Response To Jonathan Marks account of conversation

I was checking if any of my older columns had made it back to an accessible part of the internet, and got a hit on my name from my "old friend" Jonathan Marks, who I had a conversation with at the PWC committee of 100.

That conversation prompted me to finish a post I had been working on for a couple of months, (at least part of it), which I posted in the thread "My thoughts about last November".

Anyway, in that conversation, Jonathan had mentioned he wasn't going to post about it, but I told him I didn't really care, and so he decided to put up his view of the conversation at the post "Charles Reichley Said He Wasn't Worried About My Repeating His Comments On The Gill-Nichols Race".

I believe that in his post, he got several of my points partially or mostly wrong. However, it could well be that I simply said the wrong things, and I don't mean this to be an attack on his post.

Instead, since he was simply reporting what he thought my opinion was, I think the best way to handle it is to simply give my actual opinion, as a way of explanation. Normally I'd post a comment, but as I've said before I'm not signing up to post comments to any of his blogs.

So here is my "corrections" to what he posted. His post information will be in italics. My correction will be after each. Before I start, I will say the general issue I have is that his account gives the impression that I knew more about the Gill campaign than I actually did. I think people thought I was involved with the campaign, but I really wasn't. So maybe he simply took my words about the campaign, which were my opinion, and thought they were based on a more intimate knowledge that he thought I had.

Charles said he had urged the Gill campaign people to confront the issue [AMC] head on, because it was on the blogs. The Gill people said that it hadn't hit the newspapers yet, and until it did responding to these concerns would simply publicize them.

I did write e-mails to the campaign urging a more forceful response. But my comment about the newspapers wasn't a response from them, it was just my opinion of why they probably didn't.

Charles said that he had asked Gill if Gill had ever represented an illegal immigrant. Charles said that he got the impression that Gill did very little immigration work. He said that it was someone else in the Gill and Gallinger firm who was doing that kind of work.

The last sentence was my opinion, not anything I received from Gill or his campaign.

I told Charles that this raises the issue of what exactly Gill does for a living. Gill as of last summer was not a member of the bar in Virginia, Maryland or DC. How does Gill earn a living? Charles told me that he did not know. I found this response a little odd. Everyone knows how Paul Nichols, Ken Cuccinelli, Brian Moran, and even Creigh Deeds earn a living. They are all members of the bar. You can meet or hear of people who they have represented.

I don't remember saying I didn't know how he earned his living, but it is correct that I do not know specifically what clients he is representing or how -- but I never asked that question either, and I also don't know exactly what clients any of those other people represent. Frankly, I don't know how a lot of politicians earn a real living. It may well be a mystery, but it's not surprising that I don't know, as I never tried to find out.

To my surprise, Charles questioned whether Faisal would ever be a viable candidate in PWC. ...

However, Charles felt that Faisal was unelectable in this county, and would have to move if he wanted to be an elected official somewhere.

Charles emphasized that he thought that Faisal was a great guy and would make a great elected official. The problem, he said, was that as soon as anyone with influence in PWC proposed Faisal running again that person would be subjected to a storm of ridicule, taunts and hostile invective. It just wouldn't be worth it for public figures to go with Faisal in the future.

I made my actual argument in my previous post which I cited above. I don't think Jonathan quite caught the intent here, but he's not far off. I would use the word "fear" rather than "felt", in that I fear he couldn't run again. It was certainly clear that people got attacked for simply supporting him, in ways I don't remember "endorsees" being attacked before.

Although since then, I've seen an increasing willingness on both sides of the political spectrum to go after people for who they endorse. So it seems it's not confined to this race or this county. I'm not talking about the "questioning of judgment" -- I'm talking about actually making up false claims of bribes against people who endorse others, for example. Personal attacks leveled simply for an endorsement.

Jonathan didn't mention what I thought he would have found the most interesting item -- that I was not originally a Faisal Gill supporter. In fact, I was leaning toward Julie Lucas (although since it wasn't my district, my "leaning" or "supporting" wouldn't have really meant anything). I knew more about Julie, and I knew people I respected who were supporting her.

It wasn't until I got into defending Faisal against false and absurd attacks that I spoke with him and looked at his campaign.

Maybe Jonathan didn't report that because he still doesn't believe it. I've said it before, but I don't think people believed me before either.

Jonathan and I also spoke about having different personas in person and on the web, and I BELIEVE that he said he found me to be a lot in person like I was in the blogs (don't know if he thought that was strange or unusual).

I told him that if I died and had a blogger epitath, that's what I would want on my blogger grave "same in the blogs as in person".

Obama, a Liberal to be proud of

Sometimes the Democrats have been stuck with candidates who, while somewhat liberal, too often appealed to the centrists in the party, much to the chagrin of the far-left "progressives" who worked so hard to buy the party in 2004.

But this year they have a candidate the left can truly be proud of. Barack Obama is no centrist. In fact, he is the poster child for the far left.

This is a compendium of his rankings by the various organizations on the left and right:

100% from Planned Parenthood
100% from NARAL
0% from the IL Association for Right to Life
0% from Americans for Tax Reform
100% from the NAACP
8% from the American Conservative Union
A rating from the NEA [teachers union]



95 Percent Liberal Quotient, Americans for Democratic Action


100% from Children’s Defense Fund
100% from NOW
88% from the American Immigration Lawyers
0% from the Federation for American Immigration Reform
100% from the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
100% from Americans for Democratic Action [gold-standard of old lefty groups] 100% from the AFL-CIO

100% from the League of Conservation Voters
0% from NRA
‘A’ from Illinois Citizens for Handgun Control


2007 Most Liberal Senator -- National Journal



Also, see VoteSmart's voting support analysis:




Other than his "88%" from the Immigration lawyers, he's a near-perfect socialist. The "8" lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union puts him to the left of even such liberal stalwarts as Chris Dodd and Tom Harkin, and Hillary Clinton (who is no slouch herself with a "9" rating), and well to the left of Leiberman, Reid, and Jumping Jim Jeffords.

He's earned that record with his broad view of government as the driver for everything that happens in this country. For example, in Barack Obama's America, it is the job of the government, using your tax dollars, to develop new technologies:

"Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013."

Yes, if you think that government exists to do everything, Barack is your man. He may not be the most liberal Senator, but he certainly made the effort.

Colgan's response to criticism fails

I feel somewhat bad chastising our Senator Chuck Colgan, right after he stood up for one of his principles and voted with the Republicans to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.

But he has been rightly criticized for breaking two of his campaign promises, and his effort to "explain" his vote neither acknowledges his perfidy, or explains his actions.

Last year Colgan wrote a guest column for the Potomac News making the case for a gas tax. I, believing him to be honorable if misguided, actually wrote a column of my own where I agreed with him on the point. Which made me look like a fool when, just before his election, in a tight race, he denied ever supporting a gas tax increase and promised he would not increase gas taxes.

But when the gas tax came up in the Senate, he enthusiastically supported it. As he tries to describe his actions in today's letter, "Colgan responds to letter writer" (I've re-arranged his letter:

The writer claimed I voted recently for an increase in the gasoline tax.
...
The bill which I voted for would increase the gas tax one cent per gallon this year and each year for a total of five cents per gallon after five years.

In other words, the letter writer was correct. And what excuse does Colgan give?:

Since I voted for a bill which was going to reduce revenues by $65 million I thought it proper to try to replace that revenue with the slight increase in gasoline tax which will, in part, be paid by out-of-state drivers

In other words, he claims that the situation had somehow changed, that because he was not getting rid of the abusive driver fees, he HAD to vote for a gas tax.

But here's the problem with that explanation: Colgan was promising to get rid of the abusive driver fees in his campaign, at the same time he was promising NOT to support a gas tax. He KNEW we were going to lose the "$65 million", when he promised not to support a gas tax.

Oh, and that $65 million is a chimera as well -- the actual money raised was more in the order of a couple of million dollars, rather than the 65 million they had THOUGHT would be raised.

And we should not forget that originally, the abusive driver fees would have applied to out-of-state drivers. Colgan voted AGAINST that. But when Governor Kaine amended the fees to exempt out-of-state drivers, Colgan voted FOR the amended proposal.

Having acknowledged that the letter writer told the truth, Colgan still attacks the writer:

He failed to say that I also was one of seven co-sponsors of legislation, which abolished the hated abusive driver’s fines which were levied against drivers who violated certain traffic laws. Not only did that bill pass but it also contained provisions to reimburse those who paid these fines after July 1, 2007.

