Well, it appears that little Dickie Saslaw blinked, and was forced to alter his extreme political gerrymander.
Nevertheless, as my friend Greg Letiecq observes, "Gerrymandering is OK if parties agree how to do it." Here's Greg's descriptions of the districts --- five of them! Count 'em! Five! --- covering Prince William County, Manassas, and Manassas Park:
The new proposed 28th district, for example, stretches from Bull Run Mountain all the way to Westmoreland State Park and at one points is only a few hundred feet wide where Rt. 215 crosses into Fauquier County. The 29th district inkblot that was so egregious to RPV a few weeks ago is unchanged, snaking from Stonewall Golf Club to Manassas Park and then to Dumfries. Traversing the proposed 36th District still requires a boat as it meanders from Mount Vernon up the Potomac River towards Widewater State Park in Stafford County. The 37th District picks up a slice of Prince William County in Yorkshire along Rt. 28 nearly up to the Manassas Park city line that puts this portion of a Prince William County precinct in with Lorton. There’s so much that hasn’t been fixed in this plan it’ll make your head spin.
Now, I don't agree with Greg that the new plan is "litigation bait of the highest order." And while I probably know a little more about litigation than Greg, it certainly is not in the context of election law. Maybe he's right.
Nevertheless, the average senatorial district in the Commonwealth is right around 200,000 souls. With a population of 448,000 and change in the latest census, PWC, Manassas, and Manassas Park should have a total of two complete districts, with about a fourth of a third district. But five districts?!?!
It should, and perhaps will, occur to the Governor and his advisors that the author of this plan --- Senator George Barker, D-WaPo ... er, Lorton/Lake Ridge, submitted the initial plan --- simply desires to split and/or punish jurisdictions which collectively gave the Governor a margin of approximately 15,000 votes in his victory in 2009.
Certainly, this confirms what some of us have known for years: any Prince William County resident who votes for George Barker should have his head examined.
Some of the problems of the initial plan may have been solved, and the new plan, which does more to protect existing incumbents, may have passed by a veto-proof majority. And it is reported that Governor McDonnell intends to sign it into law.
Nevertheless, Governor McDonnell should keep faith with the overwhelming majorities in Prince William County, Manassas, and Manassas Park, who helped to put him into office, and veto this gerrymandered monstrosity.
that Virginia's moonbatosphere has thus far had more to say about President Barry's release (finally!) of his long-form birth certificate than do the Conservatives they are attempting to smear. See here, and here, and here.
I've long thought this was a non-issue, since there is little doubt that, were there any there there, power-hungry Hillary Clinton and her investigators would have brought conclusive information forward during the Democrat primaries to conclusively destroy then-Senator Barry. This should end the debate, and I suspect that it's been kept alive by the Obamorons themselves as a method of smearing Conservatives.
Whether it will end the debate remains to be seen.
While the article is about Paul Krugman, The Economist (emphasis added) is clearly speaking to the general attitudes of the far Left, seen so often in Virginia's moonbatosphere:
this sort of psychologising diagnosis of strong political conviction often serves as a cheap, supremely condescending trick for pathologising and thus dismissing those with whom we disagree. A good deal of work on the psychology of conservatism is like this. The motivating question, "What the hell is wrong with these people?" takes it for granted that there is something wrong with "these people," and thus that disagreement with them is based not on a reasonable difference of opinions among intelligent people of good will, but rather on some sort of deep-seated defect of character or cognition in the "other" insusceptible to correction through civilised discourse.
While I would have used American spellings, I couldn't have said it better myself. I wish I had said this.
And with all of the presidential rhetoric --- well, OK: rhetoric from the President --- about how "the rich" should pay more, or their "fair share," we have occasion to consider just how much extra the nation's two highest-ranking election officials sent in. After all, we have suffered thro ... put up w ... listened to more than two years of President Barry telling us that the rich wo uldn't mind surrendering more of their income to the government.
And by any measure, President Barry and his wife qualify as "rich": last year, they reported nearly $1.8 million in 2010, and on that income, paid $466,104 in taxes.
One would expect that, given his rhetoric, one would find prominently discussed the additional contribution offered to the Federal treasury by President Barry and his wife. That, perhaps, they declined to take a $30,000 mortgage-interest deduction, or a deduction for an admirable $245,075 in contributions to 36 different charities.
(cue crickets chirping)
As usual, the reality of the far Left doesn't match their sanctimonious rhetoric.
Not content to dismiss anyone who is not a mindless Obamabot as "heartless," or a "fanatic," the children at Blow Me, Virg ... er, "Blue Virginia" have disinterred Ayn Rand, dusted her off, and slapped her around a little bit.
