What racism really looks like.

From Montgomery county this morning:




Disgusting.

Story from NBC4's web site -- eventually their video should be posted: Vandals Spray Racial Slurs On Md. Cars, Homes.

One woman, talking about the attack, said something like "you get mad for a minute, but then you get up and do something about it".

As I said, don't let these creeps control your life. Of course, this was vandalism and real threats -- hopefully we can all still rise up against racism like this, despite those who trivialize real racist attacks like this by using the attack when it is unwarranted for political purposes.

The stage is set for the PWC Chair race

Sharon Pandek vs. Corey Stewart.

The republican convention was well-attended, although less than half the registered people showed up. (Brentsville had 2/3rds of our delegates show up). There were no surprises or problems, Greg L's computer setup worked wonderfully (thanks Greg), and everything was cordial and orderly.

Our only "glitch" was the need to take a hand vote to allow 2 delegates who were rejected by the credentials committee because there was no record of them being registered to vote in the state. I presume that, if it turns out they really WEREN'T currently registered, we'll fix that up before the election.

There were fewer people at the democrat convention.

That's all I have to say, I'm sure others have details and information.

The big loser -- I guess Friedman, who looked to have a clear shot at a position he had already said he wanted to run for next year. Then at the last minute another candidate came in, and I believe beat him 70-30%. Ouch.

What If the World WANTS the islamofascists to win?

We always talk like the world is united against the "islamofascists" and the states that support them, mostly in the middle east.

But what if most of the rest of the world is quite OK with islamofascism, and would rather see them win than us? What if we are not United against a common enemy? What if a majority of the world doesn't think islamofascism is an "enemy"?

That would explain a lot of what we've seen in the last 5 years. And it would portend a much darker, and more dangerous, future than we could possibly imagine.

There is nothing in history that requires that we march from less to more advanced. If anything, there is considerable backlash against the technologically advanced but numerically inferior. And that would be us.

Decaying civilizations of Europe may simply not care anymore about their own grand history and place in the world. They may think peace with the islamists is as good a fate as having to live in our shadow.

I've posted my latest column, Do we spend enough on AIDS?

I think it's clear we do, relative to other diseases that effect a much larger part of the population.

Here are some excerpts:

Government spending on AIDS research for 2007 is almost $3 billion, higher than any other major disease (Heart disease is second at $2.3 billion). Relative to the number of people affected, HIV spending is vastly higher than other recurring diseases. We will spend over $3,000 per HIV/AIDS patient next year, while spending only $50 per diabetic patient, even though diabetes kills five times more people than AIDS each year.
...
Part of the problem is political. For most communicable diseases, the health care strategy is to isolate and report cases to prevent the spread of disease. But with HIV/AIDS we adopted a strategy of silence, hiding the identities of those infected.

The argument against publicizing HIV infection was that it can’t be spread casually – in other words, because it is hard to spread, we don’t provide the information people need to make informed decisions to prevent the spread. And when people suggest ways to provide that information, they are often called bigots or homophobes.

Still, if spending $400 million would save over $650 million in health care costs, it would be a good thing, freeing up millions to spend on other diseases. But until there is good evidence that spending more money would actually change the behavior of the at-risk population, the money can be better spent on prevention and cure for illnesses that can’t be so easily prevented, or successfully treated. Medical funding shouldn’t be driven by special-interest politics.

I don't know why I don't post my entire articles here, but go ahead, indulge me, click on the link.

Sometimes, the conventional wisdom is quite wrong

Arrest Made In JonBenet Ramsey Case.

Other later stories are reporting a DNA match. So for now it looks like this is the real deal.
UPDATE 9/3/2006: OK, never believe early news reports on sensational stories. The DNA did not match, and the charges were dropped. And the saga continues.....

So -- how many of you were sure the Ramsey's had murdered their own child? It's OK to admit it, but if so many people were wrong about that, what else could people be wrong about.

I can't count the number of stories, radio shows, tv specials, etc. where person after person commented on the overwhelming evidence that the parent's did it. I tired of being laughed at for arguing that we needed to keep an open mind, that you can't just assume stuff, and I imagine most others who didn't accept the conventional wisdom likewise stopped bothering.

When something like this happens, I find it's a good time to re-assess why you are so quick to jump to conclusions and judgment when you don't have all the facts. It seems to be human nature to come to conclusions unsupported by facts, and to judge others in ways we would never want to be judged.

It is now seen as tragic that Mrs. Ramsey lived the last years of her life having to defend herself against charges of killing her own child -- even while she also had to live with her child being brutally murdered, by someone else as we now know. Think about that -- this woman lost her child, and rather than being comforted, a good portion of the population blamed her for the death.

I still think O.J. Simpson killed his ex-wife. Sorry, I just can't bring myself to believe otherwise.

NCAA makes itself look foolish again.

The Potomac News opinion page today rightly took the NCAA to task for their bizarre ruling regarding the use of American Indian symbols associated with school athletics.

From the The Chronicle of Higher Education: NCAA Rejects William and Mary's Mascot Appeal:

The College of William and Mary has lost its mascot appeal to the NCAA by a feather.

The image of a feather used in connection with the nickname of the college’s sports teams—the Tribe—persuaded the NCAA to keep William and Mary on a list of institutions that face a postseason ban because they have not given up their American Indian images, which have been deemed offensive.

Here's the "offending image":


The NCAA reasoning is, well, non-existant:

In its appeal to the NCAA, the college received support from some Virginia tribal leaders and argued that its nickname had various connotations. But because the feather might offend some American Indians, it must go, the NCAA said, according to a written statement.

In other words, the use of a BIRD FEATHER was why William and Mary is being punished, for "offending American Indians", none of whom are identified.

The Potomac News notes that the Florida State Seminoles got to keep their mascot, a indian riding around before the games on a horse -- with feathers. Obviously, a post-season appearance by the Florida State football team pays enough to assauge the sensitivies of the NCAA committee.

Of course, if George Allen picked up a feather off the ground, then we'd all be told how offensive it was......

Why are Democrats lying about a Mohawk?

Most of the people in the conversation on the "Allen" controversy are dismissive of the "mohawk/macaca" connection that Wadhams put out.

SO why is it that the democrats supporting Webb are pushing the lie that they guy didn't even HAVE a mohawk? They've been repeating that lie ever since Wadham made his Mohawk comment, even going so far as to put up an "un-mohawk" picture of the guy that they claimed accurately represented what he looked like last week.

But now, Chad Dotson, in a post about the manufactured controversy, has supplied a PICTURE OF THE GUY from last week, one that clearly shows his Mohawk:


In contrast, here's the picture they posted at Raising Kaine:


Since Chad Dotson's picture is contemporaneous with last week's activities, and clearly shows the Mohawk, the question is, what was Raising Kaine trying to do with their picture, which they used to claim that the guy never had a Mohawk and the Allen campaign was making it up.

It is clear that the Webb supporters who have been telling their readers that the guy did not have a Mohawk were misleading us, because he did have a Mohawk. The question is, why are they misleading us, why do they think it's OK to mislead people, and why is it so important to them to mislead us about something as trivially disprovable as a hair cut?

Oh -- and why, when confronted with their deception, do they all seem to change the subject?

For those who haven't made up their minds yet which side is being truthful, I hope this makes it clear. Allen says he didn't mean anything bad by his use of the word, and apologized for it. The Webb supporters can't even tell the truth about the guy's hair cut -- so why should we trust anything else they say?

Given the circumstantial evidence that the Webb staffer wasn't really offended on Friday, and given that nobody who weighs in on this subject has any idea what the word "macaca" meant until they are TOLD by the Webb campaign, I think it's clear which side is being more honest (which I use loosely because I tend to believe that honesty and political capaigns are always a hard mix).

I still don't put much trust in political campaign staff, Wadham included, but apparently he was telling the truth about the Mohawk, and the Webb side was not.

The staging of a controversy -- a sign of life for the Webb campaign

Lost in the absurd charges of racism was a good sign for the Webb camp -- his campaign staff does seem to have the ability to function as a campaign, at least once in a while.

The way they made a non-event into a real media win for their candidate was positively a thing to behold. And any time you can force your opponent to apologize on your terms, you've scored some points.

It is clear that the "outrage" over Allen's remarks were entirely a fiction written and produced by the Webb camp. Allen made his comments at a public event on Friday, attended by reporters. At the event, the Webb staffer is reported to have been smiling, and seemed to enjoy the spotlight. Nobody at the even reported any discussion by attendees, the staffer, or reporters about anything untoward.

In fact, after the event, the Webb camp sent no press release pointing out a problem. The staffer did not go find a reporter and point out his being "attacked". No reporter perceived Allen's exchange with the videocamera as anything out of the ordinary to be reported. It was a complete non-event.

Nor did the staffer seem to realise what he had. He didn't get the Webb camp to put out a release that night, or Saturday morning, or Saturday night. He didn't get the Webb camp to inform democrats appearing on Sunday morning talk shows either, or put it out on any friendly web sites or blogs. Every piece of evidence we have indicates that the staffer did not see the exchange as something to make a big deal out of.

