States, and that there are no "Puerto Rican passports."

Mentally Ill Kim as Black Bart?

For movie buffs, one of the classics out there is Mel Brooks' 1974 "Blazing Saddles." It can't be watched on regular TV, since the Gods of PC have decreed that Brooks' scurrilous use of the "n" word --- of course, he's making fun of racism, you maroons --- is impermissible.

One of the great scenes is when the new Sheriff in town, Black Bart (Cleavon Little) gets himself out of a little fix by holding a gun to his own head.

Isn't this a little like Mentally Ill Kim ... er, Kim Jong Il, dictator of North Korea, and his treatment of that nation's long-suffering and now nearly starving populace?

Nice to See Someone Has a Sense of Humor....

Over at Not Larry Sabato, Ben Tribbett has posted a picture that one might initially believe to be PhotoShopped. But no, it appears that this is really the shirt that Fairfax County BOCS Chairman Gerry Connolly was wearing on Independence Day.

While not the fashion maven that Ben obviously is (hey, until my wife took over those duties, my grandmother bought my ties), Ken Cuccinelli has it right: this is a "screaming monstrosity."

Say what you will about Chairman Sean (I certainly have), but he'd never be seen in this:

Tip of the hat to Ben Tribbett, from whom I st... er, borrowed this picture.

Freak Accident?

Per Drudge, I came across a headline declaring that a freak accident left a man obsessed with sex.

I wonder what it was. Birth?

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Deleted Post

Well, perhaps Greg thought better of it. Fair 'nuff. If he's a big enough man to withdraw his attack, I'll remove my response in kind. But I'm keepin' the e-mails.

BVBL: Champion of the First Amendment

It's one of life's sad little ironies that Greg Letiecq, who generally seems like a good guy, has managed to associate himself with some rather shady characters, including the anonymous slanderer who originally owned his website, and his frequent "amen chorus," Harry Parrish's 2005 primary campaign manager, Anke W. Cheney.

I've frequently said that I have no idea as to the merits of Steve Chapman's lawsuit against BVBL and Greg. I do know that, if the Defendants prevail, it will be because the First Amendment protects even their scurrilous attacks, and may prove an insuperable burden to Steve's recovery.

Columnist extraordinaire Thomas Sowell once famously observed that the practical definition of a "racist" in today's political world is "a Conservative winning an argument with a Liberal."

Call this Young's Corollary to Sowell's Law: "bickering" is when one Republican raises legitimate, unanswerable criticisms against another, usually squishy, Republican.

And it's certainly ironic that Greg, who is forced to rely so heavily upon the First Amendment in his defense against Chapman's lawsuit, has so little regard for it personally.

UPDATE: Turns out I misspelled Greg's last name with the initial post. A thousand apologies.

UPDATE 2: Well, Greg has a new website, apparently launched shortly after he took down his abortive attack on me Here's what he says about one of the reasons he has switched to WordPress:
This new site will allow anonymous comments as before. I will have more ability to restrict the ability of problem children to access or post, which should reduce the personal infighting and bad behavior that I’ve seen recently.
I guess "problem children," "personal infighting," and "bad behavior" are codewords for people with whom Greg disagrees and/or those who remember the misdeeds of some of his biggest fans and dare to talk about them. One presumes that he does not consider it "personal infighting" or "bad behavior" to attack a candidate for, say, posting on, or attacking his attorney for performing his professional duties.

As I said above, Greg "generally seems like a good guy," and he's shown some genuine promise since abandoning/being abandoned by the original BVBL persona. It's really too bad that he has evidenced an ability to be so easily influenced by those who are neither very honest, nor very good Conservatives.

UPDATE 3: Well, Greg has blocked my access from my office PC to his site. I guess it won't be too long before he blocks my home access, as well.

What a maroon. And BTW, please disregard all that I've previously said about him seeming like a pretty good guy. I said, in an e-mail that I posted here for a few hours, that Greg should be of good cheer, because I had referenced a website that I had previously considered beneath contempt. I guess respectability was just too much for him to take, at least in more than a small dose.

I guess it's OK to trash me on his website. So much for the theory that Steve Chapman might avoided grief by responding to the attacks against him; it appears that he just would have been deleted, or barred from access. It's so much easier when your enemies are disarmed. Greg takes it a step further though, by insuring that I can't even see the attacks or, worse yet, use his own words against him.

Probably a relatively wise step for a guy who's already managed to get himself sued once.

Hornsby Retrospective Due Out Soon

With a top of the hat to Ben Tribbett, I had occasion to visit Bruce Hornsby's website, and discovered that he has a new retrospective album coming out on 25 July.

There are a few artists whose work I will buy immediately upon seeing it --- Billy Joel; John Grisham; Tom Clancy --- and Virginia's Bruce Hornsby is among them. Happily, he gave a great concert at Hampden-Sydney's homecoming a few years back. Two thousand in attendance on a campus with just over a thousand students.

Lefty politics aside, I can't wait. Wish I could play the piano like him.