Russ Feingold has generated a great deal of press in recent days over his call to "censure" President Bush.
Never mind that Feingold's basis for doing so is based upon the most elaborate slurs of the moonbat far Left; what is most offensive about Feingold's efforts are that they are wholly unconstitutional.
In short, by adopting what purports to be a less radical step (to paraphrase and update my grandfather, a censure resolution and four bucks will get you a cup of Starbucks), Feingold is demonstrating his lack of interest in constitutional processes, and is behaving less respectably than others in the moonbat far Left, who at least have the wit to rely upon the Constitution, and call for impeachment.
With this action, Feingold --- who is rumored to have presidential ambitions (what Senator doesn't?) --- has done Republicans and Democrats alike the courtesy of demonstrating that he is wholly unfit to be President. Once again, an anti-constitutionalist attempts to masquerade as a "moderate," and fails miserably.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Monday, March 13, 2006
More Asinine Pot. News Letter Writing
As people who know me are aware, I've no love lost for Prince William's daily, the Potomac News. While a columnist for seven years, my column was unceremoniously and without warning discontinued. And then the management of the paper lied to me about a number of things, including the number of complaints that they received about their decision.
Obviously, when my services were terminated, the Pot. News took a step down. But at this point, the Pot. News would take a step up by becoming a tabloid.
Today, they ran another letter from far Left moonbat Tony Ares, of Woodbridge, who made a number of posts here last week. And last month, I wrote about his missive to the Pot. News which declared that Conservative supporters of school choice really were using it as a "thinly veiled excuse to reinstate Jim Crow," and to "indoctrinate [our] children with old bigotry."
Well, Tony's at it again. Today, he attacked a Pot. News column by Ken Concannon, which had criticized other far Left moonbats for comparing President George W. Bush to Hitler. Ares' comment?
Obviously, when my services were terminated, the Pot. News took a step down. But at this point, the Pot. News would take a step up by becoming a tabloid.
Today, they ran another letter from far Left moonbat Tony Ares, of Woodbridge, who made a number of posts here last week. And last month, I wrote about his missive to the Pot. News which declared that Conservative supporters of school choice really were using it as a "thinly veiled excuse to reinstate Jim Crow," and to "indoctrinate [our] children with old bigotry."
Well, Tony's at it again. Today, he attacked a Pot. News column by Ken Concannon, which had criticized other far Left moonbats for comparing President George W. Bush to Hitler. Ares' comment?
Mr. Concannon is correct. Bush is not Hitler ... yet. The Neo-Conservatives are not the Nazis ... yet. By understanding historically how fascism begins though, we stop its growth in the present.Tony apparently needs to go back to school. A good private one, not a government one. One where he can learn the difference between fascism and National Socialism. Between reasonable limits on civil liberties in time of war (far fewer than imposed by FDR in World War II) and real and serious erosions of civil liberties. About listening to your telephone calls without a warrant and listening in on the telephone calls of foreign terrorists. About how jobs "going overseas" has nothing to do with fascism, or the nationalism that it represents (indeed, complaints about globalization are a lot closer to nationalistic fascism and/or Naziism than support for free trade and free markets).
George Allen WILL BE President!
George Allen has to be fairly confident over his prospective run for President in 2008.
It isn't that the media loves him. It isn't his ability to speak to the Republican base, or his rock-ribbed Conservative credentials. Or even that media insiders have declared him the most likely GOP nominee.
Nope. It's that Dems are starting to say that he's stupid, or an "empty suit."
If there's a more accurate predictor of Republican electoral success than that, I don't know it.
It isn't that the media loves him. It isn't his ability to speak to the Republican base, or his rock-ribbed Conservative credentials. Or even that media insiders have declared him the most likely GOP nominee.
Nope. It's that Dems are starting to say that he's stupid, or an "empty suit."
If there's a more accurate predictor of Republican electoral success than that, I don't know it.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Just a Thought
The far Left blogosphere in Virginia has made much of Attorney General Robert McDonnell's response to a question asked by a supporter of sodomy. I saw another reference to it just the other day.
In light of their support for this question, shouldn't Conservatives ask prospective Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton "Spit, or swallow?"
UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I really don't want to know.
UPDATE 2: Well, it seems Vince wants to stir the pot, too. Given his number of hits, I suppose I should be grateful. Oh, and Shaun has it exactly right in his comments (hence, showing it to my friends here). I'm reminded of a conversation I had a number of years ago, with a wonderful old lady named Ruth Fry. Long-time PWC Republicans will remember her as a Gold Star mother who, at 88, tragically lost her life in a traffic accident on Minnieville Road, broadsided by a truck going too fast just after George Allen's election as Governor in 1993 (an event that made her giddy). One time, my wife and I were giving Ruth a ride to a political event, and completely out of the blue, she raised the issue of condom distribution in the schools. Ruth was a few years older than my grandmother (still kickin' like an Army mule at the time, at 79), and it was an entirely uncomfortable conversation to have with that wonderful woman.
And who did we have to thank for that privilege? The far Left and the licentious society that they are trying to/have created.
In light of their support for this question, shouldn't Conservatives ask prospective Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton "Spit, or swallow?"
UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I really don't want to know.
UPDATE 2: Well, it seems Vince wants to stir the pot, too. Given his number of hits, I suppose I should be grateful. Oh, and Shaun has it exactly right in his comments (hence, showing it to my friends here). I'm reminded of a conversation I had a number of years ago, with a wonderful old lady named Ruth Fry. Long-time PWC Republicans will remember her as a Gold Star mother who, at 88, tragically lost her life in a traffic accident on Minnieville Road, broadsided by a truck going too fast just after George Allen's election as Governor in 1993 (an event that made her giddy). One time, my wife and I were giving Ruth a ride to a political event, and completely out of the blue, she raised the issue of condom distribution in the schools. Ruth was a few years older than my grandmother (still kickin' like an Army mule at the time, at 79), and it was an entirely uncomfortable conversation to have with that wonderful woman.
And who did we have to thank for that privilege? The far Left and the licentious society that they are trying to/have created.
Man Sues for Right to Choose/Reproductive Freedom
It was inevitable, given the intellectual vacuity of reflexive defenders of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), but a 25-year-old Michigan man has brought suit in Federal court to seek to be relieved of the burdens imposed by an unwanted pregnancy. His argument? Equal protection.
Women have the "right to choose" among three options: carrying the pregnancy to term; surrendering the child for adoption; and abortion.
After conception, men have no say in the matter, save for the issue of adoption (and then, the only choice that they have is to take the child for themselves, with the possibility that the mother will later assert her rights, or give up any rights whatsoever). They cannot force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term or to abort.
And if a woman decides to carry the child to term and raise it? The man can be stuck with an 18-22 year bill for child support.
I have two sons. I am raising them --- and continue to intend to raise them --- to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. If they ever come home with news that they have impregnated some young lady, I think I know what my response will be (though I hope I will have instilled in them enough sense and judgment to avoid such a happenstance, unless, of course, it is news that it is their wives that they have impregnated).
With that having been said, this suit is completely appropriate, and I hope he wins. I don't support Roe v. Wade. As Liberal constitutional scholar (and abortion supporter) John Hart Ely suggested, it's a monstrosity masquerading as constitutional law. As is fairly typical for the far Left, rather than writing and passing a constitutional amendment to secure a "right" to abortion, they found compliant Federal judges to enact their policy preferences.