Which should be taken just as seriously as ... well, just about everything else they say.
The moonbatosphere reallllly hates Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart. After all, he has made substantial steps toward addressing the problems caused by illegal aliens at the local level. According to the far Left, making sure lawbreakers don't get away with it makes Stewart a "bully."
Perhaps more seriously, he has held the line on taxes and government spending, something that his predecessor, Repubmocrat Sean Connaughton, couldn't manage to do in good times, posturing as a tax reducer when, in good times, average home values were increasing. Connaughton reduced tax rates, but of course, increase assessments meant that the average homeowner's tax bill increased by more than 60% during Connaughton's tenure, enough to support his profligate spending spree. Then, of course, Connaughton got out of Dodge before he had to make the tough choices made by his successor.
Until you look at the real numbers. Lateef reports total contributions of $146,894 during the reporting period.
But of this number, $10,000 comes from ... Babur Lateef, M.D.
Of course, that's OK: a candidate should put his own money where his mouth is.
Then there are three contributions totaling $10,533 from Advanced Opthalmology, Inc., in Woodbridge, Virginia. And who is the principal in the eeeevil corporation? Well, it appears to be ... Babur Lateef, M.D.!
So that's a total of $20,533, or nearly 14% of the total, from Dr. Lateef himself.
Then there are the out-of-state donations, totaling a whopping $60,850. To be fair, some appear to be from family members (other "Lateefs"), but many are not from people who are readily identifiable as members of Dr. Lateef's family, i.e., those with the same surname. Nevertheless, fully 41.42% of Dr. Lateef's donations are from individuals residing in West Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, West Virginia, Georgia, and Texas. At least one donation even came from California!
I suppose Chairman Corey Stewart should be flattered that the far Left's enmity for him extends so far.
Then there are the other donations from outside of Prince William County. Donations from other places in Virginia total $44,850, or 30.53% of Dr. Lateef's donations.
In total, then, of the $146,894 in donations reported by Dr. Lateef, more than 70% come from outside of the County, and more than 40%, from out of state. And let us not forget the nearly 15% that come from the candidate himself.
In toto, then, excluding money from the candidate himself, from out of state, and out of the County, Dr. Lateef has raised only $21,161, or less than 15%, from County residents or businesses within the County. Many of the last appear to be from other medical professionals, medical suppliers, and even one of Dr. Lateef's employees (if Lateef were a Republican, no doubt the far Left would be screaming about how this individual was browbeaten into contributing, or some other nonsensical charge).
With these numbers, my guess is that many, perhaps most, of the "Friends of Babur Lateef" couldn't identify Prince William County on a map. And to borrow a phrase from the moonbatosphere, one has to wonder whether the fact that most of Lateef's donations come from out of the County will prove to be "a disservice to Prince William County's more than 400,000 residents."
Many among my friends are complaining that Congress will be paid during the prospective government shutdown, and believe that they should not be. I would remind them of the provisions of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Const., amend. XXVII (1992)
I don't like seeing the bastards --- particularly the Democrat bastards, who didn't bother to pass a budget when they were in charge --- getting paid while the government is shut down. Particularly since they won't bother to save the taxpayers money be declining to pay retroactively government employees who are furloughed.
However, Conservatives must stand up for the Constitution. All of it. After all, if we don't, who will? Certainly not President Barry and his Obamorons.
Therefore, I have no problem with paying Congress during a government shutdown.
Of course, you can see here for the uneducated moonbat position.
You can view the video, entitled "The Best Decision I Ever Made," here. It had 147 views --- apparently, all partisans in Virginia's moonbatosphere --- when I watched it on YouTube. One suspects that the roll-out was designed to create some kind of far-Left echo-chamber, limiting commentary to that part of the Virginia blogosphere.
This does not appear in it:
Hopefully, he will be counting the decision to run for this seat as the worst decision he ever made, since we'll be finding out whether serving as a mouthpiece for the most radical President in American history translates into votes in Virginia.
For some reason, I'm on this mailing list. It appears that the 2011 National Football Season will not occur as planned:
Dear NFL Fan,
When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.
Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.
The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).
It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.
We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.
While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.
Yours,
Roger Goodell
Yours,
Roger Goodell
Of course, some will attribute this to hostility to unions. 'Fact is, as far as I can tell, it's strictly an economic dispute ... one in which both sides could well be put to their proofs.
Apparently, Delegate David Englin may be the dumbest member of the Virginia House of Delegates. Either that, or he's simply a liar.
Give the guy credit: he's got the talking points down. The Wisconsin situation is about "destroying public employee unions." The budget was a "red herring." "Removing the ability of teachers and janitors and other public employees to band together to make a better lives for themselves."
Nice soundbites, all.