So how did we go from a non-story on Sunday to a major blog event on Monday? It seems clear to me. Webb has this guy taking videos for a reason. There is obviously a person or a team which reviews every second of videotape looking for any offhand comment Allen might make to a supporter, or some slip of the tongue, or ANYTHING they can use against Allen. This is why I presume Webb worked so hard to get rid of the Allen stalker who was taping him, because it is hard to be perfect all the time.

So, presuming the tape was delivered back to the campaign HQ over the weekend, someone must have reviewed it then, and discovered the exchange. Noticing that the name Allen used was NOT the guy's real name, they did a google search. And the rest is history.

BTW, they may have already decided to focus on the exchange for another reason. It seeems possible that the Webb campaign chose a person of color for this job on purpose. Throughout this non-event, one charge the Webb camp has leveled was that Allen singled out the guy because he was the only non-white at the event. We all know Allen singled him out because he was a Webb videographer, but by putting a non-white person in that position, Webb's campaign KNEW that eventually Allen would interact with him and they could drag out the "singled out for his race" card. This wouldn't be a criticism of Webb, but in fact would show again that his campaign has some political savvy.

As to the charge that "macaca" was "macaque", and meant as a horrible slur of black people, I find it amazing then that democrats have posted blogs saying "we are all macaca", and have offered shirts with the word "macaca" on them as fund-raising items.

I even have half a mind to BUY one of the shirts, and wear it to Webb campaign functions in my area (assuming Webb will eventually come back and have Virginia events again). I could walk up to people, and if they asked about the shirt I would say "I've been told that the word "macaca" is just like the "n-word" in french, and that it is very offensive to black people. The democrats sold me this shirt as a fund-raising tool.".

Because I think it's funny that the democrats would raise money by selling a shirt with a vile racist remark on it. Except of course that the democrats obviously don't BELIEVE their own hype about the word. I have yet to see a single democrat say "the m-word". Instead they seem quite comfortable with saying the word over and over and over again, all the while claiming the use of the word offends their black constituents.

While I know democrats do some stupid things, I just don't believe they are purposely offending their base -- it seems much more likely that they don't find the word offensive, except when it suits them.

Democrats Attack Allen's Mother

In the "so-called" Allen scandal, there is one thing that has received little attention, but deserves much more focus.

In order to "prove" that Allen would know an obscure reference to the proper name of a type of primate, AND know that the reference was also used as a derogatory term for blacks, the Webb supporters have trotted out the fact that Allen's mother is part Tunisian, and the phrase he used has been cited in french-tunisian lingo as a slur.

So apparently Allen, who was born in the U.S.A, heard this word growing up as a racial epithet, because his mother would have known it being from Tunisia.

In other words, the Webb camp is saying that Allen's mother is a racist who taught her child how to insult blacks using foreign words, I guess using them around the house all the time.

So, where is their evidence that Allen's mother was a racist? Are you kidding? Democrats don't need evidence when they have a good conspiracy theory.

For all we know, the guy could have told a staffer his name was macaca, in order to get Allen to use the word -- after all, the Webb camp seemed to know right away that the word was vaguely like a racist epithet in another language, something 99.9% of us were clueless about until the democrats were kind enough to let us know.

So, is it OK to call a candidate's mother a racist, just to try to score political points? Should we be attacking the candidate's family? Apparently that's OK by the Webb folks.

Countdown to Ground Zero on History Channel

I don't usually advertise for Cable TV, and I am betting there will be something wrong with this movie.

But it's got a relative in a prominent role, and a cast of non-union actors from Baltimore. Brian Draganuk is the man who got my son hooked up for a part in a YMCA commercial.

Here's the poster:















My cousin-in-law is the guy in the upper left corner.

What do the Democrats think is the biggest threat to America?

Republicans.

"The way to help this country is to limit Republican power."

The article notes that democrats think the Lamont/Lieberman election was about Bush:

Democrats see Lieberman's loss as a referendum on
President George W. Bush and the Iraq war, while Republicans says it shows that Democrats are soft on national security issues.

Lamont defeated Lieberman by 52 percent to 48 percent in the August 8 primary but polls taken around that time showed Lieberman ahead in a three-way race with Lamont and the Republican candidate, former state legislator Alan Schlesinger, who is not seen as a strong threat.

To which I say again, if the election was a referendum about Bush, Bush just got 48% of the vote from people in a DEMOCRAT PRIMARY, which may not be exactly the referendum they wanted.

Lieberman probably would have won if he hadn't started the "independent" candidacy weeks ago (which he had to do because of the deadlines).

More interesting is this. Let's go with the Lieberman == Bush/Republican, Lamont==democrat meme the democrats are pushing.

Days before the election, polls showed Lamont up by double digits over Lieberman, but he only won by 4 points.

Maybe the polls showing democrats ahead in other races are similarly flawed. If Democrats poll better than they vote (which is historically the case) then things are a lot different than they look, and the polls can be seen not as an accurate reflection of the future, but rather another ploy to try to sway public opinion and effect election results.

Never was that seen better than the histerical attempt to dismiss actual election results in 2004 because they were at odds with the exit polling data.

Washington Post Legitimizes Convention Schedules

I have been an outspoken detractor of the fast pace of our convention schedule. However, events have all played out so far like the proponents suggested. Now, the Washington Post weighs in, providing strong support to the efforts by BOTH parties to get their candidates picked as quickly as possible.

In the article "Racing to Collect Candidates", the Post explains the process pushing toward a november 7 election:

A fast-moving race to succeed Sean T. Connaughton as chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors is going even faster now that the U.S. Senate has confirmed his nomination to a federal post.

Republicans and Democrats are rushing to prepare conventions for Saturday to select nominees before key election deadlines. The field of hopefuls so far includes two Republicans and a Democrat.

Both sides believe that Connaughton's imminent departure to head the Federal Maritime Administration will probably trigger a special election coinciding with the Nov. 7 general election.

Their haste has been necessary to meet election deadlines in a process that could become more complicated depending on the timing of Connaughton's resignation.

The paper further explains how the only thing that could interfere with an orderly process leading to the desired November 7th election coinciding with the already scheduled general election would be excessive delay by Sean in resigning. Sean explained his delay as follows:

Connaughton, whose second four-year term as chairman is scheduled to end in December 2007, said he is waiting for the president to sign his commission as administrator and is wrapping up loose ends in the county. His resignation and swearing in, Connaughton said, could come as soon as Sept. 1.

"It will all be simultaneous -- one, two, three," he said.

There is no reason why Sean has to wait for his actual swearing in to resign his office. He knows he's got the job (his name is already on the web site). When then Governor Bush was elected president in 2000, he resigned his Governorship a month early in order to ensure an orderly transition to the republican lt. Governor. There are no important votes scheduled in the next few weeks, and Maureen is perfectly competent to take over the reigns on a temporary basis.

Earlier he suggested he needed to hang on to help Maureen take over, but that wouldn't require him being IN office, he could simply offer help from the sidelines.

Resigning before the August 19th Democratic and Republican conventions would meanwhile ensure there would be no sour-grapes lawsuits filed which could mess up the process and cloud the election.

The democrats claim Sean is playing games in order to find his "perfect" candidate:

But Democrats say that because the Senate has confirmed him, Connaughton should resign now.

"Connaughton's playing a game," said Victor D. Bras, chairman of the Prince William County Democratic Committee. He said Connaughton was holding on to the office long enough to find a Republican candidate who would satisfy the business community.

I don't see evidence of that, but why would I expect the PWCDC to say things that involve evidence? Further, the convention is August 19th, whether he has resigned or not, so for the democrats silly charge to be correct, you have to believe Sean would back a contentious lawsuit to overturn the results of the convention, something I would like to believe would be beneath a man who has acheived a national government appointment.

Sean himself ridiculed the idea, in a statement that was good but provided a rather inflated opinion of self-importance given the relative value of the PWC chair's position compared to major offices like the one he is moving to:

Connaughton dismissed accusations that he is stalling to buy time to find a pro-business candidate.

"Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . blah, blah, blah," Connaughton said. "Listen, they've been jumping the gun on this for months. This has to be orderly. . . . You don't just leave the scene when you have that kind of responsibility."

The Post article leaves out small but crucial details. For example:

Gray, who lost by 17 votes in the 2003 primary, ...

... failing to mention that he ran in the DEMOCRAT primary in 2003.

Also:

But a judge would have until Sept. 23 -- which is 45 days before the general election -- to order an election that could be held Nov. 7.

This is just wrong (they make the same mistake I made and corrected a few days ago) -- the judge does NOT have to wait until 45, or even 60, days before the general election to pick the november 7 date. In fact, the law says the election must be held between 45 and 60 days after the judge rules, EXCEPT if that date is within 60 days of a general election the special election moves to the general election date. So if the judge ruled TODAY, the election would be held on November 7.

If however the judge waits until after september 8, the election might happen in November 7 without any names on the ballot, which would be an absurd result if both parties have named their candidates.