The simple fact of the matter is that men are required to "choose" before they engage in the act which causes people. Women are given nine months to "choose." And if they choose to bear the child, they can impose upon the man --- who may have wanted the woman to choose an abortion --- to bear a portion of the costs associated with her choice.
Such is the world that Roe has left us in. None of the far Left commentary that I expect to see (attacking this "man") can be taken seriously, because it will be as intellectually chaotic and self-contradictory as Roe itself is.
Vince and a comment by Saphrosyne at TC are right; he's a loser. I would add that he and those who support his legal efforts apparently possess precious little concern for the daughter that he is probably scarring for life with his actions. So I don't admire Matt Dubay. But he is illustrating the intellectual chaos of the radical pro-abortion crowd. The consequences to his child could, of course, have been avoided had the 1972/73 Supreme Court fully considered the consequences of their actions.
And in that, I confess, I take great, albeit conflicted, pleasure.
Women have the "right to choose" among three options: carrying the pregnancy to term; surrendering the child for adoption; and abortion.
After conception, men have no say in the matter, save for the issue of adoption (and then, the only choice that they have is to take the child for themselves, with the possibility that the mother will later assert her rights, or give up any rights whatsoever). They cannot force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term or to abort.
And if a woman decides to carry the child to term and raise it? The man can be stuck with an 18-22 year bill for child support.
I have two sons. I am raising them --- and continue to intend to raise them --- to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. If they ever come home with news that they have impregnated some young lady, I think I know what my response will be (though I hope I will have instilled in them enough sense and judgment to avoid such a happenstance, unless, of course, it is news that it is their wives that they have impregnated).
With that having been said, this suit is completely appropriate, and I hope he wins. I don't support Roe v. Wade. As Liberal constitutional scholar (and abortion supporter) John Hart Ely suggested, it's a monstrosity masquerading as constitutional law. As is fairly typical for the far Left, rather than writing and passing a constitutional amendment to secure a "right" to abortion, they found compliant Federal judges to enact their policy preferences.
The simple fact of the matter is that men are required to "choose" before they engage in the act which causes people. Women are given nine months to "choose." And if they choose to bear the child, they can impose upon the man --- who may have wanted the woman to choose an abortion --- to bear a portion of the costs associated with her choice.
Such is the world that Roe has left us in. None of the far Left commentary that I expect to see (attacking this "man") can be taken seriously, because it will be as intellectually chaotic and self-contradictory as Roe itself is.
Vince and a comment by Saphrosyne at TC are right; he's a loser. I would add that he and those who support his legal efforts apparently possess precious little concern for the daughter that he is probably scarring for life with his actions. So I don't admire Matt Dubay. But he is illustrating the intellectual chaos of the radical pro-abortion crowd. The consequences to his child could, of course, have been avoided had the 1972/73 Supreme Court fully considered the consequences of their actions.
And in that, I confess, I take great, albeit conflicted, pleasure.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
LeBlanc Nomination Voted Down
Who woulda thunk it?
I know I'm a little late to the game on this, but it seems that House Republicans have removed their political gonads from the blind trust into which they had heretofore placed them and demonstrated the testicular fortitude to vote down a truly horrendous nomination by Governor Tim Kaine. Former Virginia AFL-CIO leader Danny LeBlanc has been rejected to be Secretary of the Commonwealth.
Of course, there's been the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth by the far Left side of the political blogosphere (well, OK, Waldo doesn't do "wailing"). Ben Tribbett pretty much rolls it down the middle of the table, as does Virginia Centrist, though Ben seems to take some credit for it.
There's even been some complaints from the Conservative side of the blogosphere. Madisonian at SST thinks it's the same as the Democrats' response to Bush judicial nominees. 'Cept, I don't remember Governor Tim ever campaigning on weakening the Commonwealth's Right to Work law. Norm at OMT doesn't even care.
And our friends on this side of the aisle have some good comments. Will Vehrs at Commonwealth Conservative doesn't think that "this vote will have much salience with anyone but political insiders," and he could well be right. But he also rightly notes that Kaine "ran as Warner II, Mr. Bipartisanship, and Mr. Lockbox, not taxes" and "Now that he’s in office, ... has turned into Russ Potts on taxes and turned bipartisan poster boy William Leighty into a partisan hack." Kilo notes Kaine's "174,000 reasons" why LeBlanc got the nod, which is about $1 for every union member in Virginia. Bearing Drift offers some red meat reasons why this was a good decision. Meanwhile, Vince at Too Conservative think this is an indication of hypocrisy.
I tend to think that this was justified on principle, for precisely the reasons cited by Will Vehrs (though he seems to oppose it on practical political grounds). Nevertheless, there are plenty on both sides of the aisle who will dismiss it as simple 'partisanship." They tend to be the ones who wouldn't recognize a principle if it kicked them in the teeth. As Virginia's commitment to the Right to Work principle just kicked Kaine in the teeth.
In a broader sense, though, this says a lot about Virginia. "Mainstream" is one of the most overused and abused words in political discourse. Most of the time, it's used by people who couldn't hit the "mainstream" unless they drove off a bridge into it (and yes, that is a reference to the senior Senator from Tax-achusetts). The main clue is that doctrinaire ideological partisans like Alexandria's Brian Moran denounce it as "doctrinaire, ideological partisan politics." Delegate Clarence E. "Bud" Phillips (D-Dickenson County) was reported to have say that LeBlanc's rhetoric was indicative of the fact that he was representing the interests of a large number of workers, and suggested that a vote against LeBlanc was a vote that "Just because you're a union man or woman ... you're not qualified to serve in some capacity in state, federal or local government."
No, "Bud," that's wrong. This vote was a vote that, when you're so far outside of the mainstream of Virginia politics that you oppose the Commonwealth's Right to Work law, and so arrogant as to claim to represent the interests of the working man or woman, "you're not qualified to serve in some capacity in state, federal or local government."
It's too bad that Kaine and his partisan cronies can't tell the difference between their far Left agenda --- well-disguised in the campaign past --- and the Virginia consensus that labor unions are not a special class of organizations entitled to special privileges. Of course, why wouldn't Democrats want to allow them to extract from unwilling workers monies that would find their way into Democrat political coffers?
LeBlanc is far Left to the extent that even TC recognizes it. This vote by House Republicans reflects the Virginia consensus that labor unions are not entitled to a special privilege that would allow them to perpetuate one party's political power. Moreover, the notion that the Secretary of the Commonwealth "merely" fills political patronage positions, and that this was therefore not an important position, was a red herring. As Virginia's Republican National Committeeman notes in one of his Laws of the Public Policy Process (No. 26), "Personnel is policy." Those who deny that fact are either too unsophisticated about the public policy process to be commenting upon it, or know the truth, and are lying. This was undoubtedly the correct vote.
What is even more disturbing is the implications in Governor Tim's response to it. Kaine said that the vote was "spitting in the face of regular people, regular working people."
Sorry, Governor Tim, but that doesn't wash. Even assuming for the sake of argument that LeBlanc even represented workers who were members of the Virginia AFL-CIO --- politically, he clearly did not, since surveys demonstrate that a large percentage vote Republican, and an overwhelming majority support Virginia's Right to Work law --- the 200,000 members of the Virginia AFL-CIO are a small percentage (only about 5%) of Virginia's nearly 4 million workers. This isn't "spitting in the face of regular people, regular working people"; it's "spitting in the face" of arrogant and self-important ideologues whose claim to represent "regular working people" is belied by their ability to persuade those "regular working people" that association with them is in their best interests.
Get used to it, Governor Tim and far Left Dems. This is Virginia. Support for Right to Work is the "mainstream." And woe be unto any who challenge it.