But a true accusation of the violation of one's promises does not obligate an accounting of other more honorable actions. That Colgan kept his easy promise to vote with EVERY other senator to right the wrong he committed last year by voting for the abusive driver fees does not excuse his violation of a promise not to raise the gasoline tax, a promise that now clearly seems to have been made with full knowledge that it was only to win an election.

Because unless Colgan is NOW lying about his "need" to raise the gasoline tax, he must have equally known of this need last October when he promised to end the abusive driver fees, AND still promised not to support a gasoline tax increase.

All that is left is for Colgan to try to explain what OTHER taxes he was intending to raise last October in order to replace the $65 million he KNEW he was going to vote to rescind. Because surely he must have known, since he promised not to raise the gas tax, that there would be some other tax that must be raised to, as he said, replace those tax dollars.


BTW, in this same letter Colgan equally fails to defend breaking his promise regarding illegal immigrants:

The writer claimed I voted for legislation which would allow illegal aliens to attend our colleges and universities and pay in-state tuition.

This is partly true.

Once again, the letter writer told the truth. But Colgan believes that the "conditions" of the legislation somehow excuses his betrayal of his constituents:

However, what his letter didn’t state are the conditions under which the so-called illegal student would be permitted to enroll.

The conditions are: If the student has been a resident of the United States for at least three years, if the student graduated from a Virginia high school, if at least one parent has filed a tax return during that past three years and if the student has initiated the process of becoming a citizen; it is better that he or she be educated. I voted for a similar bill during Governor Mark Warner’s term.

We KNEW he voted for this during Warner's term. In fact, that was the reason his opponent in the election was saying Colgan should be sent home -- because he supported in-state tuition for illegals. His opponent cited the bill in question, and said that Colgan would support it again.

Colgan, in response, said his opponent was lying and that he would not support in-state tuition for illegals. And now that he has gone back on his word, he admits that his opponent was absolutely right, and that his words of last October were hollow promises meant only to win him a few ill-gotten votes and possible an undeserved re-election.

Shame on Colgan for treating his constituents so foully.

Bob Marshall Defeats NVTA!!!

When Bob Marshall sued the state over the unconstitutionality of the NVTA taxing authority, a lot of people ridiculed him. Well, it appears he has the last laugh.

From the Potomac News, "Court Rules Unconstitutional northern Va. taxing authority":

A regional authority created by the General Assembly to levy taxes for northern Virginia transportation projects is unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In a unanimous opinion, the court said legislators improperly delegated taxing powers to the unelected members of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority. The ruling invalidates about $300 million in bonds financed by the taxes.

Justice Bernard S. Goodwyn wrote that “the General Assembly has failed to adhere to the mandates of accountability and transparency that the Constitution requires when the General Assembly exercises the legislative taxing authority permitted by the Constitution.”

Unanimous. The State Constitution requires that taxes be raised by elected officials. Instead, the NVTA was populated with people who were not elected to their positions, and have no accountability. Worse, many of the members were not elected to ANY body.

In fact, in a slap to Prince William County, Governor Kaine appointed to one of the slots Sharon Pandak, who has been soundly rejected TWICE to represent the people of our county.

So for now, we are protected from about three hundred million dollars in unconstitutional tax increases. Of course, that's $300 million worth of roads we won't get -- oh wait, that's right, a majority of the tax money was NOT going to build roads anyway.

Stupid Potomac News

As you may know, I write for the Potomac News. You may also know that they so far have not given me permission to post my own articles to my own web site, instead insisting that I link to their web site.

So of course, they just moved everything to "insidenova". And of course, that means every link I've ever used is now broken.

Since they haven't had a good search for my older columns for a while, that means there's some columns I'll never be able to link to again (I of course have all of them in word documents on my computer).

Of course, they probable only moved one or two things over, so the links are gone, until they figure out what they've done.

My thoughts about Last november

I've been putting off writing about last November's elections. Frankly, my opinion isn't all that important, or necessarily informed. And I didn't see the point of making any broad statements so soon after the election where they might be seen as self-serving.

Remember that I'm not a political consultant. I don't really know how elections are won or lost, and while I have suggestions for candidates, I don't know if these would be winning suggestions, or losing ones.

Number one: My opinion now is that candidates can't ignore blog attacks. I used to think they could, that the blogs were just noise read by people who already made up their minds. But now I see that ordinary folks use the web "just to get info", and if the only information out their is a string of negative information, it will have an impact.

I don't think candidates should go after their accusers, or even directly address posts and comments. What I think they should do is to provide their own regular columns in which they would address the accusations indirectly. These columns could be posted on their web site, or could be e-mailed to bloggers who could post them. Get some bloggers on your side, and let them do the work of interpreting your statements relative to the attacks. Volume is great, but it has to start with authoritative information.

For example, in the Gill race, I could post as many articles as I wanted about MY opinion justifying his law firm's work representing people in deportation hearings. But without the candidate making the argument, nobody knows if my opinion matches the facts -- it was just speculation.

And no newspaper was going to pick up MY thoughts. If the reporter read statements from the campaign, that would be news. This used to be bad -- it would get a story that was previously in the blogs out into the real world. So I wouldn't use this to tackle clearly scurrilous and false stories, but for real questions, even if they are based on false premises, the good of having the truth published outweighs the focus on the false stuff. And it gives bloggers real facts to post.

Number two: Regarding Gill. I don't think the "terrorist" charges are what did him in. I don't think the accusations of "representation of illegal immigrants" did him in either, although frankly I think that was a more serious problem for him and did cost him votes. And I realise that without those two issues, this third one wouldn't by itself had made the difference in this close race.

But I think his real problem was having powerful blogger personally opposed to him in the county. Because Greg was against him, it gave voice to every negative piece of information, it gave the opposition a large platform from which to operate, and it gave a lot of people cover for attacks. Further, it showed the democrats that there was significant resistance within the Republican party for a nominee, which may have made it easier to urge Nichols to enter the race.

Gill would be a great delegate. He is a bright man with good conservative ideas, he can express himself well, he is a powerful debater, he is personable, and except for the relationship with Muslim organizations (which I think are explainable but will always be there to be twisted into something else), his family history and his own biography are excellent.

But in my own uninformed opinion, because of the reality of the local Republican opposition driven in large measure by personal conflicts both with Gill and with certain members of the republican leadership, I fear that Gill would have a hard time winning an election here in Prince William while his critics are still here. He'd have a great chance if he moved somewhere else and established a new connection.

In a perfect world, the animosity could be overcome by hard work and civility, but this isn't a perfect world, and people have said so many things that I don't see them being able to overcome it, if for no reason other than the natural inclination to save face. Those who spent months insisting that Gill had a plan to steal the convention with the help of Kopko couldn't turn around and say Gill wasn't involved. Those who ridiculed Gill as a strategy to defend a lawsuit would have a hard time pushing him as the competent, intelligent, and able legislator he would be.

There of course is a certain narrow segment of our party (and the democrat party too) who can't get over the "devout muslim" aspect of the Gill candidacy. Without other negatives, that can be overcome -- EVERY candidate loses a percentage of his base for one reason or another. But having had e-mail exchanges arguing this point, it is clear that a few very motivated people DO think it would be wrong to put a "muslim" in a position of power.

I heard the same from one or two people about Mitt Romney and his "Mormonism". As I said, this crosses party lines, but is something we have to be aware of. It's no help just yelling "bigot" when you confront this -- the arguments made are often "valid" things to discuss, and they should be discussed without the personal animosity. But it's hard -- I've been called a jihadist simply for supporting Gill, which makes it hard to actually discuss the real implications of a person's faith as it impacts legislative tasks.

Number three: Again, I am not a professional, or particularly well-informed. But I agree with Ben Tribbet, who said at the Thursday committee of 100 forum that he doesn't think Faisal's loss is what caused Jay O'Brien to lose. In my opinion, the abuser fees are what did him in. Those fees were a big mistake both policy-wise and politically for a Republican, and hurt many of our candidates.

Would a stronger showing by a local republican have helped Jay? Probably. But Corey Stewart was on the ballot in those precincts, and he did pretty well. It's not like Republicans didn't show up, and while they may have voted for Nichols in a some cases instead of Gill, if they also chose to vote against O'Brien it wasn't because Jay supported Gill (after all Corey did as well). I haven't done the analysis that Ben does, so this is just my gut feeling.

I don't post this to step on any toes. It's just my observations. If Gill does decide to run again, I hope I am wrong about my opinion, because as I said he'd be a good delegate. If someone things O'Brien did lose because of Gill, maybe they are more informed than I am -- I just don't see it.

And for those who actually believed what they were saying about Gill, that's sad in my view. But I'm through arguing about it.