Sean did make one comment absurdly unbefitting his new national position, showing why he has been considered such a contentious figure in republican politics even as he has been "beloved" by the people:

Connaughton also took a jab at Stewart.

"Anyone who has any extended exposure to Mr. Stewart understands the concerns expressed by the entire county. It's a matter of integrity," Connaughton said, declining to elaborate.

Not very helpful, attacking our likely republican candidate with baseless, unfounded, and unexplained "issues of integrity". But that's what makes Sean such a devisive person when, on the face of it, he should be the perfect unifying figure. It's what always drives me crazy about him. I like the man, and in many ways he's the perfect politician, even though I disagree with some of his positions.

But he is also senselessly vindictive, holding grudges of little consequence, and spawning a "cult of personality" of followers who love tearing down other Republicans who Sean disdains. Sean could have reigned in his minions like Vincent Thoms, but instead feeds the sharks with offhand comments like this in a national newspaper.

If Tom Kopko had made a comment like that, the Sean worshippers would have torn into him. In this case, Tom's quotes are quite good, emphasizing republicans vs democrats not republicans against each other:

"That's the main driver," Kopko said. "But the fact is, there will be a vacancy, and that's why I wanted to make sure our candidate has enough time to campaign."

But since it was Sean making the attacks, his followers, like Vincent, used this article to proclaim Sean as the "most honest politician in Virginia".:

…and this is why Chairman Connaughton is the most honest politician in the state of Virginia…

A claim Vincent later said was based only on his response to the democrats, NOT his dishonest attack on a fellow republican which Vincent prominently quoted in his post. Vincent is of course not someone who has credence in discussing other's "honesty", especially discussing Sean.

Sean didn't "endorse" anybody in this article, so John Gray still seems to be striking out regarding all the republicans he has claimed endorse his candidacy, with most of them running away and vehemently denying the charge. Not exactly a good way to win friends, but if John can sell himself as the "next Connaughton" I suppose he could get some support.

I'm surprised though that Sean's cult hasn't slapped John down harder on this claim -- certainly those who worship at the feat of the master have to be peeved at this Johnny-come-lately's attempt to assume the mantle of their hero. So where's the "John, I know Sean, and you are no Sean" posts?

Maybe they are waiting for marching orders for their leader first -- it would be embarrassing if they denounced Gray and then it turned out Sean actually DID support him.

(NOTE: I tweaked a paragraph up top because it implied Sean WAS delaying to mess up the election, which I don't believe and didn't intend to say. The new wording corrects that error)

Bad Reporting by MSNBC, as usual

I'm sitting watching MSNBC at about 12:30pm, and the nice announcer (I won't credit him as a journalist), while talking about Hesbollah launching some 240 rockets into Israel, makes the astoundingly stupid statement:

Some of them hit their targets, one landing right on a house...

Hesbollah rockets are not being aimed at "targets", they are simply being launched into civilian cities (where there are NO active Israeli military actions) in the hopes that they might hit something. But MSNBC seems to think that civilian houses are valid targets, and that Hesbollah is "hitting those targets", nonchalantly confirming the legitimacy of the tactic.

But I can be certain that if Israel hit a civilian house, the report would be that "Israel missed it target and instead killed innocent civilians".

Not that there is an anti-Israel or anti-American bias at MSNBC or anything, it's just that everything they do is exactly what they would do if there WAS such a bias.

Of course, they are also working overtime "explaining" why the "surge in violent islamic extremism" is our fault, and how grateful we should be in america that so many of "our" muslims aren't provoked by our evil ways, and instead are pillars of moderation to be extolled.

We apparently need to be very careful with our domestic policies, lest we "fertilize" a violent part of the american islamic community.

"If we can get away from the name-calling"

No, this isn't about local blogs. As you may know, a man associated with Cindy Sheehan bought property for her in Crawford, Tx. so she would have a place to protest the President. In an article in Forbes.com, one anti-war protestor was quoted as saying:

"If we can get away from the name calling and see each other as Americans, that will be how we can heal this nation," Goodnow said.

Now, I don't think that's all we need to "heal this nation", whatever that means, but in any case this was particularly funny coming from the Cindy Sheehan party, part of the liberal name-calling wing of the Democratic Party in America.

Do they think we don't remember, and don't know how to use the internet?

Cindy Sheehan Quotes:

"That lying bastard, George Bush, is taking a five-week vacation in time of war,"

"You get that maniac out here to talk with me in person."

"He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East. "

"And I’m glad to hear everybody else’s words, because somebody’s gotta stop those lying bastards.”

"I’m either gonna be in jail or in a tent in Crawford, waiting until that jerk comes out and tells me why my son died."

"So anyway that filth-spewer and warmonger, George Bush was speaking after the tragedy of the marines in Ohio, ..."

“I’m gonna tell them, “You get that evil maniac out here, "

"The only reason Bush wants to stay there is because his buddies are getting rich and feasting off the blood of our children"

"As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet any sane adult in this country who's skin does not crawl when this murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks?"

There's plenty more, I wrote several posts about this last year, one with many quotes and citations over at CriticallyThinking.

The left are hypocrits who have made name-calling their primary tactic, and then when it suits them pretend that they just want to get along.

And it's not just Cindy Sheehan. James Webb called a fellow Democrat, Harris Miller, the Anti-Christ, among other things. Many vile invectives were hurled at Democrat and former Vice Presidential candidate Joe Leiberman, including linking him with the Nazis.

The party which used to have grand, although often fatally flawed, ideas, is now reduced to trivial government programs and petty name-calling, all the while calling for some new "civility" that involves them being in power so they don't have to put up with opposition pointing out the paucity of their ideas and the ineptness of their proposals.

Where everybody hates their names

While I was out, the folks at TooConservative seem to have had an interesting time, including some sort of internal family squabble about posts being too long (the supposed reason Riley, not O'Reilly was cut loose a few months ago, although now we know the truth about that).

But in the midst of it all, they turned to the one thing that unites them all -- their hatred for Jim Young and their love of infantile discussions. Thus they launched one remarkably inane thread, titled "Where Everybody Knows Your Name". The point of this thread was to attack James for his "obsession" with cowards who use anonymity and pseudonyms to shield themselves from the civilized world's normal response to vile personal attacks:

I’d like to send out this dedication to a special internet buddy of mine, James Young. I’d like to dedicate the Cheers theme to Mr. Young, who seems to be really hung up on the fact that he doesn’t know each and every blogger in the blogosphere. ”You’ve gotta go where everybody knows your name” is just so apropos for my friend.

The thread predictably turned into a bloodfest, starting with a parody of the Cheer's theme song with this chorus:

Where nobody knows Jim Young’s name,
’cause we all know that he’s lame.
Everyone here can all agree,the guy’s borderline insane
You wanna be where nobody knows Jim’s name.

And continuing to the less poignant and more pointed attacks:

Jimbo is often mad – nay - even dour
Jimbo even slandered Grapes, by calling him “Sour”
Jimbo’s bane, and it is a pain,
is that in the main, he’s got sex on the brain
....
BTW Nova, recently you commented about a “nice thread”…did you happen to notice that James Young never showed up and that’s why it stayed “nice.”

But all in all, things seemed somewhat tame, until James showed up to comment in his own unique style of direct assault:

I’m so flattered! Guess I know from whence those stalkers come.
You’re all just gutless wonders. ‘Cept for you, Anke.
Your'e just .

This predictable response was of course followed by posts feigning "shock" at how the thread had turned so nasty, as if up to that point it was the epitome of a good conservative policy discussion:

I thought you were an attorney. You talk like a foul-mouthed street punk. Why don’t you meet me at the clinic on Saturday at 9:00 A.M. so that I can teach you some manners.
...
James Young is on the waiting list for finishing school. His tendency to call people really vile names is all that’s standing between him and greatness. We don’t approve of that kind of talk, but we let him do it here to remind folks of what we’re dealing with.
...
James has now accused me of starting a “flame war” on his ever popular blog. He apparently has no sense of humor. I won’t be losing any sleep!

I could really drive up the hit count on my blog if I didn't mind senseless posts attacking my fellow republicans for not liking anonymous attacks like those which threatened the family of Greg L. last week. If I could also call people names and kiss the right people's behinds I'd be in everybody's blog roll.

But at least, when they are attacking James, it gives them a break from attacking a long-time solid republican like Corey Stewart running against a former democrat.

Would the Dem's let Leiberman back?

A lot of speculation in the Connecticutt Senate race centers around whether Leiberman might caucus with the Republicans should he win the general election as an independent.

My view is there is no chance of that. Leiberman is a strongly liberal democrat on almost every issue -- much more liberal than the most liberal republican, Lincoln Chafee, who is more liberal than a couple of sitting democrat senators.

The more interesting question is whether the Democrat party itself has any scruples at all. Because if it did, when Leiberman wins as an independent running against the selected Democrat nominee, the Democrats would refuse to let him caucus with their party.

But since I don't think the Democrat leadership values anything other than power, I am certain that, should Leiberman win, they will welcome him back -- if not with open arms, at least with committee assignments.