And an interesting side note: Lowell at Raising Kaine declares Too Conservative (my "archnemesis," according to Shaun Kenney), his "favorite Republican blog by far." I hope Vince and the boys and girls over there are as disturbed by that as I am. That I believe that they will not be speaks volumes about how "Republican" they are.
I know I'm a little late to the game on this, but it seems that House Republicans have removed their political gonads from the blind trust into which they had heretofore placed them and demonstrated the testicular fortitude to vote down a truly horrendous nomination by Governor Tim Kaine. Former Virginia AFL-CIO leader Danny LeBlanc has been rejected to be Secretary of the Commonwealth.
Of course, there's been the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth by the far Left side of the political blogosphere (well, OK, Waldo doesn't do "wailing"). Ben Tribbett pretty much rolls it down the middle of the table, as does Virginia Centrist, though Ben seems to take some credit for it.
There's even been some complaints from the Conservative side of the blogosphere. Madisonian at SST thinks it's the same as the Democrats' response to Bush judicial nominees. 'Cept, I don't remember Governor Tim ever campaigning on weakening the Commonwealth's Right to Work law. Norm at OMT doesn't even care.
And our friends on this side of the aisle have some good comments. Will Vehrs at Commonwealth Conservative doesn't think that "this vote will have much salience with anyone but political insiders," and he could well be right. But he also rightly notes that Kaine "ran as Warner II, Mr. Bipartisanship, and Mr. Lockbox, not taxes" and "Now that he’s in office, ... has turned into Russ Potts on taxes and turned bipartisan poster boy William Leighty into a partisan hack." Kilo notes Kaine's "174,000 reasons" why LeBlanc got the nod, which is about $1 for every union member in Virginia. Bearing Drift offers some red meat reasons why this was a good decision. Meanwhile, Vince at Too Conservative think this is an indication of hypocrisy.
I tend to think that this was justified on principle, for precisely the reasons cited by Will Vehrs (though he seems to oppose it on practical political grounds). Nevertheless, there are plenty on both sides of the aisle who will dismiss it as simple 'partisanship." They tend to be the ones who wouldn't recognize a principle if it kicked them in the teeth. As Virginia's commitment to the Right to Work principle just kicked Kaine in the teeth.
In a broader sense, though, this says a lot about Virginia. "Mainstream" is one of the most overused and abused words in political discourse. Most of the time, it's used by people who couldn't hit the "mainstream" unless they drove off a bridge into it (and yes, that is a reference to the senior Senator from Tax-achusetts). The main clue is that doctrinaire ideological partisans like Alexandria's Brian Moran denounce it as "doctrinaire, ideological partisan politics." Delegate Clarence E. "Bud" Phillips (D-Dickenson County) was reported to have say that LeBlanc's rhetoric was indicative of the fact that he was representing the interests of a large number of workers, and suggested that a vote against LeBlanc was a vote that "Just because you're a union man or woman ... you're not qualified to serve in some capacity in state, federal or local government."
No, "Bud," that's wrong. This vote was a vote that, when you're so far outside of the mainstream of Virginia politics that you oppose the Commonwealth's Right to Work law, and so arrogant as to claim to represent the interests of the working man or woman, "you're not qualified to serve in some capacity in state, federal or local government."
It's too bad that Kaine and his partisan cronies can't tell the difference between their far Left agenda --- well-disguised in the campaign past --- and the Virginia consensus that labor unions are not a special class of organizations entitled to special privileges. Of course, why wouldn't Democrats want to allow them to extract from unwilling workers monies that would find their way into Democrat political coffers?
LeBlanc is far Left to the extent that even TC recognizes it. This vote by House Republicans reflects the Virginia consensus that labor unions are not entitled to a special privilege that would allow them to perpetuate one party's political power. Moreover, the notion that the Secretary of the Commonwealth "merely" fills political patronage positions, and that this was therefore not an important position, was a red herring. As Virginia's Republican National Committeeman notes in one of his Laws of the Public Policy Process (No. 26), "Personnel is policy." Those who deny that fact are either too unsophisticated about the public policy process to be commenting upon it, or know the truth, and are lying. This was undoubtedly the correct vote.
What is even more disturbing is the implications in Governor Tim's response to it. Kaine said that the vote was "spitting in the face of regular people, regular working people."
Sorry, Governor Tim, but that doesn't wash. Even assuming for the sake of argument that LeBlanc even represented workers who were members of the Virginia AFL-CIO --- politically, he clearly did not, since surveys demonstrate that a large percentage vote Republican, and an overwhelming majority support Virginia's Right to Work law --- the 200,000 members of the Virginia AFL-CIO are a small percentage (only about 5%) of Virginia's nearly 4 million workers. This isn't "spitting in the face of regular people, regular working people"; it's "spitting in the face" of arrogant and self-important ideologues whose claim to represent "regular working people" is belied by their ability to persuade those "regular working people" that association with them is in their best interests.
Get used to it, Governor Tim and far Left Dems. This is Virginia. Support for Right to Work is the "mainstream." And woe be unto any who challenge it.
And an interesting side note: Lowell at Raising Kaine declares Too Conservative (my "archnemesis," according to Shaun Kenney), his "favorite Republican blog by far." I hope Vince and the boys and girls over there are as disturbed by that as I am. That I believe that they will not be speaks volumes about how "Republican" they are.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Justice Ginsburg Dozes Off During Oral Argument
It seems that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed off during oral arguments yesterday.
I would love to comment on this. I really would. If you happen to run into me, ask me what I think. But, as I have a Supreme Court practice, there is not a snowball's chance that I'm going to put anything that comes to mind in writing.
Discretion is truly the better part of valor.
UPDATE: Wow! Gotta be careful about this. Somebody just asked me to send her the link to this thread. Here it is: http://skepticalobservor.blogspot.com/2006/03/justice-ginsburg-dozes -off-during-oral.html
I would love to comment on this. I really would. If you happen to run into me, ask me what I think. But, as I have a Supreme Court practice, there is not a snowball's chance that I'm going to put anything that comes to mind in writing.
Discretion is truly the better part of valor.
UPDATE: Wow! Gotta be careful about this. Somebody just asked me to send her the link to this thread. Here it is: http://skepticalobservor.blogspot.com/2006/03/justice-ginsburg-dozes -off-during-oral.html
Sad News to Report
Sadly, I opened my Potomac News today to learn that long-time Republican activist Dawn Conlan has passed away. I vividly remember driving her convertible in a Montclair parade or two.
Condolences to her family and other friends. Services will be held at 4 p.m., on Monday, 6 March, at First United Presbyterian Church of Dale City.
Condolences to her family and other friends. Services will be held at 4 p.m., on Monday, 6 March, at First United Presbyterian Church of Dale City.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Kaine Ably Abandons Growth Controls
Delegate Bob Marshall dropped me an e-mail yesterday, and asked that I expose Governor Tim's latest perfidy. Always willing to help Brother Bob:
Wow! A Democrat Governor who promptly abandons a promise? Who woulda thunk it?
The governor appears to have suspended his support for growth controls.
If the Post does not run a story Wednesday about the letter below it is because the Governor's people were successful late today in quashing a story that Michael Shear worked on all day and over the weekend.
Shear told me that the Gov. caved to developers to suspend an effort of mine to amend one of my bills with the Governos's growth control bill, which I introduced in exchange for their nonopposition to one of his tax proposals and their nonopposition to a transfer of development rights bill which environmental groups can take or leave, it is that unimportant to them.
