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
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
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.....)
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.....)
Saturday, January 26, 2008
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":
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?":
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:
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.
But I expect to be back now.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
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 ":
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.
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.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
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:
Monday, December 17, 2007
"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:
Several paragraphs were devoted to a history of immigration quotas, which I summarize here:
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:
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:
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.
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":
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
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:
Greg than exhorted his readers to follow this example:
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:
Other regular readers saw nothing wrong with the suggestion, and in fact had their own complaints about Hispanics and the Spanish Language:
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:
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:
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.
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.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Housekeeping.
As usual after an election, I find many posts no longer have any value. I INTEND to remove them in the near future. Last time I ended up leaving them, but this time my intention is more serious. Anything that isn't process or policy oriented will probably disappear early next month.
Party Purity
(I've taken the month off of blogging in a vain attempt to write a 50,000-word novel for NANOWRIMO. I break my silence for this brief comment).
With no disrespect intended to anybody who feels differently, and my apologies to those who I consider my friends and allies,
If you intend to enforce party discipline and the rules, you should start with someone for whom you have proof of rule-breaking.
Absent any indication otherwise, I intend to vote yes.
If you know what I'm talking about, you know what I mean. If you don't, this message is not for you.
My daughter is 20,000+ words ahead of me. Back to work.
With no disrespect intended to anybody who feels differently, and my apologies to those who I consider my friends and allies,
If you intend to enforce party discipline and the rules, you should start with someone for whom you have proof of rule-breaking.
Absent any indication otherwise, I intend to vote yes.
If you know what I'm talking about, you know what I mean. If you don't, this message is not for you.
My daughter is 20,000+ words ahead of me. Back to work.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
It must be the last weekend, because RK is lying full-time now.
Raising Kaine's latest unsupported smear is found here, where they accuse Jackson Miller, a SWORN OFFICER OF THE LAW, which HIRING high school kids to pull down signs of his opponent and replace them with his signs.
Realise that Rishell has absolutely NO chance to get elected. I can't tell you how many democrats have Colgan and Miller signs in their front yards. The local paper, noting how much she was lying, noted that it was sad that she had thrown away any slim chance she had. And her campaign's placement of her signs at the anti-citizen illegal immigrant banner in town sealed her fate.
So the suggestion that a person in law enforcement is not only commiting a crime, but has actually paid others to commit crimes, is actually libelous.
And since Raising Kaine is closely associated with the Democratic Party of Virginia, Virginia, who has made this entire campaign one of lies and distortions. The DPV should be held responsible for all of the falsehoods they have perpetrated on the electorate.
Come on, democrats. don't you have any REAL policy differences with the Republicans? If so, why can't you run on those differences, instead of lying?
For example, Charles Colgan could be a man and stand up for his principles, which apparently are the SOME illegal immigrants should be allowed to attend college at in-state rates. After all, that's what he told the Catholics in answers to their questionaire, and that's how he voted in Richmond.
Instead, he calls Bob a liar for reporting his vote, and pretends he opposes himself.
Meanwhile, the DPV attacks Bob for working on legislation to allow guns in schools. Except Bob didn't work on it. Oh, and Charles Colgan voted FOR it. So the DPV is attacking Bob for something Charles Colgan did and Bob didn't.
Of course, JMDD attacked Chap for that vote, and the RK people vigorously defended him against those attacks. But because they are Democrats, rather than PRINCIPLED people, they said NOTHING when the DPV attacked Bob Fitzsimmonds for that same legislation.
The Jackson Miller for Delegate campaign has hired high school students to replace Jeanette Rishell yard signs with his own at private residences. This is the first stage in what the Republican Town Committee and Help Save Manassas have set up as their voter intimidation program.
Realise that Rishell has absolutely NO chance to get elected. I can't tell you how many democrats have Colgan and Miller signs in their front yards. The local paper, noting how much she was lying, noted that it was sad that she had thrown away any slim chance she had. And her campaign's placement of her signs at the anti-citizen illegal immigrant banner in town sealed her fate.