After all, they won't even RUN a democrat party representative against the OTHER independent running for office, socialist Bernie Sanders. Because the anti-free-market Sanders is much more suited to the Democrat party than the former Democrat Vice President candidate Joe Leiberman.

I'm tired of the "why are we in Iraq" crowd.

Over at Virginia Virtucon, an anonymous poster raised the liberal rallying cry "why are we in Iraq" in reply to the post Democrats confess (they can't walk and chew gum at the same time):

Just a reminder for you: Iraq has never attacked us regardless of what you’ve been told.

If we wanted to avenge the September 11th attacks upon the USA we should have destroyed Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Not a single 9/11 high jacker was from or had any connections to the country of Iraq.

I know for certain that we can not fight terrorism by creating more terrorist!

Why are we in Iraq? And why have 2600 of our solders died? Tell me what do we get out of it and how we are more secure invading nations that aren’t even a remote threat to our national security?

I answered thusly:

Iraq has never "attacked us" -- what is that supposed to mean? Iraq invaded a sovereign country, we vowed to defend that country, and Iraq military shot at and killed our soldiers. So don't give me that crap about not being "attacked" by Iraq.

Then Iraq shot at our airplanes enforcing a cease-fire the Iraqi government refused to abide by.

Now Iraq is NOT shooting Scud missles into Israel during a war, which is MUCH MUCH BETTER than it was in the last Gulf war. Iraq isn't sending money to Palistinians who are attacking our ally Israel. Iraq is not destabilizing other countries, stirring up trouble in Saudi Arabia or threatening to unleash biological and chemical weapons.

Meanwhile, Syria is out of Lebanon, Libya has given up its nuclear program, and Iran is SCARED TO DEATH about what is happening in Iraq -- so much so that they encouraged Hesbollah to launch an ill-conceived war which is now decimating Iran's biggest weapon against our friends in the Middle east. All because we freed Iraq from a dictator that was oppressing millions of people.

Saddam would have fallen eventually. If he had fallen without our help, the Shiites in Iraq would certainly have hated us and allied with Iran, and we would be in REALLY REALLY BAD TROUBLE.But because we came to their aid, and gave them their country, we have created a bond with them that will likely keep them allies of us, and unaligned with Iran, and therefore stabilize the region.

"Create terrorists"? We were attacked by terrorists on 9/11, way before we invaded Iraq. People didn't need an excuse to be terrorists, and we aren't creating anything but a chance for freedom for a people who were oppressed by a brutal dictator.

What amazes me is how many supposedly compassionate, liberal democrats seem quite happy with the idea of "peace in the middle east" forged under the hand of a brutal dictator using the blood of women and children tortured to "keep the masses" in line.To hear the democrats talk, Iraq was a wonderful, peaceful place until we got their, and we somehow made all the Iraqi people hate each other -- I call that the Michael Moore fantasy view of the world, an Orwellian fiction of massive proportions.

If we trounced Iran, I could see democrats making the same claims about them in a couple of years "Oh, what did we get for attacking a country that did NOTHING to harm us, what have we gained, what was the point?"Democrats are good at talking, but their capacity for great thinking has been lost through years of neglect. They are left with small ideas for small people -- raise the minimum wage a couple of bucks, give a couple more weeks of unemployment benefits, make sure illegal aliens don't feel like aliens.

8 years of small-minded Democrat policy led to 9/11. And having endured that attack, they now claim that somehow our post-9/11 policies are what is making terrorists hate us, as if the 9/11 attacks never happened.

Do we know how to fight a real war anymore?

That is the subtext of my Potomac News article which was published last Wednesday, I believe, on August 9th. It was originally written for publication on August 2nd, so it's a little outdated.

I put the entire column online on my column website, titled Lebanon is Latest Front in the War on Terror.

Excerpts:

War. It’s a word that unfortunately we hear too often these days. War is not a good thing. War is, at its core, a failure of civilized society. Most people hate war. War causes the death of human beings – combatants and non-combatants, aggressors and bystanders, able-bodied men and women and children.

But we cannot actually fight a “war” with terror, or terrorism, or even terrorists. Terror is an emotion. Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorist is a participant. War is not fought against individuals, but against groups, usually nations. We can’t win the war on terror without involving the nations harboring the terrorists.

Civilization consists of nations given sovereignty over people and property based on physical boundaries. We need to hold nations responsible for the actions of the people within their borders. We need to stop targeting terrorists, and fight the nations that allow terrorists to operate in their midst. We must give nations a reason to denounce and defeat the terrorists in their countries.

The latest battle in the “war on terror” is raging in southern Lebanon. The world can choose to hold Lebanon accountable, to embrace the possibility of a true victory over terrorism. But sixty dead in Qana have broken our resolve, and instead of victory we are headed for another stalemate. People hate war, and will do almost anything to stop it. So Hezbollah will live to fight another day, terrorists around the world will breathe a sigh of relief, nations will continue ignoring evildoers in their midst – and most of us will just be happy the fighting has stopped.

But this is a column where excerpts cannot do it justice. I urge you to read the entire article, and comment here with your thoughts and criticisms, which I'm sure there will be.

Summer Vacationing

Because of various summer vacationing, I'm going to be in an out, out and about, and otherwise occupied.

So this week I've been working on newspaper columns, so I don't have to spend a lot of time on them while I'm on vacation.

This curtailed my posting. Then my column for this wednesday was inadvertantly not published (it will run next wednesday), so now I'm feeling pretty good about the month. The pain I have in my leg still makes it hard to concentrate on anything for more than an hour or so at a time, which has made it hard to put columns together, which has impacted my blogging (because every time I sit down to blog, I remember I need to spend another hour working on a column first.)

I won't be posting this week, I'll be too busy doing stuff. I may even be cut off from the internet for a while.

Electroshock Therapy

In my never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the answer to why the covers hurt my legs at night, I have enlisted ANOTHER of a seemingly endless supply of doctors and specialists, this time a well-trained Neurosurgeon.

Her suggestion -- Electroshock therapy and Accupuncture.



More accurately, I'm scheduled for two "high-tech" tests. The first is called Nerve Conduction Velocity, which involves sending electric shocks into my legs and measuring how long it takes the shocks to move up and down the leg. The second, is called Electromyography, which also I believe includes electric shock, delivered through "really thin needles" stuck into my leg muscles while I flex those same muscles.

Both tests are said to involve "minor discomfort", or be "slightly uncomfortable". Hey, if it helps us figure out what's wrong, they can do whatever they want.

It's supposed to be 45-60 minutes of nonstop fun -- so long as John McCain doesn't find out, because I'm certain this is against the Geneva Convention and the new anti-torture regulations.

Stupid House Sale Tactics

There are some things realtors will tell you not to do when trying to sell your house, like re-do the wallpaper (because wallpaper is a personal taste item).

Today's Potomac News tells of a tactic that I'm sure any realtor would laugh at, if they even THOUGHT someone might try it:

Just a month ago, a Manassas Park couple agreed to have their home filmed for a new HGTV series in which an expert Realtor assesses what renovations are necessary to make the house saleable in today's buyer market.

So far, so good -- that show seems to focus on items that, if fixed, would enhance the sales price beyond their costs. But then they took it one step too far:

Now Lake Ridge residents George and Susan Garrigan have bought a 2006 Toyota Corolla as a giveaway to whomever buys their 1969 split-level home and excited regional media attention by doing it. How it pans out, though, has yet to be seen.

How is this bad? Let me count the ways. First, what could be more of a personal taste item than a car? Second, what relationship could there possibly be between needing a house, and needing a car? Third, having PURCHASED the car, wouldn't that make it a used car, meaning it's already lost a good bit of its value before it's given over to the new owners.

I think you'd be better off adding a pool in the back yard. IT's still a TERRIBLE idea, but at least it's something some people are actually LOOKING for in a house. I've NEVER heard anybody say they were looking for a 2-car-garage with the car already IN it.

About the only thing this has going for it is the novelty value which got them a front-page article, as they knew this was taking a chance:

The couple, which has lived in that home for 28 years, knew what they were doing was a gamble. Both were certain it would distinguish their corner-lot Cohasset Lane home from the others on the market in their neighborhood. At the very least it would put a "second thought" in the minds of prospective buyers.

My guess is they expect to keep the car, and only made the "offer" to get more attention. The article suggests as much, as thier "next" strategy doesn't include the car at all:

No bidders means a new plan, though. Tivnan plans to have a "strategy meeting" with the Garrigans today. Tivnan said that they would likely decide to reduce the price and pay the closing cost.

So, was it just crazy, or crazy-like-a-fox? I guess we'll know in a few weeks, if the paper runs a follow-up article.

On the shoulders of others.

Not too long ago, I mentioned a blog I had stumbled across, called "Eject!Eject!Eject", written by Bill Whittle. He doesn't post often, but when he does it's chapters in a book, and excellent work so far.