I had gone to the Governor and told him I was willing to lose one of my bills becasue an amendment could be germanely added to bring the growth control issue of a record vote in the House.
His aide on this came to me a few days later and said the Governor wants to go ahead full bore which we did for about eight or nine days until yesterday. We had the votes in the Senate Local Government Committee last Friday.
See the letter below.
Bob Marshall
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Mr. Chris Miller
President, Piedmont Environmental Council
45 Horner Street
Warrenton, Virginia 20186
Re: Reversal of Governor’s Growth Control Efforts
Dear Chris,
Last Friday senior Kaine Administration officials were in my office working on an effort to add the growth control provisions of the Governor’s HB 1610 to my HB 1192 which is now in the Senate Local Government Committee. I was told we had the votes to pass this amendment which would be offered by Sen. Cuccinelli of Fairfax.
HB 1610, which I introduced on behalf of Governor Kaine, allows a locality to deny or modify a request for rezoning when the existing and future transportation network, which will serve the proposed development, is inadequate to handle the anticipated transportation impact of the proposed development if the developer will not make up any transportation deficiency.
After working on this team effort for about week to ten days, the Governor’s aides informed me late yesterday that the Governor now will not take a formal position on the effort to add the provisions of his HB 1610 to my HB 1192. This is most puzzling.
I was told the reason for this was that the amendment might lose in the House of Delegates when the bill would be returned for our consideration of the amendment. However, securing a recorded vote in the House of Delegates on this issue is a major victory in itself, and this amendment process was the one sure way to secure such a vote.
I just wanted to update you on my efforts.
Sincerely,
Delegate Bob Marshall
Wow! A Democrat Governor who promptly abandons a promise? Who woulda thunk it?
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
The Controversy Over the UAE and Ports
Just a couple of quick observations on this issue, because I really don't know how I come out on it.
1. The entire controversy is late. Our wonderful so-called "mainstream" media was hunting Dick Cheney when this issue first arose, and are paying attention to the issue late.
2. That Jimmy Carter and the Washington Post support the President's position on this issue gives me pause.
3. Not John Behan at Commonwealth Watch has a good post here.
4. There are pros and cons on both sides. On the one hand, Arab companies deserve more scrutiny. Not all Arabs are terrorists, but all of the 9/11 terrorists were Arabs. At the same time, most of the commentary that I've heard on the issue sounds a lot like reflexive --- dare I say it? --- racism. Many commentators are speaking to their "feeling" about the issue, without any specifics.
The bottom line, I suppose, is that the President can make a case on this, and should. While I respect his desire to entrust the decision to good people that he supports, this initial and well-intentioned reaction is untenable given the growing firestorm. The fact is, as Not John Behan notes, that Americans trust the President on security issues more than they trust virtually anyone that the Democrats can put forward. But that trust isn't reflexive in the face of legitimate security questions over what many recognize as our most vulnerable point of entry into the United States.
1. The entire controversy is late. Our wonderful so-called "mainstream" media was hunting Dick Cheney when this issue first arose, and are paying attention to the issue late.
2. That Jimmy Carter and the Washington Post support the President's position on this issue gives me pause.
3. Not John Behan at Commonwealth Watch has a good post here.
4. There are pros and cons on both sides. On the one hand, Arab companies deserve more scrutiny. Not all Arabs are terrorists, but all of the 9/11 terrorists were Arabs. At the same time, most of the commentary that I've heard on the issue sounds a lot like reflexive --- dare I say it? --- racism. Many commentators are speaking to their "feeling" about the issue, without any specifics.
The bottom line, I suppose, is that the President can make a case on this, and should. While I respect his desire to entrust the decision to good people that he supports, this initial and well-intentioned reaction is untenable given the growing firestorm. The fact is, as Not John Behan notes, that Americans trust the President on security issues more than they trust virtually anyone that the Democrats can put forward. But that trust isn't reflexive in the face of legitimate security questions over what many recognize as our most vulnerable point of entry into the United States.
A Sign of the Impending Apocalypse?
Just spent a weekend visiting the family in Central Pennsylvania, so this may have something to do with this:
Does anyone else out there find themselves strangely drawn to the Olympic Curling competition on USA Network?
Apparently so. I heard a report the other day that said that the United States' association's website had more hits on one day last week than it had during all of 2002.
Does anyone else out there find themselves strangely drawn to the Olympic Curling competition on USA Network?
Apparently so. I heard a report the other day that said that the United States' association's website had more hits on one day last week than it had during all of 2002.
Analysis of PWC GOP Committee Membership
One of the raps on Conservatives from self-styled moderates/"Group A"-types (tip o' the hat to TC)/Sean-Connaughton-cult-of-personality types in the blogosphere has been the "declining membership" of the Prince William County Republican Committee. Bert Buscher put together and e-mailed an analysis a few days ago (I've interposed it now that I have his permission to do so):
Here's the Study (I hope the tables translate):
Membership Chairman Bob FitzSimmonds sent around his rejoinder late yesterday. Bob offers an interesting analysis, one that speaks from years of experience and participation. Haven't had a chance to compare it to Bert's yet, but both are worth reading. Here's Bob's rejoinder:
I have been troubled by the PWCRC membership losses. So I decided to quantify what those losses were. Attached is the result of my study.
My study’s conclusions are:
- At least 60% of our membership, 200 members, has been lost from August 2004 to February 2006, an 18 month time period. (See Table 1).
- Actions to correct the loss of members should been taken no later than the summer of 2005. This implies that there is not a membership monitoring process or a control process for signaling this problem.
Over a week ago I shared the results of my documentation with Bob FitzSimmonds, PWCRC Membership Chairman, and via Bob with Brian Murphy, PWCRC Chairman. By telephone, I have talked to both of them. They are not being blind sided by the distribution of my study.
Also, by contacting them I was insuring that I had not missed something or should have taken something else into consideration. Bob FitzSimmonds raised an excellent point that PWCRC had an influx of members at the May 2004 meeting who did not attend membership meetings after that. These non-dedicated members were quickly dropped from the membership rolls by missing 3 consecutive membership meetings. Table 2 of the study takes this phenomenon into account.
By distributing this study I hope to trigger corrective actions for PWCRC’s shrinking membership problem.Regards,
Bert Buscher
Republican Chairman of the Gainesville Magisterial District of PWC
Prince William County Republican Committee
August 2004 to February 2006
Membership Study
Introduction
PWCRC membership totals over an 18-month period are provided by this study. The membership data sources are the MS Excel membership files that are e-mailed at irregular intervals to the Republican Chairmen of the PWC Magisterial Districts. The tables’ “Cumulative Change” columns document the membership count changes from August 2, 2004.
Assumptions concerning member counts have been made. These assumptions are explained in the “Assumptions Made in this Study” section.
The study’s conclusions are:
At least 60% of our membership, 200 members, has been lost from August 2004 to February 2006, an 18 month time period. (See Table 1).
Actions to correct the loss of members should been taken no later than the summer of 2005. This implies that there is not a membership monitoring process or a control process for signaling this problem.
This study is not an analysis of membership changes. It simply documents membership totals over an 18-month time period.
What follows are 2 table sections, assumptions made section, and a conclusion section.
Actual Membership Change
PWCRC has lost at least 60% or 200 members in the past 18 months, from August 2004 to February 2006. Table 1 documents how much and when these losses occurred.