So the suggestion that a person in law enforcement is not only commiting a crime, but has actually paid others to commit crimes, is actually libelous.
And since Raising Kaine is closely associated with the Democratic Party of Virginia, Virginia, who has made this entire campaign one of lies and distortions. The DPV should be held responsible for all of the falsehoods they have perpetrated on the electorate.
Come on, democrats. don't you have any REAL policy differences with the Republicans? If so, why can't you run on those differences, instead of lying?
For example, Charles Colgan could be a man and stand up for his principles, which apparently are the SOME illegal immigrants should be allowed to attend college at in-state rates. After all, that's what he told the Catholics in answers to their questionaire, and that's how he voted in Richmond.
Instead, he calls Bob a liar for reporting his vote, and pretends he opposes himself.
Meanwhile, the DPV attacks Bob for working on legislation to allow guns in schools. Except Bob didn't work on it. Oh, and Charles Colgan voted FOR it. So the DPV is attacking Bob for something Charles Colgan did and Bob didn't.
Of course, JMDD attacked Chap for that vote, and the RK people vigorously defended him against those attacks. But because they are Democrats, rather than PRINCIPLED people, they said NOTHING when the DPV attacked Bob Fitzsimmonds for that same legislation.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Vote Faisal Gill!!! - Potomac News Endorses Faisal
The Potomac News has endorsed Faisal Gill, rejecting the bigots and the false arguments to give support to the candidate who is clearly better.
When you read this endorsement, note that it is full of REASONS why you should vote for Faisal. Contrast that with the Washington Post "endorsement" of Nichols, which said NOTHING good about Nichols, but simply attacked Gill because he was TOO HARD ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
FansOfFasail had this up already in the post Potomac News and Manassas Journal Messenger endorse Faisal Gill.
Excerpts from the Editors, "Vote Faisal Gill in the 51st District":
See also:
Mason Conservativ- Will Faisal Gill Pull This Off?,
Virginia Virtucon- Potomac News endorses Faisal Gill For Delegate,
Skeptical Observer - No Qualms about crossing the ethical line
When you read this endorsement, note that it is full of REASONS why you should vote for Faisal. Contrast that with the Washington Post "endorsement" of Nichols, which said NOTHING good about Nichols, but simply attacked Gill because he was TOO HARD ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
FansOfFasail had this up already in the post Potomac News and Manassas Journal Messenger endorse Faisal Gill.
Excerpts from the Editors, "Vote Faisal Gill in the 51st District":
They used a lot of superlatives to describe Gill:
Republican Faisal Gill comes out the winner when we compare the two newcomers vying for the spot being vacated by Michele McQuigg in the 51st Virginia House of Delegates District. ...
He seems to have a strong grasp of the issues that face his district and definite ideas of how to deal with them.
Though we don't agree with every stand he takes, we think he has the best interest of his constituents at heart and that he will serve them faithfully. ...
As an immigrant himself, Gill, offers a rare perspective on immigration, and we think his immigrant experience gives him more authority on the issue of illegal immigration.
...
We think that Gill will be an effective, level-headed and creative legislator, and we hope members of the 51st District will vote for him on Nov. 6.
intelligent, good-humored, strong grasp of the issues, definite ideas, best interest of his constituents, serve them faithfully, solid plan of action, rare perspective on immigration, effective, level-headed and creative legislatorThey also had some harsh words for his opponent:
However, [Paul Nichols'] misleading fliers about Gill show that when it comes to politics he has no qualms about crossing the ethical line.Especially nice was that the editors agreed with my position regarding Gill's law firm and it's work to help people immigrate legally:
That is not somebody we want as a delegate.
Despite all the misinformation about his law practice and its supposed protection of illegal immigrants, Gill does have a solid plan of action when it comes to the issue, including a plan to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants.
People under threat of legal deportation often do need law advice and advocacy. Gill should not be penalized just because his law practice is willing to offer that.
We don't agree with the draconian idea of handing out felonies to all businesses which hire illegal immigrants, as Gill does, but we think holding them accountable is the way to go.