When I last posted, he had supplied his introduction, "Rafts". Now he has the next installment up, called "The Web of Trust". I can't do it justice, you really should go read both Rafts (if you didn't already) and chapter 1.

At one point Bill recounts a particularly hairy incident with instrument flight and a bad gauge, which for him ended well. In recounting that, he reflects on the literally millions of people that had a part in his arriving safely on earth:

How many people were there with me that day? Not just the obvious two – Dana and Craig, whose support kept my monkey brain in the back of my head to return to throw pooh another day. How many guys were watching me on radar, keeping me separated from far, far better men and women who do this in their sleep up there? How many people did it take to make the instruments, to mine the silica for the glass, to tap the rubber for the wires? Who laid the asphalt on the runways, who built the filaments in the approach strobes, and who attached the ceramic tips to my spark plugs? And how many millions of other unseen connections had to be made to allow me to do, routinely, and on a middle-class salary, what billions of dead men and women would have given a lifetime to taste – just once. In those few minutes I just told you of, I stood on the shoulders of millions of my brothers and sisters, not the least of which were two sons of a preacher from Dayton, Ohio – now long dead but with me in spirit every day. I was atop a pyramid of dedication, hard work, ingenuity and progress, following rules written in the blood of the stupid and the brave and the unlucky.

This is what he calls the "web of trust". I have obliquely referenced in my Weekend Without Echoes post the concept that nothing we do is unique, that we build on others. Bill takes this further in his discussion of civilization and the necessity of trust in that civilization for real progress to be made.

Some people today do look on "civilization" with disdain, a quant notion of a bygone era supplanted by what, I have no idea.

Anyway, read the chapter. I wish I could think of these ideas, much less express them the way Bill does.

Terrorism is in the eye of the Beholder

Jim McDermott, a Democratic Party Congressman, was explaining what the problem was with the current adminstration and the middle east.

He expressed the opinion that we needed to sit down and talk to Hamas, to talk to Hezbollah, to enter into negotiations with our enemies to solve the problem. Then, I suppose sensing that some might have a problem with that, he addressed the issue head on. See, he said, some people would say you don't want to bargain with terrorists, but that wasn't a problem here, because, after all, "terrorism is in the eye of the beholder".

In other words, McDermott doesn't seem to think that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. Because we don't bargain with terrorists, but we should bargain wtih Hamas and Hezbollah. Which must mean he doesn't "behold" them as terrorists.

Maybe someone will argue that McDermott isn't really a Democrat.

Code Pink and the Democrats

Earlier this month, I wrote a post about Code Pink protesting in front of Walter Reed medical hospital, and giving the finger to an actual injured veteran who disagreed with them. I linked them to the democratic party, and "maura" objected to the link:

Secondly, Code Pink is no more a "Democrat" organization than the ACLU is a "Republican" organization. CodePink is a non-partisan anti-war group. Most of the CodePink people I know are either independents or Greens - they think the Democratic party is far too corporate-controlled or too far right. CodePink protesters were kicked out of the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Well, two things this past week provide what I think is a more accurate picture of the symbiotic relationship between the democratic party and Code Pink. First, during the congressional speech by Iraqi Prime Minister Milicki, Media Benjamin, one of the leaders of Code Pink, was invited by a Democrat congressman to sit in the gallery, so she could interrupt his speech with her anti-war protestations. She had to be hauled out.

Then, during the Bolton hearings, two other Code pink members, including Gael Murphy who frequents the Walter Reed protests, were invited by Democratic Party senators to sit in the audience, again to do an anti-war, anti-Bush, and anti-Bolton protest to interrupt the hearing.

If the Democratic party does not want to be associated with Code Pink, then they should stop inviting them to interrupt official government functions.

And if the Democratic Party voters don't want to be associated with Code Pink, they should stop electing Democratic Party representatives and senators who associate with Code Pink and invite them to interrupt official government functions.

Why are we rushing the board chair convention?

OK, the use of the word "rushing" reveals my position on the subject, but it's still more of a question than a proclamation.

I asked Tom Kopko why we were considering a convention in the middle of August on the last day of the County fair and when so many people are out of town, having made plans months ago.

His response was cogent and rational:

... to meet the August 25 nomination deadline for the Nov 7 ballot and to give candidates and our eventual nominee the maximum amount ofcampaigning time for their respective races.

SBE, RPV and I are together struggling to determine what the law actually says, and what is likely to occur, about the special election underdifferent confirmation and/or resignation date scenarios. There are grey areas, especially when it comes to practical and logistical matters.

In the meantime, I am trying to make sure we are best prepared to meet any scenario. The worst-case scenario of an August 25 nomination deadline caused me to plan for an Aug 19 convention date, if it is needed.

I support planning for an August 19th convention under those conditions -- we certainly don't want to miss a deadline.

But preparing for the worst case, and actually holding a convention before the position is even open are too different things. As I hold out little hope that Sean's nomination will be concluded before the Senate's August recess, I think having an August 19th nominating convention would be a mistake.

There's just something about asking for a final decision from prospective nominees before there is even a position for them to attain to that is wrong.

For example, what if there is a non-public-official person out there who would consider jumping into the race. They may not have the luxury of running for office and keeping their current job, so in order to commit to the process they might have to take a leave of absense. Well, it's one thing to do so if you know you will have a chance at a part-time job as chair in a couple of months.

But what if the position isn't even open, and there is no guarantee it will EVER be open? What if you have to wait until November 2007? Who is going to jeopardize their real job for that?

OK, it's kind of a silly argument -- Supervisors are part-time workers, so they usually keep their jobs or some kind of outside employment anyway. And most employees I guess wouldn't have a problem with giving an employee some time off to test the political waters (I don't really know).

The point is, there could be people out there who are not ready to jump into a short-cycle competition for this position, because they don't have a political campaign organization now. If we have to choose by August 19th because the election is in November, then that's just how it is. But if the election isn't going to be until next March, I think we would all benefit from a nomination convention that was held closer to that date, giving other prosepective candidates a chance to see what they can put together.

I'm not saying we NEED different candidates, or implying there is anything wrong with the current crop of candidates. i'm just saying I hate to get rushed into picking a candidate for an election that could well be a year away for all we know.

I may end up being persuaded otherwise, but for now that would be my position at the July 31st meeting. Have the convention if absolutely necessary, but not if there is no position open yet -- even if we can find some lawyer to tell us it's OK.

Weekend without Echoes

In keeping with original material, something you are highly unlikely to read in any newspaper, unless you look really carefully.

In their final home game of the season, the Northern Virginia Majestics fell flat, losing to the Western Massachusetts Lady Pioneers by a lopsided score of 4 to 0. The Majestics fell behind early, and had little offense to answer a tenacious team play of the visiting Pioneers. With all the scoring completed before the 60th minute of the game, many spectators remained only for the hope of the 2nd game of the doubleheader.

The game was played at Gar-Field High school, across from the Potomac Mills Mall, and was sparsely attended. But the small crowd, seemingly largely made up of friends and relatives of the players, was vocal and supportive, even when the outcome was long-settled. And to their credit, the Majestic players continued to play hard throughout the game, even though it was a lost cause.

In the nightcap, the Northern Virginia Royals faced off against the Elite of Raleigh, North Carolina. This game was marred first by a very passive referee, who let multiple fouls go unpunished, and then by a strong and long-lived rainstorm, which started with a few minutes to go in the half and continued throughout the 2nd half of the game.

The game was scoreless at halftime, but in the 2nd half the visiting Elite were able to score two goals in the pouring rain, and while the Royals continued to put pressure on the Elite defence to the end, they were hampered by the loss of a player to a red card on a particularly hard tackle which to this reporter seemed more a natural consequence of the slippery surface than any attempt to harm another player.

Fortunately, the Elite player, who for some time was screaming in apparent agony, was able to get up and walk off on his own power. After the game a fellow Elite player reported that the injured player was OK and had no lasting damage to his knee.

With the score 2-0, and with the continuing rain, few spectators bothered to stay through to the bitter end.

The bright spot of the game for the Royals was the dedicated play of one intrepid ballboy, who without raingear stood his ground in the pouring rain to ensure that the players had a steady supply of balls to put into play. When the other far-side ballboy became so cold he literally could no longer move, this ballboy ran back and forth from one end of the field to the other, hoping to supply the spark the Royals needed to get back into the game.

When the rain died down, he could be heard complaining, and when the rain picked up, he cheered it on. With no thought to either his comfort, or his health, this young man exhibited the drive and determination that was equal to the task. Way to go, Matthew. The players also worked hard to the end, rewarding the few who remained to the end. All in all, an entertaining evening activity in Prince William County, notwithstanding the lopsided scores.



Matthew the ballboy, shown with three Royals players during
the pre-game introductions. Later, Matthew was thoroughly
soaked by a torrential downpour while performing his duties.

Lamont 51%, Lieberman 41%

Or so the rumor goes, that the Premium content on Rasmussen reports shows Lamont has opened a 10-point lead on Lieberman for the August democrat primary.