PWCRC Membership Totals from August 2004 to February 2006
Cumulative Change
File Received Date Member Count Change from Prior File Member Count Percentage
August 2, 2004 333
November 19, 2004 285 -48 -48 -14.41%
March 28, 2005 209 -76 -124 -37.24%
May 1, 2005 171 -38 -162 -48.65%
January 23, 2006 140 -31 -193 -57.96%
February 2006 133 -7 -200 -60.06%
Table 1 – Actual Membership Count
Adjusted Membership Change
Table 2 is Table 1 with an adjusted August 2, 2004 member count. The 50 non-dedicated PWCRC member count was subtracted from this member count of 333 to give a count of 283. PWCRC has lost at least 150 dedicated members during an 18-month period, 53% of its dedicated membership.
PWCRC Membership Totals from August 2004 to February 2006
Cumulative Change
File Received Date Member Count Change from Prior File Member Count Percentage
August 2, 2004 283
November 19, 2004 285 2 2 0.71%
March 28, 2005 209 -76 -74 -26.15%
May 1, 2005 171 -38 -112 -39.58%
January 23, 2006 140 -31 -143 -50.53%
February 2006 133 -7 -150 -53.00%
Table 2 – Adjusted Membership Count
Assumptions Made in this Study
Tables 1 and 2 – February 2006 Assumption
Members who miss 3 consecutive PWCRC meetings are dropped from membership. There were 28 members on the drop list for the January 23, 2006 PWCRC membership meeting. If they did not attend this meeting, then they would be dropped from membership. At this time the number of members dropped after this meeting has not yet been determined. Assuming that ¼ of these 28 members did not attend, then 7 members would have been dropped after this meeting.
The February 2006 count reflects the 7 members assumed lost. Given the prior membership loss experience, this assumption is extremely conservative. Note that a more realistic 21 member loss would be a total membership loss of 64% in Table 1 and 58% in Table 2.
With the conservative assumption of 7 members dropped, the actual losses should be worst than shown in the tables. The tables give “At Least” losses for February 2006.
Tables 2 Assumption
There was an unusual turnover in 2004 membership due to an influx of members joining at the May 2004 meeting and then not attending later meetings or at most attending 1 or 2 meetings. These members were not dedicated Republicans. This non-dedicated member group count is included in the total member count for August 2, 2004. The no records exist giving the number of these individuals in this group. Note that by the November 19, 2004 file distribution; the
non-dedicated members had been dropped from membership. The effects of these non-dedicated members on membership totals may be removed to reflect only dedicated PWCRC members.
It seems everyone agrees that PWCRC has continually lost members during the study period. The size of the non-dedicated member group must not be large enough to cause a gain in membership. To have no increase, Table 1 above shows the non-dedicated member group should be 48. An assumption of 50 non-dedicated individuals would yield an increase of 2 members at the November 19, 2004 PWCRC membership meeting. This assumption of 50 is purposely too conservative, so it will be used.
With the assumption of 50 non-dedicated members in the August 2, 2004 count, the August 2, 2004 member count is reduced from 333 by 50 to 283 members. Table 2 shows Table 1 revised for dedicated only members. The net effect is a 7% lower loss rate.
Conclusion
The purpose of this simple study is to document PWCRC’s membership totals for the last 18 months in table form. Whether Table 1’s 60% or Table 2’s 53% loss is used for judging what has transpired is somewhat immaterial. Debating over which huge loss number should be used is not constructive. Taking 2/3 of the 60% loss still gives a huge loss of 40%!
Shown in the tables is the fact that corrective action should have been triggered during 2005. One can debate when this action should have been triggered, but surely by May 2005 a wakeup call should have been given.
Based on the foregoing, the conclusions are:
At least 60% of our membership, 200 members, has been lost from August 2004 to February 2006, an 18 month time period. (See Table 1).
Actions to correct the loss of members should been taken no later than the summer of 2005. This implies that there is not a membership monitoring process or a control process for signaling this problem.
Hopefully this study will trigger the current membership into taking corrective actions.
Bert Buscher February 20, 2006
Membership Chairman Bob FitzSimmonds sent around his rejoinder late yesterday. Bob offers an interesting analysis, one that speaks from years of experience and participation. Haven't had a chance to compare it to Bert's yet, but both are worth reading. Here's Bob's rejoinder:
I apologize for the length of this email. If it is just too long, I have bolded some pertinent facts to help you skim over it.I am responding to an email that you may have recently received from Bert Buscher concerning membership stats for the PWC GOP committee. Bert summed up his email by stating that we have suffered a 60% loss in membership and that there is "no membership monitoring process or control process for signaling this problem". I am answering the email in my capacity as Membership Chairman of the Committee. Bert and I have discussed his views on this and I appreciate that he made attempts to correct his original data with information I gave him (members who joined but never attended, for example). Nonetheless, it seems to me that his data (and hence, his analysis) is flawed in several ways.Wrong ComparisonComparing a point of highest enrollment to a point at the end of the same committee cycle doesn't really tell you much. Every committee cycle tends to start with the core group, expand to include folks who are attracted by our activities and then fall off toward the end of the cycle. In our case, we started two years ago with 145 members and have ended up with a remarkably similar 144 members, for a net loss of 1 member.A genuine comparison should be from one committee cycle to another. Unfortunately, for us this is problematic as well, because we have just started keeping good records in regard to the "3 meeting rule". So while I have a roster for 2002, it is hard to say if this is everyone who ever joined the committee (my guess) or just a snapshot at some point in time. In any event, the committee roster I have has 230 people on it. You will note that this is far less than the number who have joined during the current cycle (approximately 365). But if you calculate in a reasonable drop rate for the 3 meeting rule, you will end up somewhere in the neighborhood of the 125-150 members that have typified our committee for as long as I have been a member.Is this a great victory? No, not particularly. But neither are we hemorrhaging members as Bert maintains. Anyone who has been around for any length of time can remember when we had no members from Neabsco. Few can remember a time when Brentsville was as robust as it is now. We have lost a few long time members and we have added a few new faces. But the truth is that the committee is remarkably stable, particularly in light of how disagreeable some of our meetings have been over the last two years.Too Short A ViewAs noted, Bert's numbers cover a period of only 18 months, starting 5 months after the beginning of the current committee cycle and concluding 2 months prior to the end of this cycle. For anyone who has been involved in this committee for very long, it is clear that the 18 month period Bert uses was unusual in the life of the committee. In addition to a presidential campaign and a gubernatorial campaign, we had a contentious battle between two factions in our local committee. All of these things served to temporarily boost the numbers of people joining the committee. This was so much so, that we were temporarily unable to meet in McCoart, where we have met for nearly 10 years.Monitoring and Control ProcessAs to Bert's final contention, we do have a monitoring and control process and it is exactly that process that Bert used to prepare his data. Every bit of data used in his analysis was gleaned from records we kept for the first time. Brian set up an ad hoc committee (Me, Steve Danziger, Jane Beyer) to establish a mechanism to keep proper records and to support the 3 meeting rule. We met several times and established a system of roll taking and rosters to mark committee membership. We produced new updates after each meeting (usually) and we notified folks when they were in danger of losing their membership (again, usually). The system was not flawless, but we did make this effort. If we had not, Bert would not have know how many folks joined, left, attended meetings, etc.
ConclusionBert draws a grim picture, but the historical data I provided above, would suggest otherwise. I hope folks find this information helpful.Bob FitzSimmondsMembership ChairmanPrince William Republican Committee
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Dick Cheney's Hunting Accident and the Media
Rarely has so-called "main stream" media bias been in more stark relief than in the treatment of Dick Cheney's hunting accident.