See also:
Mason Conservativ- Will Faisal Gill Pull This Off?,
Virginia Virtucon- Potomac News endorses Faisal Gill For Delegate,
Skeptical Observer - No Qualms about crossing the ethical line
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Angry Left practices projection
Since the 2000 election, the "progressive" element of this country has been perpetually angry. No matter what happened, they were mad about it.
I would understand a bit of dissappointment, since they had lost power, but the bitterness and raw hatred poisoned the political discourse in this country.
One would have thought 2006's election wins would have made them a bit happier, but no, they are still running around screaming their hate-filled rhetoric, and now they even target other democrats for not moving quick enough on this or that.
So I got a real kick out of an article at Raising Kaine today which asked "why is the angry right so angry?" I know a lot of conservatives. Some of them are angry -- at other republicans for turning their back on conservative principles. But mostly they are upbeat people. I'd hardly call them the "angry right".
But apparently a poster at the Angry Kos can't figure out the source of this non-existant anger, and somewhat at Raising Anger picked it up:
Maybe there's mad about being called angry by people who are the poster-children for "the angry man".
I would understand a bit of dissappointment, since they had lost power, but the bitterness and raw hatred poisoned the political discourse in this country.
One would have thought 2006's election wins would have made them a bit happier, but no, they are still running around screaming their hate-filled rhetoric, and now they even target other democrats for not moving quick enough on this or that.
So I got a real kick out of an article at Raising Kaine today which asked "why is the angry right so angry?" I know a lot of conservatives. Some of them are angry -- at other republicans for turning their back on conservative principles. But mostly they are upbeat people. I'd hardly call them the "angry right".
But apparently a poster at the Angry Kos can't figure out the source of this non-existant anger, and somewhat at Raising Anger picked it up:
Has anyone noticed lately that the right is seething? I mean more than normal, they're absolutely furious these days, in general, at everything it seems, and I have no idea what it is they're so pissed about half the time. Any guesses?
Maybe there's mad about being called angry by people who are the poster-children for "the angry man".
James Martin can't POSSIBLY really think minorities are this stupid
James Martin, over at Raising Kaine, is trying to convince us that Jeannemarie is suppressing the minority vote because one of her volunteers took election-day door hangers and accidentally used them today (oh, to give Lowell credit, he ALSO joins in on the fun):
Yep, if we are to believe Lowell and James in this post, minorities in Northern Virginia are so stupid that, finding a door hanger telling them today is election day, and asking them to vote for Davis, will believe today is election today, will go vote, will find no polling places open, and will then not show up to vote on the actual election day.
But even though James and Lowell are progressives, I don't believe they really hold minorities in such low regard. So it's clear they are just faking it, hoping that some of thier white progressive readers DO think minorities are so stupid that they will believe this attack.
One day minorities will wake up and realise that the party they support holds them in very low regard.
It gets worse and worse...see here and here for more on JMDD's minority voter deception tactics. Sadly, it's not surprising, given that this woman's been willing to pull a "Willie Horton" in the past. So much for the image of the Davises as "moderate" in any way; to the contrary, they're just like the Bushes. - promoted by Lowell)
Her campaign is telling minority voters that today is election day. Ben has the details.
Yep, if we are to believe Lowell and James in this post, minorities in Northern Virginia are so stupid that, finding a door hanger telling them today is election day, and asking them to vote for Davis, will believe today is election today, will go vote, will find no polling places open, and will then not show up to vote on the actual election day.
But even though James and Lowell are progressives, I don't believe they really hold minorities in such low regard. So it's clear they are just faking it, hoping that some of thier white progressive readers DO think minorities are so stupid that they will believe this attack.
One day minorities will wake up and realise that the party they support holds them in very low regard.
Chap Petersen misleads Examiner
Chap, not satisfied with the Washington Post's balanced coverage of the non-story of his public information being made public (why doesn't Chap trust his constituents?), got another shot in the New Jersey Examiner, but didn't fair much better, even though he did his best to deceive those readers as well:
The mailer does not circle his "home address", his "home number", or his "daughter's names" with a red arrow, or even a red circle. Anybody reading this will think that there is a red circle with an arrow around each child's name, drawing attention to it.