(ED NOTE: I was just going through my old posts, and found that this was never posted, so I did it)

Virginia's HPV Vaccine Mandate

I've written two opinion columns regarding Virginia's school-attendance mandate for the HPV vaccination, where I've argued that because HPV is not transmitted by normal school activity, parents shouldn't be required to vaccinate their children in order to attend school. Required vaccinations should be limited to diseases where, if the parent sent their child to school with the disease, it would put others at risk.

A lot of people dismiss the point by changing the subject, suggesting that us "Christians" just want to force our morality on others. So I found the latest newsletter from the Family Research Counsel especially interesting, as well as informative.

Our House of delegates wisely voted to delay the HPV vaccine requirement (although I think they should repeal the law entirely, and instead simply provide educational materials about the vaccine and let parents decide with their doctors what they should do). The Senate however rejected the delay.

There are questions about the HPV vaccine safety. Probably no more than any vaccine, but realise that if you are at essentially ZERO risk for the infection, and there is a 0.01% risk of a serious side effect, you needlessly harm one child out of 10,000 by mandating the vaccine for everybody.

My personal opinion, which NOBODY should accept (as I said, see your doctor), is that if your child is going to be sexually active, they should get the vaccine, otherwise they should wait a year or two to see first whether the anecdotes about serious and fatal side-effects pan out, and second to see how the second vaccine coming out shortly does in that regard -- it may be a safer vaccine.

Here is the article from the Family Research Counsel, Virginia takes cheap shot at vaccine concerns (2nd article down at link):

Despite new fears over the safety of the HPV vaccine, a Virginia senate committee voted 10-5 yesterday to kill a bill that would have postponed the state's vaccination mandate. The vote came just hours after Arizona news agencies broke the story that the HPV vaccine Gardasil may be linked to the paralysis of a 12-year-old girl. [ED link: Mom Says HPV Vaccine Caused Paralysis in 12-year-old Girl]

Virginia now has the dubious distinction of being the only state in America to require sixth-grade girls to be immunized against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV). Sixteen other states backed away from mandating after a grassroots outcry from concerned parents whose role in the process was to be short-circuited.

The legislation from Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R) simply asked the state to delay its mandate until researchers are able to collect data on the drug's long-term effects. Unfortunately, Virginia has stubbornly chosen to put corporate profit ahead of women's health and parental authority. FRC, which welcomed the development of the vaccine but opposes school mandates, has released a pamphlet by Moira Gaul, MPH, called, "Gardasil: What Every Parent Should Know About the HPV Vaccine." Visit our web site to pick up your copy!

Here is a link to a statement they made a couple of years ago about the vaccine, including their support for the vaccine itself:

After extensive study of the vaccine and discussion with medical experts, we concluded that the public health benefits of developing and distributing such a vaccine far outweighed any potential, hypothetical concerns about its impact on sexual behavior. Therefore, we announced in October of 2005 that we would enthusiastically support the development of the vaccine and federal approval of its use, including its addition to the list of vaccines recommended to physicians and of those made available to lower-income families through the Vaccines for Children program. Virtually all pro-family public policy organizations have announced similar support for the vaccine itself.

The only public policy measure which we would oppose in promoting the vaccine is an effort to make it mandatory for school attendance. Our reason for that is that it would infringe upon parental rights to decide their own children's medical care, without sufficient public health justification (because HPV is not transmitted through casual contact). To repeat, our opposition to mandatory vaccination is rooted in a concern about parents' rights, not about sexual behavior.

They have some other material about HPV posted on their web site, here are some links. Don't use this as your sole source of information. I didn't know they had this information before I wrote my columns, I wish I had:

Don't mandate HPV vaccine -- trust parents
Family Research Counsil Statement Regarding HPV Vaccines

Committee Of 100 Blog Panel

I've finally arrived home from the Prince William Committee of 100 panel on blogging, ethics, and the 1st amendment. I had a wonderful time except for the dread fear I always go through when having to do a public speaking event. (which I rarely if ever do, because I'm not big on dread fear).

There wasn't as much disagreement on the panel as you may have expected. I wasn't that surprised. I did think the discussion was interesting.

I prepared too much, part of that fear thing. If I ever have to do something like this again, I'll be "better" prepared.

The entire thing will be on the web somewhere in video form. I may not link to it -- I don't think I'll enjoy seeing myself, as I'm certain I'll hate what I say and how I look. And I can only hope and pray that I didn't do anything embarrassing.

I may post some of my prepared comments later in a different thread, or maybe not. I'm working on some theories of how we can "take back" the web as a force for good, but I'm not sure that's possible, or whether my ideas would actually work. Maybe we can discuss it together.

I finally met Jonathan Marks, who for the record I still dispise as an internet persona. :)

But as is true for nearly every person I meet, I had no trouble carrying on a civil and actually interesting conversation in person -- we spoke for over 20 minutes. This reminds me that I've meant to put down my thoughts about the last election, and I'll probably do that in the next few days now that I had a chance to articulate them.

I sat at a table with Earnie Porta, Mayor of the Town of Occaquan. I truly enjoyed speaking with him, and with the others at my table who while not as public a figure as Earnie were equally engaging.

I'll probably wait to post anything particularly substantive, and instead read what others might be posting. There were many bloggers at the event.

Blogging, Ethics, and the First Amendment

I'm one of four speakers on a panel at the Committee of 100 tomorrow night. We are talking about Blogging, Ethics, and the First Amendment.

Ben Tribbet is also on the panel, as are two lawyers.

Having not done any serious public speaking in the last 8 years, it should be interesting. I used to have a pretty good command of words, but as I've gotten older I find the words don't quite pop into my head so quickly.

It should be entertaining, as well as informative.

Given Ben's blog ranking, and mine, it appears together we represent the average blog :-)

Doesn't anybody fact-check Obama's claims?

Apparently not, from what I just heard.

Let's just do a single "fact". How much do CEOs make? Well first, this web site claims the average CEO makes 15 million in total compensation a year. The entire group of CEOs at the fortune 500 companies made about 5 billion, which is about 10 million a year average.

The top 3 CEOs, and their compensation, are given in this table:

$230 Million: Terry S Semel Yahoo
$156 Million: Barry Diller IAC/InterActiveCorp
$124 Million: William W McGuire UnitedHealth Group
$92 Million: Howard Solomon Forest Labs

OK, with that in mind, let's look at THIS statement from Obama's speech:

“When we have CEOs making more in 10 minutes than most people make in a year”
(I wrote that down as he said it, don't have a transcript yet).

OK, lets take Terry. $230 million a year. There are 525,600 minutes in a year. So in 10 minutes, Terry makes $4370.

How many people do you know who make 4370 dollars in a year? Is that what the average person makes?

Maybe Obama meant 10 minutes of a working day. And maybe he believes a CEO works an 8-hour day, and a 5-day week. There are 125,142 working minutes in such a year. So in 10 of THOSE minutes, Terry makes $18,370. That's less than the poverty level.

So we can see that even the highest compensated CEO in the country doesn't make in 10 minutes what the average american makes in a year.

To contrast, John Edwards gave about an hour speech at U.C. Davis, and was paid $55,000 -- which is about $10,000 for 10 minutes.

Or maybe this is a better contrast. Obama has tha backing of Oprah Winfrey, and has had her with him on stage, getting her endorsement and by inference endorsing her. And what does SHE make? Well, according to Forbes, in 2005, she made $225 million dollars. That's a mere 5 million less than the top-paid CEO in 2007.

So, is Oprah one of those people that Obama thinks should have her salary cut? Did he mention it to her when she was on stage with him?

Legal Statement of User Comment Policy

The term "commenter" refers to people who leave comments on this blog through the comment capability.

The term owner refers to the people who operate this blog, and have administrative authority.

Comments made by commenters on this blog are the opinions of the user, not the owner(s) of this blog.

By posting comments to this blog, the commenters grant an unlimited use license to the owner(s) of this blog.

This unlimited use means that the owner(s) have no responsibility to allow deletions of comments, or to delete comments even upon request by the commenters.

This unlimited use also means that the owner(s) can delete or edit the comments as they deem necessary, without prior permission of the commenters and without notification to the commenters.


This statement is made for legal purposes only, and is not intended to reflect a change in how this blog will be maintained in the future.

The comments for this entry will be open, so I can have a discussion of this statement, which is driven by some disturbing information I have read regarding the legal status of comments made to blogs.

Reference: 12 important U.S. Laws every blogger needs to know.

Obama Waffling on Campaign Finance Promise?