A media which treats seriously and with respect a far-Left Senator who failed to report to authorities a fatal traffic accident until more than eight hours later is now complaining because the White House didn't see fit to report to them (the media) an apparently minor hunting accident.
A media which treats seriously and with respect a far-Left Senator who failed to report to authorities a fatal traffic accident until more than eight hours later is now complaining because the White House didn't see fit to report to them (the media) an apparently minor hunting accident.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Dick Cheney's Hunting Accident
Apparently, the blogosphere is all atwitter over Dick Cheney's hunting mishap. Even the normally sensible Old Zach at SST says he should resign.
This is pretty silly. Accidents happen. A man was hurt, and that is a pity, but he'll apparently recover, and it's a risk one assumes when one engages in the activity.
'Course, the chance that I'd accept an invitation to go hunting with the Vice President is now roughly the same as the chance that I'd accept a ride from Teddy Kennedy.
Or get either.
UPDATE: Doug makes a similar observation here.
This is pretty silly. Accidents happen. A man was hurt, and that is a pity, but he'll apparently recover, and it's a risk one assumes when one engages in the activity.
'Course, the chance that I'd accept an invitation to go hunting with the Vice President is now roughly the same as the chance that I'd accept a ride from Teddy Kennedy.
Or get either.
UPDATE: Doug makes a similar observation here.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
This Is Truly Hilarious
Remember all those scurrilous rumors about Tom Cruise, before he impregnated Katie Holmes?
Then you'll have to go out and see Top Gun II: Brokeback Squadron.
Then you'll have to go out and see Top Gun II: Brokeback Squadron.
Asinine Pot. News Letterwriter
It seems that the pro-government school monopolists have little but hate and misrepresentation to offer in response to any proposal to free children and their parents from the propagandization of government schools.
The latest example appeared in today's Potomac News, where Tony Ares of Woodbridge responded to a column by Jim Simpson advocating vouchers (I apologize, but the sorry Pot. News doesn't have a link to today's letters). It seems that, according to Ares, "Conservatives love to mask their real reason for supporting a voucher program." Why do we --- I consider myself a conservative, notwithstanding efforts of some to water-down the "name brand" --- "love the idea of vouchers"?
According to Ares, the "real reason" is a "thinly veiled excuse to reinstate Jim Crow," to "indoctrinate [our] children with old bigotry."
Wow! That would certainly come as news to my children, who have attended two affirmatively Christian private schools where a large minority, if not majority, of children are of different races. It wasn't intentional; Mrs. Young and I didn't care about the racial makeup of the schools, though I suppose we might have had they been entirely of one race or another. Our only concern was that they get a quality, values-based education, and that they were indoctrinated with the pro-government propaganda and the "latest thing" directed by the National Education Association.
And it would certainly come as a surprise to their godfather, whom they affectionately refer to as "Uncle" Rossie, who is, in the words of Ares, a "black [or] brown" person with whom they "deal" regularly.
Of course, what my children don't get at their Christian, private schools, is government indoctrination, and experimentation with the latest educational fad. They don't have to wonder to whom, at Thanksgiving, we are giving "thanks." They aren't subjected to history lessons where the Christian roots of the American experiment are ignored in favor of "grievance" history.
They are, however, educated at probably less than half the cost of a Prince William County government school, where our tax dollars are subsidizing an over-bureaucratized system.
The last pro-"Jim Crow" private school in Virginia of which I am aware was the Prince Edward Academy, founded in 1959 to educate white children in Prince Edward County and the surrounding area when the local fathers, in response to forced desegregation, closed the local public schools for four years rather than integrate them.
However, even that vestige of Jim Crow went the way of Jim Crow laws in 1993, when it became the Fuqua School, with an endowment from J. B. Fuqua, who had grown up in the area and became a world-renowned businessman and philanthropist in Atlanta.
If somebody sees or knows Tony Ares, you really should welcome him to the 21st Century. Jim Crow is long dead and buried. School choice is not now, nor has it ever been, about oppression. It's about freedom for parents and their children. And while there might be a few who would abuse school vouchers and tax credits for the purposes identified by him, the vast majority of advocates for school choice have no interest in the vile and despicable motives attributed to them by Ares. Indeed, the only vile and despicable motives truly discernable in this dispute are those of Ares, demonstrated by his naked race-baiting.
'Course, I suspect that it's intentional. After all, some of the most articulate and passionate advocates for school choice are black Americans. And the far Left has much to fear when the demographic contingent most loyal to the Democrat Party gets off the Liberal "plantation."
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Getting Odd Messages
For some reason, I can't seem to access my website, and others on blogger. Interesting.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Another Democrat Hate Campaign
It seems my old friend, Ralph Reed, has become the target of another Democrat hate campaign. Ralph was earning his doctorate at Emory while I was earning my J.D. at the law school.
Congratulations, Ralph! A singular honor.
Congratulations, Ralph! A singular honor.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
When Good Teenagers Go Bad
It seems that Vince Thoms, the self-described "Too Conservative," has had some fantasies about Chairman Sean and the status of Kate Obenshain Griffin as Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia. TC thinks that Chairman Sean should replace Kate.
While the wailing and gnashing of teeth over a few GOP losses in special elections against an energized Virginia Democrat Party is interesting, one really has to wonder whether it is merely the effort of so-called "moderate" Republicans to reclaim the control over the GOP that they lost nearly three decades ago. You know: when the GOP started winning in Virginia.
But Chairman Sean as RPV Chairman? What a great idea! Elect as Party Chairman someone who holds in contempt one of the four Republican state-wide office holders (and the highest Republican vote-getter in 2005), and one whose candidacy for statewide office was rejected by Republican voters. Great message that would send to the grass roots. And that's a great way to insure evenhandedness if there is a contest between McDonnell and Bolling in 2009.
TC also decided to belittle those who find Chairman Sean's character and ethics wanting, but ignores the fact that the dispute that many of us have with him is about policy, first and foremost: his tax and spend ways. TC and others try to talk their way around it, but the fact is that Chairman Sean has presided over massive tax increases in PWC.
And he has done so not by justifying his spending increases --- some of which may be justified --- but by demonizing fiscal conservatives and conducting the debate in Left-wing terms: "Where would you cut?" In fact, the thoughtful opposition of the Prince William Taxpayers Alliance has only suggested that the rate of increases be limited to a far greater extent than he has ever been interested in, or, at least, was ever interested in until he got statewide ambitions.
Chairman Sean learned his lessons well, and adopted the same tactic used by Clinton and congressional Democrats in the late Nineties: have bureaucrats write budgets which propose massive increases, and label (inaccurately) any proposal to limit those increases as "cuts." My conception of leadership is somewhat different: grab a spendthrift bureaucracy by the gonads, and don't let go 'til they scream.
Without saying anything else about Chairman Sean, I stand by my earlier comment: elected public officials should not hold Party office. And that includes my friend Eugene Delgaudio, running for Tenth Congressional District Chairman.
Aside from the absurdity of TC's suggestion, it is his premise which is faulty, as I fail to see why the long knives should be out for Kate. Sure, we've had a bad string in specials, but we won two out of three statewide offices in the General. Kilgore's loss is attributable to three things: Kilgore's inept campaign; Kaine's dishonest campaign; and Marky Mark's inexplicable popularity. Our losses in the specials, I would contend, are due to local factors not attributable to Kate's leadership.
While the wailing and gnashing of teeth over a few GOP losses in special elections against an energized Virginia Democrat Party is interesting, one really has to wonder whether it is merely the effort of so-called "moderate" Republicans to reclaim the control over the GOP that they lost nearly three decades ago. You know: when the GOP started winning in Virginia.