I certainly support Lieberman over Lamont, but dispite Joe's being right about the war in Iraq, that single issue doesn't negate his strong liberal record, so I would be happy to see him replaced with even a liberal republican. Even Linc Chafee votes better for conservatives than Lieberman.

Plus, Lieberman is well-respected amongst independents and republicans. A fall campaign that emphasizes how the democrats threw a good liberal senator out just for speaking his mind, for having principles, should help dissuade independents and liberal republicans who might otherwise be confused enough to think that the democrats offer some principled, well-meaning contrast to the current republicans.

We may complaing about John McCain's maverick ways, but we don't call him names and kick him out of the party. The intolerance the democrats show to the man who was their vice-presidential candidate just 6 years ago should be a warning to those who are looking to the Democrat party for inclusion and open debate and opinions.

There is nothing new under the sun

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." -- Ecclesiastes 1:9

The heading on Captains Quarters, one of my favorite blogs, has the saying "Thus every blogger, in his kind, is bit by him who comes behind." I can't say for sure what that is supposed to mean, but it always made me think that blogging is, by nature, a derivative work -- that each blogger does little more than add to something someone has already written.

So tonight, I embark on what may well be a fool's errand -- writing an original blog entry. Because this weekend is "original content weekend" in the Virginia Blogosphere, and several of us have signed up to write only "original" work.

Just between you and me, I'm not sure I've ever written anything that could be considered "truly original". To write about any issue of substance, one must first study the issue. Doing so exposes the author to not only the viewpoints of other people, but the words they use to express those viewpoints. And try as we might to express the same ideas without using the same phrases, the simple truth is that English is not the most expansive language in the world. There is a limit to the number of ways one can say "war is, at it's core, failure".

And when others have already expressed the strongest viewpoint with the best turn of the phrase, what is left to do but to plagerise, or more acceptably to liberally quote from those who have outdone themselves? With thousands of authors expressing the same limited number of opinions, what are the chances that some two-bit blogger will invent even one small phrase of originality and merit, much less wrap an entire idea in a splendid covering of flowery prose never before seen by human eyes?

But, you may suggest, why not simply avoid writing about issues, and instead paint a picture of some personal event, or better still some invention of the imagination? Surely an original concept of happenstance is more likely to be "original", right? But that too is folly, and a fruitless pursuit. Because nothing that happens is truly original. What is done has been done before, what happens has happened before. You may think that what has befallen you is something no man has ever experienced -- but it is just as likely that, if you share your story with the person sitting next to you in Yoga, you will find they have experienced the same heartbreak, only twice as bad, for twice as long.

But surely our imaginations can picture something that no other could experience in real life, and that has previously been unimagined? Fat chance. One need look no further than our own cultural looking glass, the silver screen, to see that the very concept of an "original idea" would be both original and unfathamable. Oh, that is not to say that, once in a blue moon someone somewhere will come up with something that, if not truly unique, is different enough to appear as something new. But in a world of billions of people, the rare occurance of some small speck of originality only proves the hopelessness of a world of people with truly original stories to tell.

But if I, among millions of others, grasp this concept, this "theory of repetition", why did I ever agree to participate in a weekend of "original blogging"? For the same reason so many humans to so many stupid things -- pride. I'm not afraid to admit it -- I wanted to do the impossible, to dream the impossible dream, to reach the unreachable star. And much more so because, as is often the case, the challenge was given to me by a woman. And men are largely incapable of avoiding disaster when prodded by a woman.

For example, on Monday I was at my Physical Therapist, which had thus far been very "unpainful". The PT (a woman) suggested we would strengthen some muscles, and put me on the "Chuck Norris" machine. I knew that what I was about to do would lead to disaster, and I told her so. But she insisted I could do it, and suddenly my Neanderthal instincts took over. And darned if I didn't do 10 reps, followed by another 10.

And darned if the next morning, I was incapable of even WALKING. Men are stupid, especially when it comes to challenges, and ESPECIALLY when those challenges are advanced by a member of the fairer sex. (At this point I should note that I don't rightly know whether the "original original idea" came from a man or a woman, only that my recollection is Vivian Page had something to do with it).

So, here I am, in the face of certain failure, with a song running through my head, something about "unsinkable ships sink, unbreakable walls break" -- yes, it's a country music song, and no, I don't own a gun so I think I'm safe for now. And I am writing something that most suredly is not "new", or "original", but rather derivative of a dozen better-written, better-known works which I have been exposed to in my life.

And I can no more ignore those influences than I can breathe air that nobody has ever breathed before.

"Is there anything of which one can say, 'Look! This is something new'?" (Eccl. 1:10) The answer is a resounding NO.

I can only hope that, in spite of my paucity of talent, or maybe BECAUSE of it, I will be judged to have expressed an original viewpoint in an original, albeit less than perfect, fashion. I don't know why I think there will be judging, but if there was I know exactly why I want to win -- Pride. It's not new, it's not original, but it's real. And if I'm managed to turn a phrase somewhere in here that is new to you, feel free to take it and run with it -- Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all.

How can an Incumbent put down a Primary Challenge?

Well, if you are Democrat Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington State, you just pay off your opponent with an over-paid staff job on your campaign. From the Seattle Post-Examiner:

Cantwell pays former opponent $8,000 a month
Campaign manager makes only a little more

A vocal former opponent's silence is important enough to Sen. Maria Cantwell's re-election effort to pay him $8,000 a month -- nearly as much as her campaign manager -- to join her campaign staff.

The Cantwell campaign initially refused to say last week how much it would pay Mark Wilson to drop his Democratic primary challenge to the senator and his harsh criticism of her opposition to immediate U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.

But campaign manager Matt Butler issued a statement Thursday disclosing Wilson's salary.

It isn't much lower than Butler's salary, which, according to Cantwell's quarterly Federal Election Commission report, was $26,192 for the first three months of 2006, or $8,731 a month.

She still has one challenger, I wonder if they have more positions open on her campaign staff?

Court Overturns "Walmart Health Care" law

Last year the Maryland assembly, over the veto of Governor Erlich, passed a law requiring "large" employers to provide health care/benefits equal to 8% of their total benefits. The law's definition of "large" was written so that Walmart was the only employer effected. The law was pushed in part by Maryland and national unions as a way to get back at Walmart for being a non-union employee -- even though the Walmart benefits were already better than some union benefits.

Today, a Federal Judge overturned the law:

BALTIMORE (AP) -- A first-of-its-kind state law that would have required Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to spend more on employee health care in Maryland is invalid under federal law, a judge ruled Wednesday.

The state law would have required non-governmental employers with 10,000 or more workers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes. The measure was directly aimed at Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart...
...
Motz cited the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which he said pre-empts "any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan."

"My finding that the act is pre-empted is in accordance with long established Supreme Court law that state laws which impose health or welfare mandates on employers are invalid under ERISA," Motz wrote in his 32-page opinion.

Wal-Mart Chief Executive Lee Scott said the ruling meant businesses would not have to contend with different standards in different states for health coverage.

"The thing that we find encouraging is that there is going to be consistency, that the federal government is going to be the control point on health insurance and these kinds of issues, so that commerce itself, businesses, will be able to have one set of standards that they work against," Scott said during an appearance on the Rev. Al Sharpton's syndicated radio show.

I'm happy to see the law overturned, although I thought it was a bad law to begin with for other reasons. For example, one way Walmart could meet the requirements of the law would be to offer fewer "part-time" employment opportunities (which didn't have access to the same level of health care), or perversely to lower the pay of their employees so that the health care was more than 8% of the adjusted employee pay.

The state argued that the law was necessary because too many companies had decided to no longer offer medical insurance as an employee benefit, and the employees, rather than buy their own insurance, would instead use the state-run medicaid program.

In other words, what used to be part of a contract between a company and the workers they were trying to hire, was now to be made a government-mandated benefit of employment, all because the government couldn't bring itself to regulate its own benefits programs.

The problem with government benefits is that politicians get votes from people who get stuff form the government, but rarely get votes for cutting people out of the programs. So the state, which stuck it's nose in the normally private business of people taking care of their own health and buying their own insurance or paying their own way to the doctors, now is upset that too many citizens might take advantage of the state largess, and decided the best thing to do was kill two birds with one stone and punish a large company hated by the unions that elect the majority-democrat legislature.

As I've said before, someone ought to think about removing health care as an employee benefit, which would force medical insurance companies to compete directly for the health care dollars of it's "customers", like most other insurance.

But whatever the reason, the world is a little better off today, now that this law has been nullified.

Special Ed

This is a blog that I've had as a draft and I havn't gotten a chance to publish this until now, so this may not make sense since this is the middle of the summer. Just bear with me.



Ok, there is this boy at school, he bugs everyone. But he is especially mean to me. We'll call him "Ed".

For example, he has:

• made rude and unnecessary comments
• attempted to kick me in the head when I was picking up my pencil
• kicked my things when they are on the ground
• slapped me in the face

So, Ed because spends all class interrupting and making rude comments, and HE GETS AWAY WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why? Because none of the teachers want to deal with him or his parents. Now even though he used to be a straight A student, he ought not be allowed in regular classes.