Last November, when Obama was trying to burnish his credentials as a new kind of politician, (and when he looked like a long-shot for the nomination), he promised to adhere to the federal campaign finance limits by taking public funding for the general election, so long as his republican opponent would do the same.

In a response to a questionare from the Midwest Democracy Institute, Obama repeated a pledge his campaign first made in March of 2007, at which time McCain pledged as well, to use public financing for the general election. I found the text of the questionare at the Democratic Underground web site:

On November 27, 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, an alliance of 20 civic and public interest groups based in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, released the results of a questionnaire that they sent to all of the presidential candidates.The following question was on the questionnaire: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in presidential public financing system?

You answered this question as follows:

OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

It is clear that Obama made a pledge, a promise, to use public funding if the republican agreed. McCain of course has agreed. But now, there are some indications that the Obama campaign no longer intends to keep their promise. But worse, they are now lying about what Obama said previously.

From the Washington Post, "Mr. Obama's Waffle":

Speaking to the Associated Press, Mr. Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, downgraded the Obama plan to "something that we pursued with the FEC and it was an option that we wanted on the table and is on the table." Asked about the campaign's earlier position, Mr. Burton said, "No, there is no pledge."

Obama specifically used the word "pledge" in November, but now his spokesman says there is no pledge.

Obama should either be a man and directly state that he was withdrawing his pledge (since he has so much money now). It is clear that his previous pledge was based not on principle, but on the fact that he didn't think he could raise money. Now that he can raise millions, he wants out -- but instead of admitting the truth, he sent his campaign spokesperson out to lie about what he said before.

If on the other hand Burton is wrong, Obama needs to fire him to prove that Obama is still committed to the public financing plan that McCain has requested of him, and that Obama has promised to follow.

More on the Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis

A commenter asked how I determined that the Commonwealth Institute was a front group for organizations which support illegal immigration.

Rather than respond in a comment, I thought I'd put the information here in a new post, since the thrust of my previous post was to debunk the study, not discuss the organization.

First, according to the article, the Commonwealth Institute's purpose is "to counter some anti-illegal immigrant sentiment in the legislature." The article also says:

"Some of the strongest voices against immigration in Virginia have characterized undocumented immigrants as takers, as people who do not contribute to our state and to our community. This research clearly demonstrates that they are wrong,'' said Michael Cassidy, executive director of the organization.

Note the use of the terms "immigration" rather than "illegal immigration", and later "undocumented immigrants" rather than "illegal immigrants" or more accurately "illegal aliens". These are the phrases used by pro-illegal groups.

If you go to the Commonwealth Institute web site, and look at the bottom of the main page, you will see that the copyright for the page is "Virginia Interfaith Center". Further, the Institute's spokesperson Michael Cassidy is a lobbyist for the Interfaith Center., which VPAP says deals with "Fiscal Policies with a focus on how they affect low-income Virginians."

Next, we go to the Virginia Interfaith Center web site's partners page. We find the following groups:

Interfaith Worker Justice, which provides this statement on immigration, which includes:

Legalize the status of immigrant workers and their families, especially those who come to
the U.S. fleeing oppression and destitution.

Create a clear and easy path for immigrants, including “guest workers,” to legalize their
status, and to make this policy as broad and far-reaching as possible with the least amount of
restrictions, thus helping newcomers exercise their labor rights without fear of job termination
or deportation.

Create a climate in which families with a mix of citizens, legal residents, and undocumented
immigrants would gain protection, so that they would no longer fear forced separation or
relocation because a family member is detained or deported.

Virginia Alliance For Worker Justice, which highlights this article decrying Prince William's arrest of illegal immigrant day laborers.

The Virginia Organizing Project, which published the article "Hurting immigrants won't fix the immigration problem", which says in part:

Virginia also benefits from the hard labor of a huge workforce of both documented and undocumented immigrants working for low pay.
...
This past spring, millions of our immigrant brothers, sisters, co-workers, friends and neighbors took to the streets and marched for justice. At issue was a piece of federal legislation that would have turned millions of hardworking immigrants into felons. Their protest message was simple: ‘We are not criminals. We are here to work and support our families.’
...
This session, the Virginia Justice Center will be working with VOP and our other community partners to ensure that the General Assembly recognizes the contributions of Virginia’s immigrants. Immigrant-bashing to score political points will not go unchallenged. The Virginia Justice Center asks you to be ready to oppose anti-immigrant proposals like these that will probably come up this year:

• Bills that would stop local governments from using local funding to offer services to many immigrant residents of their communities;
• Bills that would prevent many of Virginia’s immigrant children from going on to college either through bans on college admission or access to in-state tuition;
• Bills that would undermine community policing efforts and increase racial profiling by calling for local and state police to try to enforce immigration law, instead of leaving immigration enforcement to trained federal agents; and,
• Bills that would mean more frustrated people at DMV desperately searching for the right combination of documents and lead to even more unlicensed drivers on Virginia’s roads.

They are also associated with SALT (Social Action Linking Together), which published their 2008 agenda containing this:

Perhaps immigration is the most disappointing issue faced by NETWORK in 2007. At the beginning of 2007 the popular wisdom was that we would get the McCain/Kennedy bill from 2006 through the Senate and then have rough sledding in the House. We did not adequately factor in the reluctance of Senators to vote for that bill when they knew that the House would not make it more restrictive. As a consequence, despite two valiant attempts to pass comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate, nothing was accomplished. All sides are now reverting to piecemeal attempts to move the issue forward. NETWORK continues to make comprehensive immigration reform a key issue, especially in the 2008 election.

I think this sufficiently demonstrates that the organizations teamed up with Virginia Interfaith Center and the "Institute" are pro-illegal-immigrant, or as they say "undocumented immigrants".

Fake "study" says Illegals pay taxes

The Potomac News published an article today covering a "study" performed by a pro-illegal front group titled "Report: Illegal Immigrants Contribute". The report was written by "The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis".

This group shares an address and phone number with the Virginia Interfaith Center and Public Policy, a group with decidedly pro-illegal leanings.

The article states:

The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis estimates that illegal immigrants contribute between $379 million and $453 million a year in income, sales, property and other taxes.

But the article then notes that you can't actually do this:

The study recognizes there is no way to calculate exactly how much illegal immigrants pay in taxes.

So instead, they just guess:

It uses figures from a 2005 Pew Hispanic Center study that estimates there are 250,000 to 300,000 illegal immigrants in Virginia. The center estimates that Virginia's at least 109,000 undocumented households earns an average of $27,400 annually, resulting in at about $3 billion in income.

"Like all other workers in our state, they spend that money,'' Cassidy said. "And like most low-wage workers, they spend almost all of that money.''

Cassidy said the study accounted for about $4,000 each year that would be sent back to the immigrant's home country and not put back into the economy.

The study estimated that about half of the illegal immigrant workers paid income taxes, meaning they and their employers also contributed to Social Security and Medicare, benefits they are ineligible to receive.

This is not a “study”. They took an estimate of how many illegals were in the state. They took a guess as to how much money each one would earn. They then guessed how much of that money they would spend, guessed how many people lived in a home, and guessed what their income tax rate would be.

They added up all the numbers, and said “that’s how much tax they pay”.

But the sales tax for food is 1.5%, and many illegals mostly by food. If they buy stuff over the internet, they might not collect sales tax, but instead have to pay “use tax”, but the illegals wouldn’t be filing their ‘use tax’ forms.

They live multiple people to a home, which means the per-person property taxes are low.

They have to pay gas tax, except a lot of them drive bicycles and even mopeds that they modify to go faster than the 35-mph legal limit (there’s a bill about that in the Virginia legislature now). So often they aren’t buying much gasoline.

They pay payroll tax, but only if they are being paid “legally”, which many of them aren’t. Day laborers are often contracted as independent agents, and expected to do their own payroll and income taxes.

This of course all casts into doubt their numbers. Then you have to do a “relative” cost analysis.

If the illegals all disappeared, SOME jobs would go with them, since some of this work is to support the illegal immigrant community. But most of the jobs would still remain, and would be filled by legal workers. Not only would they pay those same taxes, they might be paid MORE money for the jobs because of less competition, so they’d pay MORE in taxes. And they would be less likely to skip out on taxes.

In the end, I imagine the tax collected would INCREASE if the illegals were gone. The economy might shrink some, because there would be fewer people.

Then you have to look at the cost side of the ledger. How much does it cost to have all these poor illegals?

Well, we already know that adding a typical poor family to a state COSTS the state money. That’s for legals or illegals. That’s why counties try to encourage upscale home building, and discourage condos and rental units. A rich person and a poor person use the same roads, but the rich person adds a lot more to the economy for that road use, for example.