Reality? Not hardly.
Of course, repealing the special privileges possessed by labor unions --- monopoly (not collective) bargaining; government collection of their union dues --- is not about "Removing the ability of teachers and janitors and other public employees to band together to make a better lives for themselves." After all, that sounds like a First-Amendment right that's being attacked, doesn't it?
Can little Davey Englin really not know the difference between the right to come together to petition government --- an actual right, one left unmolested by the Wisconsin bill --- and the special monopoly bargaining privilege which is being repealed? If so, he may be too stupid to sit in the Virginia House of Delegates.
"The point of a Right to Work law is to end collective bargaining"?!?!?
No, Davey: the point of a Right to Work law is to deny a union the power to force nonmembers to pay union dues (to be fair, his debate opponent seems no more informed about what the law does). The union still possesses monopoly bargaining power. Unfortunately.
Apparently, Englin is so captured by his union contributors that he can't even get the facts right about what a Right to Work law does.
Either that, or he's simply channeling President TelePrompTer, mindlessly repeating the Talking Points.
Waldo Jaquith's indispensable Virginia Political Blogroll is otherwise empty of commentary or criticism of President Barry's adoption of Bush 43 Administration policy.
In my post yesterday, I noted that many on the far Left were due for a healthy serving of crow over the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011). Our Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, took a lot of grief last June, when he distinguished himself by being one of only two Attorneys General who refused to sign onto a brief in support of Snyder, and against the Phelpses. Of course, the Phelpses won.
A moonbat over at Blow Me, Vir... er, "Blue Virginia" is still trying to challenge Attorney General Cuccinelli's motives. Amazing! Apparently, according to "lowkell" (Lowell Feld?), the Attorney General is a "hypocrite" because he "assault[s] speech when he doesn't like it, defending it when it doesn't bother him so much (apparently)," and was right, though "not necessarily for the right reasons." The meme is that the Attorney General likes the speech of the Phelps cult, but doesn't like the speech of Michael Mann, a globaloney ... er, "global warming," ... "anthropomorphic climate change" advocate whose work is subsidized by the tax dollars of hard-working Virginians.
On the one hand, it's nice to see that the far Left has learned its lesson about vilifying American servicemen, since it was only a few decades ago that they were spitting --- actually, not figuratively --- on returning soldiers who answered their country's call to fight Communist expansionism in Southeast Asia. I'm not old enough to remember if so-called "anti-war activists" picketed the funerals of those who fell in battle in the Sixties and early Seventies, and I'm really not interested in researching it to find out, but you have to wonder whether today's moonbats would be upset if the picketing occurred in the Bush 43 Administration, as a protest of a policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, which incidentally liberated 50 million Muslims from tyranny.
It's really a damn shame that the far Left can't tell the difference between free speech (i.e., the Phelps cult) and subsidized speech (state university professors; state employees; government-subsidized "family-planning" clinics).
And, of course, government-subsidized speech is rightly subject to government oversight, because he who pays the piper always calls the tune.
Oh, Waiter? One Order Of Crow (with apologies to Jeff Greenfield)
ha. Ha. HA!
As most of the politically-aware know, the Supreme Court today issued its decision in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011). As someone who's had the privilege of arguing a First-Amendment case before the Court, it's certainly an interesting case, from a professional perspective ... it demonstrates that any idiot can argue and win a case in the Supreme Court.
Snyder is about that vile and despicable little cult --- made up mostly of members of the same family, the Phelpses --- who spend their time protesting the funerals of dead soldiers and alienate those who otherwise agree that the radical homosexual agenda is anti-Christian, bad public policy, and bad for America. The Supreme Court held today that the First Amendment protects their political demonstrations at funerals, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions generally applicable, and that they were not liable to Mr. Snyder, whose son's funeral sparked a distant protest a few years back.
But that's really not the point, at least for Virginians. You see, our Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, took a lot of grief last June, when he refused to sign onto a brief in support of Snyder, and against the Phelpses, who were defending their First-Amendment rights to be a**holes.
He was one of only two Attorneys General in the United States to refuse to do so. The other was from Maine
The speech of WBC far exceeds any speech deemed tolerable by a civilized society. Their speech should be treated like yelling fire in a crowded theater or using the F word during prime time TV. The behavior of Westboro Baptist Church (sic) is totally unacceptable to conservatives, liberals, and moderates. What is Cuccinelli thinking? He should pay the political price, as father Albert Snyder states. Who ever thought the Cooch would be cozied up with the ACLU? I suppose politics makes real strange bedfellows in this case. Or…perhaps the Cooch agrees with WBC.
I've got to admit, I got a laugh out of that: the place that deems itself "A Place for Civil Debate" belittling one they loath.