But Chairman Sean as RPV Chairman? What a great idea! Elect as Party Chairman someone who holds in contempt one of the four Republican state-wide office holders (and the highest Republican vote-getter in 2005), and one whose candidacy for statewide office was rejected by Republican voters. Great message that would send to the grass roots. And that's a great way to insure evenhandedness if there is a contest between McDonnell and Bolling in 2009.
TC also decided to belittle those who find Chairman Sean's character and ethics wanting, but ignores the fact that the dispute that many of us have with him is about policy, first and foremost: his tax and spend ways. TC and others try to talk their way around it, but the fact is that Chairman Sean has presided over massive tax increases in PWC.
And he has done so not by justifying his spending increases --- some of which may be justified --- but by demonizing fiscal conservatives and conducting the debate in Left-wing terms: "Where would you cut?" In fact, the thoughtful opposition of the Prince William Taxpayers Alliance has only suggested that the rate of increases be limited to a far greater extent than he has ever been interested in, or, at least, was ever interested in until he got statewide ambitions.
Chairman Sean learned his lessons well, and adopted the same tactic used by Clinton and congressional Democrats in the late Nineties: have bureaucrats write budgets which propose massive increases, and label (inaccurately) any proposal to limit those increases as "cuts." My conception of leadership is somewhat different: grab a spendthrift bureaucracy by the gonads, and don't let go 'til they scream.
Without saying anything else about Chairman Sean, I stand by my earlier comment: elected public officials should not hold Party office. And that includes my friend Eugene Delgaudio, running for Tenth Congressional District Chairman.
Aside from the absurdity of TC's suggestion, it is his premise which is faulty, as I fail to see why the long knives should be out for Kate. Sure, we've had a bad string in specials, but we won two out of three statewide offices in the General. Kilgore's loss is attributable to three things: Kilgore's inept campaign; Kaine's dishonest campaign; and Marky Mark's inexplicable popularity. Our losses in the specials, I would contend, are due to local factors not attributable to Kate's leadership.
Capturing Hitlary's Essence
A colleague sent me this. Perhaps the most accurate picture of Hitlary that I've ever seen. Doesn't it perfectly capture her inner maniac?
UPDATE: Chad Dotson has a great "Separated at Birth" here.
Four Things
Seen this elsewhere. Why not?
Four jobs I’ve had
1. Boy Scout Camp Counselor/Lifeguard
2. Library Assistant
3. Waiter
4. Lawyer
Four movies I can watch over and over
1. The Gallant Hours
2. To Kill a Mockingbird
3. Patton
4. Star Trek: First Contact
Four places I’ve lived
1. Logansport, Indiana
2. Northumberland, Pennsylvania
3. Decatur, Georgia
4. Montclair, Virginia
Four TV shows I love
1. Law and Order --- any iteration
2. Star Trek --- any iteration
3. Monty Python’s Flying Circus
4. L.A. Law
Four places I’ve vacationed
1. St. George Island, Florida
2. Bay Area, California
3. Knoebel's Grove, Central Pennsylvania
4. Seattle, Washington/Vancouver, B.C.
Four of my favorite dishes
1. Chicken Fettucine Alfredo
2. Teppanyaki Filet, Shrimp, & Scallops
3. Sushi --- Salmon; smoked salmon; Philadelphia Roll (see a theme here?)
4. Maple Bacon
Four sites I visit daily
1. Commonwealth Conservative
2. Drudge
3. Anchorage Daily News
4. Too Conservative
Four places I would rather be right now
1. Kailua, Oahu, Hawaii
2. Anchorage, Alaska
3. Bay Area, California
4. Hampden-Sydney
Four bloggers I am tagging
1. Scott Hirons
2. Virginia Centrist
3. Chris Casey
4. Shaun Kenney
Charges Dropped
The Capitol Hill Police have dropped charges against Cindy Sheehan, who appeared in the gallery at the State of the Union address as a guest of California Democrat Lynn Woolsey wearing a t-shirt reading "2245 Dead. How many more?" The wife of Congressman Bill Young, Beverly, whose local home is in eastern Prince William County, was also removed. She was wearing a shirt that read "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom." According to the Washington Times, Mrs. Young (no relation) told the St. Petersburg Times, "They said I was protesting. I said, 'Read my shirt; it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot.'"
Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer apologized to both.
I agree with Chief Gainer's decisions on all counts. Both should have been removed, for House Chamber during the State of the Union Address is not an appropriate venue for protest. I would assert that the House Chamber is never an appropriate venue for protest or comment of any kind. And I agree with his decision to remove Mrs. Young. Had he not done so, Cindy Sheehan would have had the basis for a potentially-successful lawsuit for content-based discrimination.
Actually, though, Mrs. Young was partially right, too. There were two idiots in this imbroglio (saying Cindy Sheehan is an idiot is redundant). They were Mrs. Young, and Congresswoman Woolsey.
Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer apologized to both.
I agree with Chief Gainer's decisions on all counts. Both should have been removed, for House Chamber during the State of the Union Address is not an appropriate venue for protest. I would assert that the House Chamber is never an appropriate venue for protest or comment of any kind. And I agree with his decision to remove Mrs. Young. Had he not done so, Cindy Sheehan would have had the basis for a potentially-successful lawsuit for content-based discrimination.
Actually, though, Mrs. Young was partially right, too. There were two idiots in this imbroglio (saying Cindy Sheehan is an idiot is redundant). They were Mrs. Young, and Congresswoman Woolsey.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
The Washington Post Discovers America
Interesting article in today's Washington Post about Randolph, Utah, where more than 95% of voters cast their ballots for President Bush in 2004. David Finkel wrote a balanced article profiling the town and its people.
While it might come as news to most Post readers and reporters, this town reflects a majority of Americans.
While it might come as news to most Post readers and reporters, this town reflects a majority of Americans.
Who You See at the Airport Sometimes Amazes
Was flying out of IAD this afternoon, and was waiting to board at the gate.
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.
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.
Coretta Scott King --- RIP
The widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King, passed away last night.
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.
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
Harry Parrish Ill and In the Hospital
I hope the information is wrong, but I was told this evening that Delegate Harry Parrish (R-Manassas), Chairman of the House Finance Committee, is ill and in the hospital. Word is that he is not expected to return to his duties during the session.
I covet your prayers for Harry, his wife, Mattie, and his entire family, for a full and speedy recovery.
I covet your prayers for Harry, his wife, Mattie, and his entire family, for a full and speedy recovery.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Now Here's a Unique Campaign Pledge
It seems that Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi's latest campaign pledge is somewhat ... personal.
'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?
'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
Heidi Stirrup for Tenth District GOP Chairman
The boys over at Too Conservative managed to get themselves all in a dither over Heidi Stirrup's candidacy for Tenth District Republican Chairman. She is running against long-time incumbent Jim Rich, who has the support of Republican Congressman Frank Wolf, who represents the District in Congress.
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.
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
The Poodle Wants a Filibuster
Will somebody please tell John Kerry who won the 2004 presidential election?
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."
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."
Marriage Amendment Passes the Senate
Just when you're about to give up hope on the Repubmocrat majority in Virginia's State Senate, they do a single praiseworthy thing.
'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.
'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
Completely Predictable WaPo Editorial
Boy with a father who "is a convicted felon with a long rap sheet" apparently accidentally shoots girl in Maryland after "bragg[ing] that he had access to guns," in the latest of "years of similar incidents and anguish and debate."