And these illegals are mostly poor people. They don’t contribute enough to pay for the COMMON services, but as poor people they also use ADDITIONAL services — free medical care, social service programs, food stamps, etc. Some are hard for the illegals to get, others very easy to come by.

The numbers people throw around here for school are mostly low. The AVERAGE cost for a student is between 10-14 thousand dollars. But the average well-educated white student from a middle class family costs very little to educate, maybe 6-7 thousand dollars. The reason the average is so high is bacause of the mandated special education needs of other students.

Like illegals, who need special english programs, and head start, and remedial training, and tutors, and extra counselors, and spanish-speaking administrators. Also school lunches, school breakfasts.

So my guess is each illegal student is going to be ABOVE the 10-14 thousand dollar cost.

Since my total virginia tax bill doesn’t seem to quite cover the stated cost of educating my two children, it is clear that the taxes collected won’t come NEAR to paying for a poor illegal with 5 children, one of whom has children of her own (yep, 12-year-olds are having children at my son’s middle school).

Aid to families with dependent children. Medicare payments. Child tax credits, refundable. Child day care tax credits.

The cost of a poor segment of society is enormous. Encouraging millions more to be that poor segment is absurd.

Obama votes to punish companies that help fight terror

In our fight against terrorism, one key component is our ability to determine what the terrorists are planning, before they can carry out their plans. 9/11 was in part a failure of intelligence, our inability to effectively put together information, to intercept the communications, to dig through seized computer assets.

We learned a lot in the wake of 9/11. We had multiple hearings on various aspects of that attack and our failures, including the famed 9/11 report. In response, we passed bills which improved our ability to catch the terrorists not in the act, but before the act.

In some cases, our executive branch requested the services of American telecommunications companies in protecting our country and it's people from terrorist attacks. These patriotic companies joined in the fight against terror. Whether you agree or disagree with the administration actions (I agree with them), it is clear the companies were doing their part in good faith to protect the citizens of this country.

But rather than praise these companies for looking out for American interests, some want to punish those companies. So the new anti-terror bill included protection for this companies. A broad bipartisan majority agreed to this protection. But Obama voted to punish these American companies. From the Wall Street Journal, "Obama's Wiretap Votes":

Now and then sanity prevails, even in Washington. So it did yesterday as the Senate passed a warrantless wiretap bill for overseas terrorists while killing most of the Lilliputian attempts to tie down our war fighters.

"We lost every single battle we had on this bill," conceded Chris Dodd, which ought to tell the Connecticut Senator something about the logic of what he was proposing. His own amendment -- to deny immunity from lawsuits to telecom companies that cooperated with the government after 9/11 -- didn't even get a third of the Senate. It lost 67-31, though notably among the 31 was possible Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama. (Hillary Clinton was absent, while John McCain voted in favor.)

The WSJ rightly criticizes Obama for this vote, and asks what this tells us of his naivete when it comes to protecting our country from the very real terror threat:

It says something about his national security world view, or his callowness, that Mr. Obama would vote to punish private companies that even the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee said had "acted in good faith." Had Senator Obama prevailed, a President Obama might well have been told "no way" when he asked private Americans to help his Administration fight terrorists. Mr. Obama also voted against the overall bill, putting him in MoveOn.org territory.

It is clear that a large number of Democrats don't mind attacking American companies who are doing their best to help protect America. Those Democrats will be happy to vote for someone like Obama who will vote to make those companies pay for their service with lawsuits.

But I hope the large portion of the American electorate who care about this country and about protection from a terror attack will not support a Presidential candidate who does not share their views. I was hoping they would make up a majority of the Democratic voters, but it appears now that Obama is, inconceivably, being considered the party's choice for President. It may be too late for me to help get a more sane candidate from the Democratic party.

Obama says Yes to post-birth abortion.

Do abortion rights extend to babies who are already born alive? According to Presidential Candidate Barack Obama (D), they should.

Read more at "Obama says Yes to post-birth Abortion".

Barack would allow the deaths of the innocent in these "comfort rooms". He talks of the audacity of hope, but apparently that is nothing compared to the audacity of a man who would talk about hope but be so beholden to his pro-abortion views that he extends them to post-born babies.

Roger Clemens

Ever since allegations surfaced that Clemens used human growth hormone, Roger has been on an escalating campaign denying the charges. At each step, detractors suggested he had to go further.

This past week he went about as far as he could go, supposedly testifying under oath that he did not use any performance-enhancing chemicals. This testimony was to congressional investigators, which is another story in itself.

Now the trainer who alleged that he injected Clemens has turned over what he claims is physical evidence of the crime:

NEW YORK — Brian McNamee has given federal investigators bloody gauze pads, syringes and vials he said he used to inject Roger Clemens with steroids and human-growth hormone in 2000 and 2001, a lawyer familiar with the matter said Wednesday.

McNamee, Clemens' former personal trainer, hopes that DNA and chemical tests on the materials will support his contention that he injected Clemens with those drugs and prove that Clemens lied in a sworn deposition to congressional investigators Tuesday, the lawyer said.

This has been a fascinating story to me. I like trying to figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth, by simply applying logic. It doesn't always work, because people are not logical.

In this case, maybe because I like Clemens, I feel the evidence at this point logically points in his favor. Up until his testimony, all his denials cost him nothing but his own reputation for truthfulness, which was hardly much of a risk compared to the hit from being called a cheater.

But lying under oath could land him in prison, something his actions could not. You wouldn't expect a smart man with legal representation to risk that if they knew the story was true.

Then the physical evidence was presented, and for some it was treated as important as the Blue Dress.

But I don't see it that way, and in fact the presentation of the "evidence" I think makes the allegataions a bit less believable.

Some argue that it seems strange the guy saved the evidence. But I am guessing the gauze will have Clemen's blood on it, for the simple truth that if it doesn't, the guy will be easily found to be a liar, and whatever deal he was getting will evaporate.

Likewise, I expect the drugs will be there, for the same reason. Although I do understand that people like this don't work on logic, and will in fact make denials that are trivially disproven, I never can bring myself to believe that before it is proven.

But it would be easy enough to mix the Clemen's material from normal injections, with drugs from others. So if the evidence shows what is alleged, it doesn't prove anything. And a smart man would know that -- so why keep it for so long, when it doesn't in fact help prove his case?

If he was keeping it for blackmail, he blew that by talking. If he was keeping it to protect himself, it doesn't do that either.

And remember the phone call? The one Clemens used to try to get the trainer to admit his deception? The trainer claims he was still friends with Clemens. If so, why not mention the evidence then, and say "Look, Roger, I have the syringe with your blood on it, so you better fess up."

It would have kept Roger from attacking him -- which is why he now says he kept it.

Instead, he held this "evidence" AFTER Roger turned on him, until Clemens took a step that put him in real jeopardy.

I'm guessing there is a great book deal for the man who gets Clemens thrown in jail. But not for the man who is found to have falsely accused a well-respected pitcher.


As to what the truth is, I still hold out the possibility that the trainer shot up Clemens without his knowledge. If so, I the evidence he kept doesn't prove anything, but Roger insists he didn't get drugs -- which is another reason I tend to believe him, because it would be a lot easier for him to argue the guy just did it without Roger knowing about it.

2nd annual Blogger COnference

This was my first conference. I've noted that while I have many interests, I'm rarely dedicated to them, so I tend to be an outsider everywhere.

I feel that way about blogging as well, like I'm not really part of the "gang", that I'm a "hobbyist" in the midst of serious folks.

Despite that, I very much enjoyed the day at the 2nd annual Virginia Blogger's conference sponsored by Lt. Governor Bill Bolling. I got to meet a lot of people in person that I had previously only known through the internet -- and none of them were dissappointing.

I don't remember everybody's name anymore -- it was easier when people were wearing name tags. I think I've got a couple names saved off, but most have fallen out of my (very) short-term memory. I'm good with faces though.

I had my daughter with me, and we had a good time hanging out together and watching the wheels of politics turn slowly and mostly uselessly. We got to see the senate vote to repeal the abuser fees, at least twice because they had to vote a couple of times to catch all the stragglers.

Vivian Page, who also attended, blogged the event in real-time, and others have blogged a little about it. One woman whose name I can't remember does a pictoral blog that I think she called "conservative tivo" but I haven't found it. If I did, I'm betting there's lots of good pictures there of the event.

I like to look for things that aren't on the radar of most people, often things interest me that are ancillary to the real world. One for me was a vote on a bill to allow Virginia ABC stores to sell a magazine about wine. Ken Cuccinelli opposed this bill on the solid grounds that Virginia has no business selling magazines when there are magazine stores perfectly capable of doing so.