But the fact is, the thing that has drawn attention to his information on the flier is his PUBLICIZING that the information is on the flier, after Ben Tribbet did the same thing online.
As noted in the article:
Chap gave a reason for his whining, to explain why the same information he has disclosed is BAD when his opponent does it:
Remember, Chap is a Democrat. With Democrats, pointing out what they have done, or quoting what they say, is a negative attack that incites peolple against them.
The article has the Larry Sabato quote that Ben Tribbet hashed up so bad:
"It was unsettling to see our home address, home number and our daughters' names circled with red arrows," said Petersen,
The mailer does not circle his "home address", his "home number", or his "daughter's names" with a red arrow, or even a red circle. Anybody reading this will think that there is a red circle with an arrow around each child's name, drawing attention to it.
But the fact is, the thing that has drawn attention to his information on the flier is his PUBLICIZING that the information is on the flier, after Ben Tribbet did the same thing online.
As noted in the article:
Davis said her opponent has already sent out a mailer that contained pictures of his children along with their names. She also pointed out that the disclosure forms are public documents and available on the Internet. Petersen's campaign Web site, she added, also lists his home address and his home number is listed in residential phone books.
Chap gave a reason for his whining, to explain why the same information he has disclosed is BAD when his opponent does it:
"It's one thing to advertise that information, but it is outrageous to do it in an attack that says I am a bad guy and incites people against me."
Remember, Chap is a Democrat. With Democrats, pointing out what they have done, or quoting what they say, is a negative attack that incites peolple against them.
The article has the Larry Sabato quote that Ben Tribbet hashed up so bad:
University of Virginia political expert Larry Sabato said the mailer went too far, but doubted the issue would "effect the election."
"I don't blame anyone in the public eye being upset at having the home address and phone number listed," Sabato said. "As a rule, candidates and campaigns ought to stick to official numbers and addresses. This is a venial sin instead of a mortal sin."
Saturday, October 27, 2007
ACKKK!!!! Another Progressive Blog publishes candidates' kids pictures
Not content at the havok already wreaked by progressives posting pictures, Raising Kaine's own Lowell has continued the travesty, publishing a picture of Chap Petersen's wife AND children, ON THEIR blog.
So now, everybody who hates Raising Kaine will call Chap's kids and ask why their pictures were used by Lowell. They will be harassed at school, his wife will be hounded in the supermarket.
At least Lowell didn't tell us that Chap named his child after Hitler's wife.
Chap should have a press conference outside Lowell's office. Does Lowell have an office? Does he have a job :->?
On a more serious note, Lowell says:
So even Lowell recognizes that the mailer was a simple mistake, a quite forgivable "sin" for which no real penance is required. Or maybe he doesn't understand what Larry was saying. Lowell ignored when Larry said of Rex Simmon's attacks on Hugo "somewhere between ludicrous and desperate."
I'll take "venial sin" over "ludicrous and desperate" any day.
At some point, the news media has to stop pandering to these mental cases on the left. We all can see how fake their outrage is (or should be).
So now, everybody who hates Raising Kaine will call Chap's kids and ask why their pictures were used by Lowell. They will be harassed at school, his wife will be hounded in the supermarket.
At least Lowell didn't tell us that Chap named his child after Hitler's wife.
Chap should have a press conference outside Lowell's office. Does Lowell have an office? Does he have a job :->?
On a more serious note, Lowell says:
Also, the DC Examiner has a pretty good article up, quoting Prof. Larry Sabato calling JMDD's actions "a venial sin."
So even Lowell recognizes that the mailer was a simple mistake, a quite forgivable "sin" for which no real penance is required. Or maybe he doesn't understand what Larry was saying. Lowell ignored when Larry said of Rex Simmon's attacks on Hugo "somewhere between ludicrous and desperate."
I'll take "venial sin" over "ludicrous and desperate" any day.
At some point, the news media has to stop pandering to these mental cases on the left. We all can see how fake their outrage is (or should be).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)