He never does any of his work any more, and he acts like a 6 year old.

My school has this new hall swept policy (it has been in effect for three months), which states that if a child isn't in the classroom at his or her seat by the time the bell rings they are to be sent to the office to get a detention. Ed has been late to one class ever since we have had the new policy, and has he had to go and get any of his detentions? NO.

This could be justified as the teacher doesn't wish to send any one down to the office. NOT TRUE. One girl walked in the door just as the bell started to ring, and sat in her seat by the time it was finished reading, and my teacher sent her to the office. Also, many other students have been sent to the office for being tardy, but not Ed.

Just a few days ago we were supposed to write a cause and effect sentence. Ed practically yelled out "I pretended to trip and fall so I could push Crystal and she would fall flat on her face." I was appalled. And what did my teacher do about it? NOTHING! That could be classified as a threat, which is an out of school suspension.

Has the school system stopped punishing students who should be in special ed? And if they don't punish those students, what makes them think they can punish students who did nothing?

One time I was doodling in a class, I got yelled at. Ed doodles all the time and never pays attention, he doesn't get yelled at at all.I'm sure if he dyed his hair neon red they would let him stay in school (LOL!).

Well, what do you think? Shouldn't he be getting equal treatment? Even if he is Special Ed?

Conservathing Two

Smoking

Hi! The ghost of Conservathing 2 is here.

Should we allow parents to smoke in their cars and homes, with children present? I say, no.

It has been said that "Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S. killing 38,000 to 65,000 non-smokers every year." (Facts about second-hand smoke)

Also that "Exposure to secondhand smoke can cause children to develop asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, other respiratory infections, and ear infections. Exposure to secondhand smoke also increase the risk that infants will die of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)." (same site as before).

So should we risk children's lives by letting their parents smoke in a closed environment with them?

Now, it's not really just smoking in the home, it's mostly smoking in an enclosed area with a child around. The smoke would be stuck in the room and the child would be breathing it constantly. Out in the open smoking is less dangerous for children because they would also get some air, instead of just pure smoke.

However, the worst thing you can do is smoke in car with a child in the back seat and the windows rolled up.

If we were to ban smoking in the household, we could be preventing some cases of asthma in children. We could save some children's lives.

Here are some more facts about second hand smoking and children:

• Nearly 1 in 13 school-aged children has Asthma
• An estimated 8,000 – 26,000 new asthma cases arise in children per year
• Between 1980-1994, asthma among children under 5 years old increased by 160%
• Nearly 1 in 5 of all pediatric emergency room visits are asthma-related
• Nearly 2 out of 5 children aged 2 months-5 years live with at least one smoker
• A estimated 9-12 million children are exposed to secondhand smoke at home
• It is estimated that up to 1 million children have aggravated asthma symptoms due to Secondhand Smoke
• Other major indoor asthma triggers are dust mites, mold, and animal dander, and cockroach allergens

( Facts about Second Hand Smoke )

-Conservathing Two

Vincent (TC) Responds regarding tonight's events

As I often do when speculation arises, I contacted Vincent, who was kind enough to send me an e-mail to post. I do so here without modification. I will briefly add a thought or two in the comment section.

Blogosphere-

I was excited when I woke up today to take the three hour drive from Waco up to Tyler, Texas to visit some of my family. Eating dinner with family I hadn’t seen for many years, I began receiving a barrage of calls, stating that a hacker had posted anonymous comments on itself, an anonymous site.

The blogosphere is a unique place, where people from all sides of the political spectrum come to express their opinions. While some would try to stop the free expression of ideas, I am a proponent of it.
Over 80% of the comments on my site are from anonymous people.

When I received a call from numerous people telling of a hacker, I did not think of anyone except the readers. I immediately halted comments, and then the site itself. If our comments are not safe, neither are the over 700 different ip addresses who have commented on TC since moving to wordpress.

If I can not feel safe commenting on a site as myself, then it is not worth commenting. If this kind of behavior continues, the blogosphere will cease to exist.

I have stored comments made on my site, as well as posts, but until this matter can be fully resolved have chosen to suspend Too Conservative and have rerouted traffic to Commonwealth Conservative.

I hope every blog ensures that their comments are not for public knowledge, even when personal vendettas get in the way.

If I have offended anyone to the point of hacking into my site, I am sorry.

Please help me shed light on the events of today, I know together we can get to the bottom of this.

Once known, I will be sure to reveal the identity of the hacker to the blogger community, even if it is the last post I ever write.

Thanks for your civility,
Vincent Harris
Aka Too Conservative

Yoga isn't that bad

In previous posts I made what could be considered disparaging comments about Yoga.

Having now taken two "gentle Yoga" classes, I'll say that it's not the worst thing I've had to do in my life. In fact, I found myself a bit upset tonight when at 6:40, I was looking over the class schedules and saw that there was a Yoga Happy Hour class at 6:30 that I missed because it was on a different page from the rest of the Yoga classes.

The idea that I would like Yoga, much less that I would feel bad about missing a Yoga session, scares me.

Elvis is Back and Laying into Vincent Harris (TC)

A new blog has popped up on the web, "velvet elvis". (I know this through Virginia Virtucon who saw it on Black Velvet Bruce Lee).

According to Elvis, Vince posted to his web site using assumed names and anonymously. If the information is correct, here are the things Vincent said about me:

charles and jim young are both baby killing commies
...
C to the H to the A to the R to the L to the E to the S!!!Has it ever occured to you that you don’t know everything dude? you sit on your fanny reading the blogs but never get out there to find out if the information is true
...
When your wife leaves you charles you will wish they were legal

I actually came off pretty well compared to other people.

It will be interesting to see how Vincent responds to this, if at all. He obviously knows what he has and hasn't done -- but to prove this false he would have to make his counter information public so we could all look at it.

I doubt he would do that -- and from the looks of the Velvet Elvis site, that's what Elvis is posting anyway -- although being dead shouldn't give Elvis access to blog counter information.

I don't even care therefore if TC denies this or not (well, not quite -- if he admitted his past mistakes I would think more highly of him), because I don't care what people call me anyway, and the only person who matters is TC himself, and he knows what he did and did not do and has to deal with his own conscience.

I imagine that if counter information was public, we'd find more than one blog inflating their numbers by having multiple posting names from the same people. In Los Angelos, a writer lost his job because he did this on his newspaper blog (I think they called it "sock-puppeting", the idea being that it's one person operating multiple characters).

UPDATE: Something odd is happening to TooConservative -- I noticed earlier this evening that most of the posts had dissappeared, and now Greg L. over at BVBL.net has a post up suggesting a hostile takeover.

I just want to say publicly that, while I give Vincent a very hard time, he is not my enemy, and while we are not "friends" in the traditional sense, I do not wish harm on him.

Even a few democrats agree DCC add is inappropriate.

From CNN: Edwards and Spratt call on DCCC to pull down web video:

Democratic Reps. Chet Edwards (Texas) and John Spratt (S.C.) have called on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to pull down a controversial web video that uses images of flag-draped coffins and a grave of a fallen soldier.
...
"I would not have included the clip showing the flag-draped caskets or the clip showing a soldier standing at the grave of a fallen comrade," Spratt wrote Thursday in his letter to Emanuel. "I strongly recommend that you pull this ad and delete both of these clips before running it again."

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership doesn't agree:

But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) defended the video yesterday...

"I don't know why they are making an issue of this except that, again, it speaks truth to power about what is happening in Iraq," she said.

Whenever Pelosi can't think of anything to say (which is often), she dredges up the trite phrase "speaks truth to power", as if it means something. A good reporter might have asked her whether there was ever ANY war in which there were not dead soldiers, and therefore how can the showing dead soldiers be "speaking truth to power", unless she is saying that no war should be fought because there will be dead soldiers.

Or to put this more simply, if the Iraq war is wrong, it's wrong regardless of whether there are dead soldiers, and if it is right, it is right even though soldiers die in war. Judging a war based on the number of people dying is the most anti-american act the Democratic leadership takes, for that reason. People die in war, and when you hype the number of dead, you invite your enemy to kill more soldiers, because you suggest that the war's value is measured by how few people die on your side.

Killing your son is not a "desperate action"

So, I'm watching Channel 7's news, and Gail Pennybacker is talking about the Georgetown Law school professor who killed his 12-yar-old son before taking his own life last night.

[UPDATE: He was a George Mason professor, as noted by a commenter].

The ABC written story can be found here. Also, you can see the video from a link at that site.

At the end of her story, all of which was focused on there being two "victims" of this shooting, she said the police would look carefully at recent events to "determine what could have provoked Dr. Lash to take such a desperate action".

I can think of a lot of words to use to describe his action. Criminal, Vile, Abhorent, Mindless, Evil, Inexplicable, and Cowardly, to name a few. But not "desperate". Desperate sounds like he had no choice, and simple made a wrong decision trying to get out of a tragic situation. Again, as if he was as much of a victim as his son.