Someone, maybe Ken, made the more cogent point that we have little business selling wine in ABC stores, and maybe we have no real business running stores to sell liquor at all. It certainly seems that there are plenty of businesses out there that are perfectly capable of selling booze, and magazines, and whatever else it is that virginian's need. I'd hate to see Virginia getting into the chocolate-selling business.

Of course, most people didn't see the problem with state-run stores competing against private business that has to pay taxes and make a profit, I think 9 people voted for Ken's position. But at least there is somebody making the argument.

We had a session with four interesting guests, including Jackson Miller, Delegate 50th district. He's a local guy, not mine, but I've heard him speak before at our committee meetings, and he's always a straight shooter and an well-received speaker. Vivian gave him a hard time, not sure if it was serious or not, about a comment he made about bloggers and basements. I expressed mock shock that Vivian did not blog from her basement, and noted that at least he didn't mention pajamas.

He also talked about Brian Kirwin being a peeping tom. IT was just an example, but Brian didn't seem to surprised at the reference. :-) Seriously, it's a bill Miller is pushing to allow police to detain misdemeanor offenders if they feel it is necessary. He relayed it as part of an interesting story about how the VCDL was attacking him in conjunction with the ACLU over the bill, noting that politics can make strange bedfellows.

I also tracked down Jeff Frederick at the end of a house hearing, and said hi. I'm not in his district either, but I've spoken with him many times and find him to be both accessable, straight-forward, and a fine person. He's also hard-working and is right on most of the issues that matter to me.

Later I got to sit down with one of the Virginia Federalist bloggers (I remember his real name but not his blogger name), and the aforementioned picture-blogger woman. I truly enjoyed our conversation, and will assert that if blogging consisted of nothing more than a continual written conversation about issues like we barely scratched during that conversation, we could change the world for the better. It is what I always wanted from blogging, a chance to flesh out ideas and debate serious issues to find common ground and solutions.

It is sad that most of blogging instead is quick gotcha comments and mindless shilling for political parties and candidates, much of which seems to scream "don't take me seriously".

Ben Tribbet was also there. He received some praise for his analysis work, along with some ribbing for his other blogging activities. Ben and I are going to be on a panel about blogging for the Prince William Committee of 100 this month, and we spoke extremely briefly about that.

Mostly though my daughter and I just hung out, enjoyed the architecture and statues and the walk around the area. Even the part where we walked the wrong way around the lt. governor's office building and ended up just feet from the door, but one floor too high and one fence to large to scale.

I might have a picture of that somewhere -- I took some pictures, but haven't unloaded them yet.

The culmination of the evening was dinner on Bolling's tab. My daughter and I sat directly across from the Lt. Governor and his charming wife, Jean Ann. Mrs. Bolling and I discussed her sons, and theme parks (as readers know, I am somewhat of a theme park fanatic).

Bill Bolling was a very gracious host. He was coming off a rather severe cold or flu (Randy Marcus had to skip the event having been infected with whatever it was), but still attended to all our events.

When we first arrived, we all were sent to Bolling's conference room. The table had a few chairs, most taken when my daughter and I arrived. But the chair at the end was free. I knew that would be the Governor's chair, but being what I am, I sat down there anyway. It was very comfortable. After noting to my daughter that I would shortly be asked to move, a somewhat contrite Jeremy (Randy's replacement) mentioned that I was in the governor's chair, at which point I noted the appropriate biblical reference and moved another chair to the table.

However, I was mildly amused when I was told that I was the first person they could ever remember who had sat in that seat. I found that amazing, because it just seemed the natural thing to do for me, and I'm not really that much of a maverick. Anyway, you know what they say -- there's no such thing as bad publicity. And it was a very nice chair.

Well, that's about it for me for now. I might post pictures later.

Hi Again!

Hello, I just wanted to say it was very nice to meet you all and to spend a day trudging around Richmond, up and down steps, and getting lost on the roof of the building (I told my dad we were going the wrong way), and attempting to rip and eat steak on a stick. I may be on later to blog some more, but until then, Good Bye, and it was so very nice to meet you, and we all owe a huge thank you to the Lt. Governer. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!
Good Bye all!
Nice to meet you!
-The Blogger Formerly Known As Conservathing Two/Amelia

Look who it is, back from the dead!

Hello, it is in fact Conservathing Two, I'm back from the dead. Now, I'm sure most of you don't remember me, and that's ok, in a day or two I'll probably disapear again.

But before that occurs I have a few little arguments on some past tidbits of info my father has told me while we both were on our computers.

First off: Mitt Romney spending his own money on the election.
Now from what my father has told me, people believe that while Romney is spending his own money he is attempting to 'buy off' the election. Personally, I would rather have a president who has his own money and knows how to use it, because if he can't manage his money, then how is he supposed to help manage the money we give him?

Secondly: Fred Thompson dropped out of the race!!!
I am very upset, I seriously thought that he could have been the next Reagan. Why did I like Fred? He was an actor, and he looked like he could be a grandfather, the fun kind of grandfather, the one that you like. Not the kind of grandfather that just sits on the front porch all day telling his "When I was a young wipper snapper like yer-self...." stories. The kind of grandfather that could be involved in a high speed car chase. Not to mention, have you seen his wife?!?!? She doesn't look a day over 30!

Thirdly: I don't know how many of you all will be at the blogger meeting on wednesday, but I will see you there, even though TECHNICALLY I'm not neccesarilly a blogger, my dad invited me, and hey, I'll go to anything that gets me out of school, especially out of all of my least favorite classes.

I'm sure I'll see some of you on Wednesday,
So good bye until then!
-Conservathing Two
(I wonder when I'll finally be able to use my real name... Conservathing Two is too many letters.....)

WARNING: Government Help Ahead

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" -- Ronald Reagan

Government exists because people need to be protected from each other sometimes. But who protects us from the government? Unfortunately, people don't need as much protection as there are government workers to provide it. So, over time, Government has to find new things to do. Being the helpful sort, that usually means things that will "help" us.

My column from last week dealt with one example of how government "helps" us. It involved a recent story in the newspaper, "Parents scramble as daycare closes":

Parents of more than 70 children were left scrambling for daycare on Jan. 9, as a Minnieville Road child-care facility that was in the process of switching ownership suddenly shut its doors to business.
...
The business was changing hands, she said, and as part of the purchase agreement, the old owners were to allow the new owners to operate temporarily under their business license. "It was just until [the new owners] could get their own license," Hooper said.

But that was then - and in the now of January, the business deal turned south and the new owners were not allowed to operate under the former's business license. So they were forced to close doors.
...

The story indicates that there is a "planned opening for Feb. 15, after operators receive their new business license."

Nowhere in the story did it explain government's role in this fiasco, which centered around the need for a new business license.

From "What does government do for us?":

The owners will lose more than a month of revenue. The employees will go more than a month with no pay or benefits. And 70 families will have to make temporary arrangements, which is no simple task in the middle of a school year.

Why does the government need months to issue a license to continue operating a day care center that was already operating without incident?

I understand that some people find comfort in the quaint notion that a license protects their children. But in this case, the "protection" resulted in parents forced to find a new day care provider on short notice, with little chance to find the best environment for their children -- which they already had and would still have if not for government's meddlesome desire to "help."
...
So instead, a day care that was ready, willing and able to serve its customers has to turn them away in the middle of winter, so government can provide its valuable "service." And what is that service?

To answer that question, you need to read the Virginia Standards for Licensed Child Day Centers. This is a 100+ page document, which details every aspect of operating a licensed facility. It includes sections for Administration, Staff Qualifications and Training, Physical Plant (the building), Programs and Special Care Provisions. And while I'm making fun of this document, there are good, common-sense things in it.

But other parts look like they were added by people who ran out of real work. For example, under "Administration," there is a section about "operational responsibilities." This covers major items like licensing, background checks, government inspections and maintaining the facility.

But then there's a provision about "misleading advertising," and a requirement for "written procedures for injury prevention," followed by a requirement to update the injury prevention procedures annually. I don't KNOW these were added on bit by bit, but it sure reads that way.

The final provision in the section requires "written playground safety procedures," which I would have expected to be part of the "injury prevention" plan that's updated yearly. These procedures are required to cover "positioning of staff in strategic locations, scanning play activities, and circulating among children," as well as maintaining the "resilient surface."

In other words, it appears that a well-intentioned attempt to ensure basic standards for day care has evolved into a micro-managing document requiring plans for every aspect of the day care operation.