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.
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
Another Hampden-Sydney Man in the House
It appears that Virginia's newest delegate is Chris Peace, a fellow Hampden-Sydney man!
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!
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
Chairman Sean and Big Labor Evasions
Over at TC, Mitch Cumstein suggested that I had made an "unfair ... distortion of the facts" about an answer Chairman Sean gave in a debate before last year's primary.
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:
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.
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:
Jim:
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
Interesting Post About Issues Close to Home
I caught this article in today's Post, too, and was going to comment on it, but Below the Beltway beat me to it.
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.
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
Comment Moderation Enabled
Well, one of the first things that a parent learns is that children change things.
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.
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
They Must Be Terrified
It seems that France's President Jacques Chirac is reserving the right to nuclear retaliation against any state that carries out a terrorist attack against it.
Does anyone else doubt that potential terrorist are quaking in their boots?
Does anyone else doubt that potential terrorist are quaking in their boots?
Taliban Johnny's Dad Wants Clemency
It seems that the father of John Walker Lindh --- who left Johnny's mother for another man --- is asking that President Bush grant his son clemency for the 20-year sentence imposed as the result of a plea bargain.
The real tragedy is that Taliban Johnny wasn't tried for treason.
The real tragedy is that Taliban Johnny wasn't tried for treason.
WaPo Turns Off Blog
It seems that Pravda on the Potomac is addressing some of the same problems we work through in the Virginia blogosphere. It is shut down the comments section to its blog after commenters responding to Ombudsman Deborah Howell's column --- daring to point out that the Jack Abramoff scandal involves Democrats, too --- turned "nasty."
For the record, I --- for one --- never posted a comment there.
For the record, I --- for one --- never posted a comment there.
To Borrow a Title: "Huh?!?!?!"
It seems our friend TC and many of his readers advocate unilateral disarmament in the face of societal nihilists.
Demonstrating Class Over at Raising Kaine
Once again, the socialists over at Raising Kaine demonstrate their class by use of an adjective of venerable Anglo-Saxon origins.
Darwin Award Nominee
I can only imagine the pain of her parents, but the facts coming out about this fatal accident suggest that the young lady killed is in the running for a Darwin Award:
15 years old
Driving at 4:00 a.m.
100 miles/hour
Coming home from visiting her ex-boyfriend
15 years old
Driving at 4:00 a.m.
100 miles/hour
Coming home from visiting her ex-boyfriend
PWC Personal Property Taxes to Rise
I hope the reader recognizes the self-control necessary to eschew (for now) further comment on this.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Prince William Dems Elect New Officers
It seems that our friends over at the Prince William Democrat Committee have reorganized themselves for the coming two years. Here are there new officers:
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"?
- 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
New Virginia Cost-Cutting Blog Goes Over 1000 Hits
Congratulations to Delegate Chris Saxman and his VACostCutting blog, upon which I was the 1001st hit early this morning. It has the potential to be a good read.
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.
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
Getting to the Point on Alito
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
Hypocrisies Among Our "Moderate" Friends
As I recall, it was George F. Will who once wrote that one should hold onto one's wallet whenever approached by a group representing itself as "concerned" about one thing or another. 'Course, as I also recall, this was in the days before Concerned Women for America, so perhaps that group is the exception that proves the rule.
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:
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.
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.
Very Funny
It seems that some over at Too Conservative are all in a tizzy over the candidacy of Tom Kopko for County Chairman. This alone commends Tom for consideration.
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:
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
One of the Greats
Full disclosure time. I grew up a Penn State fan. My grandparents --- who never attended college --- were Penn State fans, and Gramps had season tickets at Beaver Stadium, on the 40-yard line, 'bout halfway up. When it came on to November, my grandmother was not too fond of the cold, and I'd take the bus about once a year with Gramps up to Penn State to sit in the cold with him and watch Joe Pa and his team.
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.
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.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Light Blogging Over the Holidays
As some have already noticed (both Vince Thoms and Ben Tribbett made a comment at Tom Davis' Christmas festivities), the blogging has been light of late. Between the holidays, the end of the year (I am in a "use it or lose it" vacation posture), and some rather burdensome discovery obligations in a number of cases, I just haven't had the time (or access to the T1 line) to make regular postings. This one comes from my mother's dial-up (!?!) connection in Central Pennsylvania. But I'm never far, and will offer more commentary in January, with the triumphant return of the Ellie Awards, Internet Edition.
Try to temper your enthusiasm.
Try to temper your enthusiasm.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
A Blue Dog of Discerning Tastes
Before I got into the blogosphere, I was only aware of that big red dog on PBS. Two young boys in the Young household are very fond of Clifford.
Well, it turns out the Virginia has its own dog, and it's a blue one. Steve Sisson over at the Blue Dog has published his list of his daily dozen, and it seems that I've made the cut at number seven.
It's interesting, since I can still recall a professor or two in the Hampden-Sydney political science department suggesting that I moderate what they perceived as overly partisan credentials. 'Course, then there's those among my "fellow" Republicans who seem to have a daily Two-Minute Hate whenever I dare to point out that some Republicans are acting more like Democrats.
I'm flattered, since I'm in some truly outstanding company, and have been at this for less than a year. However, rest assured that I'll work harder to try to make the top half next time.
Thanks, Steve.
Well, it turns out the Virginia has its own dog, and it's a blue one. Steve Sisson over at the Blue Dog has published his list of his daily dozen, and it seems that I've made the cut at number seven.
It's interesting, since I can still recall a professor or two in the Hampden-Sydney political science department suggesting that I moderate what they perceived as overly partisan credentials. 'Course, then there's those among my "fellow" Republicans who seem to have a daily Two-Minute Hate whenever I dare to point out that some Republicans are acting more like Democrats.
I'm flattered, since I'm in some truly outstanding company, and have been at this for less than a year. However, rest assured that I'll work harder to try to make the top half next time.
Thanks, Steve.
A Virginia Treasure Leaves the Blogosphere
As you might gather as a regular reader here, I don't have much use for most Democrats these days. As a rule, today, they're shrill, mean-spirited, dishonest, hypocritical, and generally unpleasant. About BO, I do not, and do not want to, know.
One exception is Barnie Day, a former General Assembly member from Stuart and columnist for the Roanoke Times and Augusta Free Press.
Well, Jim Bacon reports over at Bacon's Rebellion that Barnie is hanging it up for other projects. Whether it is voluntary or not is unclear; if not, at least his editors had the decency to allow him to say goodbye to his readers. The hacks at the Potomac News could learn a thing or two from them, but they're cowards.
Barnie is one of that ever rarer breed these days: a Democrat who could disagree without being disagreeable, without foaming at the mouth, and with a considerable degree of honesty. Only met him once (we obviously don't go to many of the same meetings) at the Blog Summit in August.
He will be missed.
One exception is Barnie Day, a former General Assembly member from Stuart and columnist for the Roanoke Times and Augusta Free Press.
Well, Jim Bacon reports over at Bacon's Rebellion that Barnie is hanging it up for other projects. Whether it is voluntary or not is unclear; if not, at least his editors had the decency to allow him to say goodbye to his readers. The hacks at the Potomac News could learn a thing or two from them, but they're cowards.
Barnie is one of that ever rarer breed these days: a Democrat who could disagree without being disagreeable, without foaming at the mouth, and with a considerable degree of honesty. Only met him once (we obviously don't go to many of the same meetings) at the Blog Summit in August.
He will be missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)