This was a tragedy -- a well-educated man killed his son in cold blood, and then killed himself rather than standing up and accepting responsibility for his despicable act. But I have no sympathy for the father -- killing your son is never an acceptable solution, no matter how often the pro-"choice" crowd tells the nation that children who aren't perfect should be killed for their own good.

Democrats Support the Troops, Part 2

The Democrat organization "Code Pink" has a long-running weekly protest at Walter Reed Hospital, where they suggest they support the troops by using the wounded soldiers at the hospital as a backdrop to protest the President and denounce the war.

Last week, one of the wounded soldiers (remember, these are the men that the democrats "honor") came out to talk to the Code Pink protesters. He has pictures of how they responded to a wounded veteran who sacrificed for their freedom -- several pictures in fact, of the democrats flipping him the bird.

His short story is HERE.

James Simpson Re-appears

A couple of months ago, James Simpson "retired" from writing columns for the Potomac News -- a fact I blogged HERE.

This past Wednesday, his column re-appeared directly below my column. I don't know if this is going to be an occasional thing, or if he got tired of not being able to say what he wanted and get people to listen.

In any case, if he is back I think that's a good thing, although I'd rather see him on another day :-)

Especially since so many of my own readers are upset with my latest column supporting the Vulcan Prince William Quarry.

Democrats Honor Troops by showing Dead Soldiers

Heard Rich Lowry on Fox News with an excellent quote:

"Why is it the every time the Democrats want to "honor" our soldiers it shows them dead?"

The Democrats want to take back control of the house this fall, and to do so they have just released a new TV commercial. The TV commercial shows images of a soldier bowing before the helmet of his fallen comrade, and rows of flag-draped coffins.

In other words, the democrats are using the image of dead soldiers to try to win votes in an election.

Don't believe me? See the dispicable video HERE.

The video also shows a hurricane, no doubt generated by the Carl Rove Weather Machine. And a really sour picture of Cheney, maybe after he was told Howard Dean wouldn't go hunting with him one weekend.


Oh, the democrats complain that the republicans ran an ad showing brave firefighters hauling victims from the towers in 9/11, some of whom were dead. Which just shows that, in a picture with both live brave american heros, and dead americans, the democrats naturally focus on the dead people.

And the test results are -- inconclusive

I got my MRI results back, and my Doctor says they are good. What he means is that the results show no problems. Of course, my leg is still in constant pain, but at least (he says) we know that there isn't any real damage that would require an operation.

In fact, what little problems there are in my spine (and there are problems, a few compacted disks and a small cyst) are on the RIGHT side, not the left where my pain lies.

It does bother me that we can't find a rational explanation for my current crop of symptoms. The doctor is certain it is a nerve problem, but when I ask what could have caused the problem initially, or the severe pain of Father's day, we just don't have an answer.

The next step is Physical Therapy, maybe 2-3 times a week for at least 4 weeks. My first appointment is Wednesday morning, and I've was told that this particular PT group doesn't believe in pain (several "friends" have compared their PT experiences to torture, which didn't exactly make me happy to sign up).

I'm walking without my crutches now (I take them with me for when I get tired). Today I signed up at the Freedom Fitness center so I could do water aerobics and yoga as recommended by the doctor. I even swam a few dozen laps, later in the day walked a half mile on my treadmill (at about 1 mph or so -- not exactly burning up the track).

I have now decided that this is exactly what I needed to get my life together. In fact, earlier this year I had discussed taking the summer off from work to get myself in shape and lose all the extra weight I've accumulated -- because I'm at risk for heart disease, and I'm getting to the age where it will be near-impossible to recover.

So this injury may have given me the opportunity to do exactly what I thought I should do. I've lost 40 pounds since this started, and now I will have to submit to several hours a week of hands-on therapy, and doctor-ordered exercise classes.

I'm doing it for my family, and for myself. I'm sorry my children have had to put up with a fat parent, and that my lack of exercise has left me unable to participate fully with them. I remember my father playing football with us (of course he had children a lot earlier in life -- when my father was MY age, I was already in college, while my kids are still young). My son is getting excited about getting in shape, and reminds me that I had promised to work out with him this summer anyway, so this may bring us together as well.

I didn't set up this blog to be a personal diary of my life. I hope that my occasional over-sharing of information isn't too distracting.

I've enjoyed my little break from blogging, and expect to get back into the swing of things in the next couple of days. I've got to finish my column for the week still, but then I've got a couple of stories I want to delve into in more detail.

Thanks for all the prayers and words of encouragement. They are much appreciated.

PW Republicans make good show at 4th of July events

When Tom Kopko cancelled the June 26th PWCRC meeting in order to encourage people to show up at the 4th of July events, some bloggers and commenters attacked him either for not having meetings every month like he promised, or for the tone of his note suggesting that it would turn people off and keep them from showing up.

Now the results are in, and it seems that republicans made a good showing this holiday. (Confession: I was not part of ANY of the activities here, as I was in Bayse, Virginia for the week).

From the Committee:

Dear GOP friends,

TOGETHER, we did it! Thanks to the record number of GOP volunteers July 1st through the 4th! Congratulations!

The Dale City Parade was the MASSIVE GOP SHOWING OUR CANDIDATES NEEDED! Well over 100 Republicans walked in the Dale City Parade or manned the booth. Many remarked at our impressive strength versus the anemic Dems! When the Washington Post chose pictures, they chose us!

The parade followed a great weekend of GOP presence at the Dale City Gun Show on Saturday and Sunday, and a very successful Marriage Amendment booth at the picnic of First Baptist Church of Woodbridge.

Please take a breather before getting back into it at the August events below. See you soon.
Thanks again!

I understand that Tom's direct approach can rub people the wrong way, and think that a slightly more subtle approach would serve him better in his current position (my uninformed opinion is that he is still in more of a campaign worker mode).

But I am happy to see that people are coming out to support the republican cause. I am encouraged, and hopeful that the party can come on strong this fall and hold Prince William for our side. We have good candidates and a good message, and with good organization things should turn out well for us.

Odd people at Gore Book Signing

I'm watching Al Gore's Washington D.C. Book Signing on C-Span tonight (no, I don't have a real life).

And I'm listening to the people coming up to get signatures, because some things they say are pretty funny. But mostly it's people agreeing with Al, or asking him to come speak to them, stuff like that.

Then this young woman comes up, and says something about being a staffer in the house working on climate change. Gore asks if she works for Henry Waxman, and the woman says no.

She works for Tom Davis.

Gore asks if Waxman and Davis are in accord on this issue, and she says

Yes.

Things that make me hold my nose when I vote republican.



Of course, I can't say whether this woman really worked for Davis, or if so if she is properly expressing his opinion.

It's just funny what you here on C-Span.

Do we need permission to have Primaries?

Vince over at TooConservative expresses the opinion that you should only have a party primary if the seat is "safe" for the party. In his post Primaries Okay When Party Has A Solid Hold, he says:

Lets take the current Connecticut democratic primary.

It’s a safe dem seat, so while I personally favor Lieberman to win, I believe a primary is warranted.

The application of this particular "rule" would be problematic. For example, if you support the incumbent, you may claim that a seat is only "safe" if the incumbent is running, while if the "crazies" in the party get a victory, the seat may be lost.

And oddly, none of the usual suspects in the comments has mentioned last year, when Steve Chapman ran a primary against Parrish in what has to be considered one of the safest of republican seats. Some who are now saying primaries are good things didn't like Steve's running a primary campaign.

It was last year, during that campaign, that I wrote about why primaries were good for our democracy. And while I disagree that they should be restricted to when a party's hold is sure, I did say that primaries were most important in that instance, to give voters SOME method of signalling their opinion. From that column, titled Primaries offer competition instead of business as usual:

The Democrat and Republican parties are having primary elections on June 14. I am a strong supporter of party primaries. The way most districts are drawn, a primary is the only chance to make a real choice. Incumbents are not entitled to their offices, and democracy is best served by healthy competition. We hurt democracy when parties suppress primary challenges, and when the media paints them as a negative. Voter choice is a good thing.

Of course, primary challenges as a practical matter cause trouble for incumbents, use money that would otherwise be used for a general election, and can leave bitter feelings between groups. But that is more because of HOW we run our elections, rather than the elections themselves.

I'm going off-line for a short break

Just so nobody worries about me, I'm going to take a few days off of blogging.

I had my MRI this morning, but will have to wait until after July 4th for my doctors to get the results. Meantime there are things to do, places to go, and sitting for long periods with a laptop on my lap seems to make everything stiffen up.

Of course, I may post something if I get a mind to, but my plan now is not. I will have a column this week, it should be in the paper on Wednesday -- that usually keeps me from blogging too much during the first half of the week anyway.

I'm feeling a little better each day, I even wandered into my office friday just to make sure they hadn't re-assigned my desk. :-)

I'm still stiff, sore, and my back aches, but I've really cut back on my pain medications. Hopefully the MRI will reveal a cause and suggest a simple solution -- then I can start some physical therapy and get back in shape.

Thanks to everybody, and catch you on the flip side of the 4th. Happy Independence Day!!!