One almost expects to find a requirement for a plan to ensure adequate potty breaks. (There isn't, but it does say restrooms must "Have toilets that are flushable").

With all these requirements, it's no wonder it takes so long to get a license. But it's for our own good. As the Virginia Department of Licensing tells us, "The Division of Licensing Programs protects children and vulnerable adults in day and residential care settings."

Not in the literal sense of protecting your children while they are in the day care setting, but in the governmental sense of shutting down your day care for over a month while they check the paperwork and make sure nobody has removed the flush toilets.

Repealling the HPV Vaccine Requirements

Virginia is one of only a few states that has mandated the Gardisil HPV vaccination (only for girls) as a requirement for attending public school.

In my opinion, NO vaccines should be required, unless it is for a disease that is communicable through ordinary means in a normal classroom setting.

No matter how "good" we think it would be for a person to be vaccinated, medical treatment is NOT the purview of government. Government should not be allowed to legislate for "our own good".

In this case, there is virtually no possibility for a person to "catch" HPV simply by attending school (the chances are almost as small as catching HIV).

So the ONLY reason that can be given for REQUIRING the vaccine is to ensure that the children and their parents do what government thinks they should do.

Under that policy, there is no reason why Government shouldn't legislate a whole host of other things that government "knows" would be best for our children. We could require kids to eat according to the food pyramid, or to exercise an hour a day. We could mandate bedtimes, restrict internet access, or require they read a certain number of books each month.

Once you have decided that Government is supposed to tell people how to live their lives, there is no limit to the ways Government can interfere in personal liberty.

Is the HPV vaccination a good thing? Probably. If my child's doctor recommends it, we will consider it, although there is still a limited data set for this, and there are anecdotal reports of people dying right after getting vaccinated (two this week from England, three in a report last week, for the latest). There is nothing yet tying the deaths to the vaccine, and the medical community largely insists that there are no real risks to the vaccine.

But none of that matters when discussing making this vaccine mandatory. Even if it was proven that you could extend your life through some action, the government has NO RIGHT to require people to take that action, much less to order them to medicate themselves.

I wrote about this topic this week in my Potomac News column, which I had titled "HPV Vaccine, Don't delay it -- repeal it". The House of Delegates just overwhelmingly voted to delay the mandatory requirements for two years. The Senate should adopt this, but I want them to go further and repeal the thing.

Here are excerpts from my column:

"Today the governor signed legislation requiring that all children be in bed by nine p.m.'Studies show that children who do not get enough sleep are at significantly higher risk for illness,' the governor explained.'This bill goes a long way toward ensuring our children get enough rest, improving their health and possibly saving lives.' The law allows parents to request advance permission for a child to stay up late, on an exception basis. Children who violate the law will be prevented from attending school."
-- Nanny State News

Before anybody panics, I made that up (at least I hope I did). The government would never dictate how you should raise your children. Except that's exactly what Virginia did last year, passing a bill forcing children to get vaccinated for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in order to attend public school, even though HPV does not spread by school-related contact.

...
Second, as Bob Marshall points out in requesting the delay, "It doesn't fit into the model for vaccines. You can't get it by shaking hands or sneezing." Generally, we require vaccinations to keep children from infecting other children, not simply because government thinks kids would be better off being treated. Requiring a vaccination for attendance only makes sense if unvaccinated children are a danger to others -- something clearly not the case for this particular disease.

Many vaccine supporters oppose mandatory requirements. The American Cancer Society refuses to endorse mandatory vaccinations for HPV. Even Merck, the drug's manufacturer, is no longer advocating mandatory vaccinations. An editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) states "the rush to make HPV vaccination mandatory in school-aged girls presents ethical concerns and is likely to be counterproductive."

...

Opponents of the ban dismissed the risk of side effects -- "all of us who are cancer survivors and those of us who have daughters will take a rash any day over the prospect of cervical cancer," stated Del. Kristen J. Amundson. But Amundson doesn't need the mandate to get her daughter vaccinated. The question is whether other parents and children will have the same right to make their own decisions about the vaccine as Amundson is claiming for her family.

...

The government has no business forcing people to do what government thinks is best for them. Government's job is to protect us from one another, not from ourselves. Parents can decide about vaccination in consultation with their doctors, not on orders from the government.

Hello Again

For those two of you who used to read this blog when things were written here, I apologize for the long absense. I've been caught up in some other things, and while I've been online constantly, I haven't had the time to blog about anything.

But I expect to be back now.

A moment of Honesty -- Mark Warner is no fiscal conservative

Don't take my word for it. Instead, read this brief moment of clear honesty from Tim Kaine's spokesperson, Gordon Hickey, as found in the December 28 Winchester Star article "Education remarks come under fire ":

Hickey also said Athey’s criticism that Kaine’s budget called on more spending than those proposed by Gov. L. Douglas Wilder or Gov. Mark Warner were false.

Warner, he said, called for a substantial tax increase just a year in office — hardly the fiscal conservatism noted by Athey.

Yep, that's a two-fer: Don't you dare say Tim Kaine is a bigger spender than Mark Warner, because Mark Warner was no slouch.

Ferrets

OK, they aren't the only reason I haven't been blogging, but we got two ferrets last month.

Here's a drawing of one of the two:

"Over-Quota" Immigrants

Last Wednesday, Gary Jacobsen returned to his favorite topic, "Interesting Immigration Information", in which he argued that immigration quotas are a political, not a legal issue:

In previous columns, I have argued that immigration quotas are a political, not a legal matter. A close examination of figures provided by the Department of Homeland Security bears that out. Here are the facts:

Several paragraphs were devoted to a history of immigration quotas, which I summarize here:

Before 1924: No restrictions except the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
1905-1914: slightly more than one million immigrants annually
1924: Johnson-Reed Immigration Act, limiting immigration by country.
1925: 294,314 immigrants.
1923: 23068 immigrants
1943: ban on Asians repealed,
1952: Immigration and Nationality
1960s: around 250,000 immigrants/year.
mid-80s: around 500,000 immigrants/year
1989: "A real breakthrough": 1,090,172 immigrants.
1991: 1,826,595 in 1991.
90s/00s: about a million a year.
2006: 1,266,264.

I wondered about the numbers, since with Gary you never know what he means by "immigrant". In this case the end of his column noted that the numbers were based on "persons obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status".

Anyway, this was a long way to get to the point that immigration quotas change over time. Gary claims this makes them political rather than legal:

These numbers show that immigration quota numbers are easily bent and stretched, like rubber bands. Thus, although a general framework for immigration matters is set forth in Title 8 of the U.S. Code, political rather than legal considerations determine who ultimately is admitted to the United States.

Of course, the quotas are set by law, and many of the changes Gary cited were in fact LEGAL changes. But at some level, laws are passed for political reasons, so I guess in that sense the quotas are "political".

If I had to guess (and I'm certainly not going to assert with Gary, since I don't want to be sued), I think Gary might be trying to say that the times when we "restricted" immigration it was due to politicians pandering, not a good rational reason.

In any case, having noted that we have increased LEGAL immigration to almost 1.2 million people a year, Gary argues still that ILLEGAL immigration isn't a problem. But he hates using the term "illegal" when it comes to immigrants:

Mindful of these figures, U. S. citizens should not conclude that immigration matters can be resolved merely through police, court, detention and deportation actions. That is wholly unrealistic. Rather, politicians at the federal level must craft rules and policies, which protect the legitimate interests of the United States while still treating new arrivals, including "over-quota" immigrants, with compassion and understanding. If they cannot or will not do this, they might as well dismantle the Statue of Liberty and return it to France with a note saying, "not us, not now, not ever."

There's a lot to be corrected in this paragraph. Let's start with that charming euphemism "over-quota immigrants". The problem isn't simply that someone "let too many people in", which is what "over-quota" means, it's that some people are ignoring the legal process for immigrating, and instead are simply racing across the border illegally. That's why they are called "illegal immigrants", NOT because they exceeded quota, but because they didn't follow the legal method.

Second, he is correct that we shouldn't think "immigration" can be solved simply through "enforcement". But I don't think anybody is arguing that. The ILLEGAL immigrant problem requires enforcement. The legal immigrants don't need enforcement or deportation. In fact, we may need to increase the quotas for legal immigrants -- something we could do if we got rid of the ILLEGAL immigrants who are flooding the system, crowding out legal immigrants.

Of course, Gary never acknowledges "illegal" in immigration, and here he's trying to confuse the issue again.

Of course, enforcement alone won't solve the illegal immigration problem either. We can't simply deport them all. We need to guard the border to stop new illegal crossings. We need to crack down on companies taking advantage of illegals through substandard wages, or bad working conditions. We then need to increase penalties for employers who hire illegals when there are legal citizens and immigrants available to to the work. Finally, we need to institute better programs for hiring temporary legal immigrants, programs that closely track the immigrants since most illegals actually came here legally and then stayed when they were supposed to leave.

If we can do all these things, we can increase the quotas for legal immigrants, we can better regulate the migrant and temporary immigrant worker programs, and we can even grant legal status to the longest-term illegal population that has integrated into our society.

But we'll never accomplish any of these important goals so long as we treat illegal immigrants as simply "over-quota", and refuse to to anything to stop the flow of illegals into our country, or to remove them once they are here.

Why Hispanics think it's Racism, part 2

Last week, a man broke into a house and killed three people in Woodbridge. The man was an illegal immigrant, according to the newspaper, who no doubt researched the person's background.

Contrast that with how the President of Help Save Manassas identifies "illegals":

Here’s an interesting anecdote. I have no idea how common this might be, but stuff like this never helps to relieve widely-held concerns that the behavior of some of our (most likely) uninvited guests in this country may be counterproductive to good order in our society:

I witnessed something at the Walmart that is so clearly representative of what’s going on with illegals in this country, with their disrespect for our laws, and the willingness of citizens and business to look the other way. In a drink isle crowded with shoppers, we all watched while a Hispanic guy (complete with t-shirt with the Mexican flag and a tear-drop tattoo by his eye) ripped open a box of bottled waters and took one. ...

The question is, what was it that tipped Greg and the writer off to this guy's illegal status? That he was Hispanic? That he had a tattoo? That he had a Mexican flag on his shirt? Or simply that he broke a law?

Sure, the guy COULD be illegal. So could that nice oriental person at the Chinese restaurant, the Slavic lifeguards at the pool, and even that good-looking English girl who helps you find the perfect gift at Macy's.

But I wonder if Greg thinks that every Hispanic in our county is an illegal immigrant? If so, he's a perfect counterpart to Gary Jacobson, who doesn't believe in illegal immigrants, but only as he put it this week, "over-quota immigrants".

But so long as Help Save Manassas has a leader like Greg, people like Gary will have a following. Extremism begets extremism.

Why hispanics think it's racism, not illegals.

One has to look no further than the blog of the President of Help Save Manassas for clear examples of why the Legal Hispanic Community has a right to think that groups like Help Save Manassas are not really about illegals, but about ridding our county of Hispanics.

In a post titled "An Interesting Approach To Spanish-Language Signs", Greg relays a story from one of his readers:

I do most of my grocery shopping at Shoppers of Manassas up by Costco. I went in the other day and was tired of seeing some sign in Spanish on the door. I walked in reached around and took the sign down. I walked over to the customer service manager and said, “I do not approve of signs in anything other than English. Do not put this back up.”

Greg than exhorted his readers to follow this example:

The key here is to not damage any store property in any way, but to just bring it to the management with the request that they not display it. This could make one heck of a powerful statement if enough people did the same thing. At this point in the year, I imagine the last thing retail managers want to do is be constantly fooling with signage instead of managing their customers.

The idea Greg is pushing is that if his readers take down spanish signs in the stores, the managers will be too busy with Christmas to be able to run around and put them back up. He suggests that this does not "damage any store property", but of course the signs are the stores, as well as the placement of those signs.

And in fact, Greg admits this is a cost to the stores, noting that it will take time (paid time) away from dealing with customers if they have to put the signs back up.

TO their credit, SOME of Greg's readers showed a lot more sense than Greg did. Some examples:

You don’t have to like it, and you can stop shopping there if you want, but pulling that sign down comes pretty close to destruction of private property.
...
Lowe’s and Shoppers have every right to put up signs in Spanish and sell Spanish language birthday cards, and they freely exercise that right (as do Walmart, Home Depot, Target, CVS, Giant, and many other area retail establishments). Customers do NOT have the right to take down signs in stores without permission even though they’re annoyed.
....
Unlawfully removing a sign might build up morale for some, but it does a lot of harm to the rule of law point of view

Other regular readers saw nothing wrong with the suggestion, and in fact had their own complaints about Hispanics and the Spanish Language:

I’ve seen Hispanics (they were speaking Spanish) eating the peanuts out of the bin and throwing back the shells in the bin. I’ve saw another Hispanic couple (they were speaking Spanish) proceed to eat from the produce. Maybe we should call the health department.
...
We are whining about it because our cities (in America mind you) are being overrun by these Spanish signs. ... If they want to cater to a bunch of criminals that the local government chooses to coddle, against the wishes of its citizens, then they will do it without my patronage. The last time I was in there was about three years ago when the place was packed with Hispanics and it was literally like Scottie beamed me in to Mexico.
...

I stopped shopping at shoppers many years ago because they cater to the Hispanic crowd at my expense. It was like a Tijuana flea market in there with a gazillion Hispanics, half of whom were on food stamps, kids running amuck and all speaking foreign languages. I don’t want nor do I need to be around that. Bloom is a much nicer experience. I’ll pay the extra to shop somewhere that resembles America. I suggest you all do that as well.

Separate but unequal? "resembles America"? I wonder if the writer has ever been to a downtown ethnic neighborhood?

Another poster blamed republicans for this. I reject that notion, I don't know what these people are that post to Greg's web site, but Greg is no "republican", nor a "conservative", and the people he leads around aren't any republicans I know:

the post above and this subject is an example of why the Republican party continues losing elections in Virginia and elsewhere.
A campaign against Spanish language signs is clealy aimed at ALL Hispanics - legal or illegal, recently arrived individuals, or those who arrived with Cortez.

You can be in favor of border enforcement, but when you’re whining about Spanish language signs, you’re alienating millions of people.

Keep it up. The Republican party is the party of whiners and they will continue to be losers.

I urge all REPUBLICAN elected officials to appropriately distance themselves from Help Save Manassas so long as they have Greg Lettiecq as their President. This type of bigotry has no place in the Republican party, of which I believe Greg is no longer a member.

It's perfectly rational to argue that the STATE should do all business in English. It is criminal to call for people to tear down the private signs of a private business just because it bothers you that you can't read it.

This follows on the heels of a previous Greg complaint about a Hispanic entry in the Christmas parade. In that thread, one poster summed up the contention being raised in the community:

I think Freedom said it best with her “poke in the eye” remark. If the Latino community was, indeed, interested in living in peace with the rest of us they wouldn’t be trying to “poke us in the eye” at every turn. This past year has been one long continual “poke in the eye” from Hispanic extremists and their Anglo supporters. It’s almost as if they are TRYING stir up anger and negative emotions to the point where violence is inevitable.

If any reasonable Latinos who actually came to this country for the purposes that they claim (wanting only to work, seek a new and better life for their families, and earn the American dream on the path to citizenship) then they better start thinking long and hard about those they are allowing to put THIS face upon their efforts.

If I were talking to a Hispanic who was asking me how we could mend fences, I might find some nice way to say that. But when a white person makes that kind of statement to other white people in a thread complaining about Hispanics, the comment serves only to stir up resentment and anger.

Which seems to be the intent of Greg and his blog.

NANOWRIMO is over.

I ended up with half a novel, slightly over 25,000 words. Considering that I started writing in earnest only a week ago, I am somewhat pleased, although I really wanted to make 50,000 my first year.

My daughter, who was a little more dedicated but doesn't type as fast as I do, ended up somewhere above 26,000 words. That means that the two of us together wrote more than 50,000 words for the event.

I have no idea if the half of a novel I've written has any value. Parts of it made my daughter laugh, and some make me cry to read it because it's so bad.

I could see a movie snippet from my two climax pieces. It would be a very bad movie. Although people would cheer.

I also wrote three newspaper columns this month, and participated in an election, and also have about 12,000 lights up so far for Christmas. So it's not like I could dedicate my life to writing a two-bit novel.


I'll need a few days for my fingers to recover, and then I should be back blogging.

Apparently, while I was gone we essentially won the war in Iraq. Our deaths are down dramatically, as are the Iraqis. Millions are pouring back into their country. People are out in the street, safer than several of our own major cities at night.

And apparently hell has frozen over, because today John Murtha, he of the "our marines are cold-blooded killers, and I don't care if there's no evidence", has just returned from Iraq with the sad knews (for democrats) the the surge is WORKING.

I wish all Americans could rejoice with me. But half of them are still trying to stop paying the troops that are winning the war, and they don't appear to be in a celebratory mood.