Even some elected officials joined in the blast-fest: Delegate Ward Armstrong (D-Collinsville), House Minority Leader called it "inexcusable."
Even a homosexual website came up on Google saying that he didn't do so "Because Kenny boy hates him some fags just like Westboro, that's why!"
Or perhaps --- just maybe --- it's because he respects the First Amendment. You know: just like those fag-haters on the Supreme Court, the ones who struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.
Let's make sure we say this plainly: Cuccinelli, one other state Attorney General --- right, and in agreement with eight Justices of the Supreme Court, in a decision vindicating First Amendment freedom; Virginia moonbatosphere, 48 other state Attorneys General --- wrong, and in agreement with a single Justice of the Supreme Court.
More than a few of Virginia's sanctimonious far Left should be bellying up to the table for a healthy serving of crow tonight.
I confess that I like Two and a Half Men. It's simply very funny and well-written, a lampoon of a drunken, gambling satyr; a commentary on men when they submit to their darker natures. That it has survived for nearly a decade on network television speaks to its entertainment value (among other less praiseworthy things). It is a guilty pleasure of Mrs. Skeptical Observor, who resides with one and two half-men of her own.
Sadly, Charlie Sheen seems to have been typecast in the role. He's an enormously talented guy who first rose to Hollywood prominence in Oliver Stone's Platoon and Wall Street (and never mind their politics) holding his own against his more prominent and accomplished co-stars like Willem Dafor, Tom Berenger, and Michael Douglas. He demonstrated his range in Hot Shots, a satire on Teop Gun.
And even with his wild lifestyle, he demonstrates a self-awareness that must speak to his intelligence. When he was connected to "Hollywood Madam" Heidi Fleiss, he was quoted as observing that men pay prostitutes to go away. Cold? Absolutely. Self-aware and insightful? True, as well.
And now, he seems to be living the life that "Charlie Harper" has been living on network television during the run of his show. However, the consequences so rarely suffered in a 22-minute situation comedy cannot be avoided in real life, even the semi-real life of a Hollywood star.
And his self-destruction has been much in the news of late. He's alienated all of those around him (today, his publicist), and seems hell-bent on alienating his distinguished acting family which (again, forget their politics) has stood with him.
It's truly sad to see an enormously-talented man's decline played out in a media more interested in acting like celebrity-stalking paparazzi than in reporting on real news.
Good Thing We've Got The Vanguard Of The Proletariat To Rule ... er, "Protect" Us
According to "Kaz" over at "ProgressiveDem," "Ignorant Voters Have Inflicted Grievous Damage."
And no, he's not referring to the Obamorons.
Instead, he speaks of "voters last November [who] traveled the road to self-destruction by electing right wing GOP House members hell bent on creating an even more corporate controlled government and determined to eliminate the common good."
The arrogance of that statement is astounding. Never mind the ridiculous notion that the Republican in Congress are "right wing"; we all know that moonbats habitually refer to anyone to the right of Saul Alinsky as "right wing." And never mind the punctuation-challenged, quasi-Marxist rhetoric about "corporate[-]controlled government."
It's that "common good" line that's truly demonstrates the author's arrogance.
I have a set of beliefs. I believe them to be correct. I am an attorney, and therefore, arrogance is an occupational hazard.
But the far Left is so narcissistically self-absorbed that some of its practitioners claim a monopoly on "the common good." Ignoring, of course, the destructive effects of eighty years of Liberal governance.
As local radio talk show host Chris Plante is fond of observing, "Frequently appalled; never surprised."
The errant and undisciplined ruminations of a Conservative public interest attorney, GOP activist, and father of two sons. Nothing herein should be confused with tolerance of folly, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), sufferance of fools gladly, or endorsement of perversion.
About Me
Name: James Young
Location: Montclair, Virginia, United States
James Young is an attorney (licensed in D.C. and Pennsylvania only) with a public interest legal aid organization, is a nationally-recognized expert in labor and constitutional law in the context of individual rights, and recently argued his first case before the United States Supreme Court. He has been married to his wife, Brenda, for 20 years, and they have two sons, Jimmy (13) and Patrick (9). In his professional capacity, he travels frequently, with cases in Philadelphia, Alaska, Hawaii, and California. His clients are quite diverse, and include farmworkers in California, Congressmen in Washington (challenging an Executive Order issued by Bill Clinton), pro football players with the Washington Redskins, and Barry Williams (big brother Greg on the Brady Bunch). Until recently, he was a weekly political columnist for the Potomac News in Woodbridge, Virginia. He is active in Virginia Republican politics, and is a member of the Federalist Society.
"I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents."
Sir Winston Churchill
And One of My Favorite Quotations:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt
