Waldo’s Virginia Political Blogroll

That, plus crap. Enjoy. Tags: Humor, Funny, Austin Powers

Ah, it is that time of year when prefiled bills begin to appear on LIS. Thanks to Kenton at 750 Volts for raising the alarm.

If I can find the time, I will try and spotlight some of the more interesting ones over the next couple of weeks (and don’t forget, there’s a new triViA up!).

Let’s start of with the Anti-Barber Bill. Del. Riley Ingram (R-Hopewell) apparently did not take too kindly to the antics of his Chesterfield neighbor Ed Barber after the latter pled guilty to inappropriate contact with his minor step-daughter. Many may remember that Barber initially refused to give up his seat.

This bill appears designed to make up the minds of those in similar situations. HB 1625 provides that “any person holding public office who is convicted of any offense that requires registration on the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry, and for whom all rights of appeal have terminated, shall upon conviction forfeit the public office.”

On the surface, this hardly seems objectionable. Who wants to be represented by a convicted sex offender? However, I am a little troubled by the mechanism. Why are murders allowed to stay in office? Rapists? Terrorists? This bill takes a politically-insulated shot at a certain brand of criminal without a great deal of justification (although visceral support is there in spades). One presumes that if the offense was truly horrendous, the convict would be put in jail. The fact that Mr. Barber only got probation seems to indicate that his actions, whatever they were, did not warrant incarceration. What makes his situation different from anyone else who gets probation?

Should people caught smoking marijuana be kicked out of office? Trespassing? What about parents that have a party at which a child’s friend grabs a beer? Speeding? Assault?

None of those crimes involves jail time in the normal instance. Unless egregious, none are even felonies. Why treat this one differently? Is it just the “ick” factor?

Why not let the political process do its work? What party would want its member to stay in office with that taint? Responsible party mechanisms should take this very situation and act on it.

This bill would not be necessary if the Republican and Democratic Parties required their candidates to step down should such an event occur. Why not allow the people to hold the parties accountable? Why meddle?

Thoughts?

It’s too much, you’re too late, too much, you’re too late In today’s Post there’s an article about House of Blues planning to open in DC. Naturally, Seth Hurwitz is not too happy about this. I’m not quite sure how…

Richmond, Virginia — November 30, 2006

Yesterday, when I was commenting on the exchange between President George W. Bush and Senator-elect Jim Webb, I referred to some comments by Republican former-Congressman Joe Scarborough. The more I thought about those comments, the more I wanted to share the interview they came from with my readers.

On September 22, 2004, Scarborough was interviewed by

Two weeks ago, members of the D.C. City Council prepared "emergency" legislation which if passed would increase their salary by 42%.  The raise would take effect prior to the new Council taking office in January 2007, so that it could apply to that Council -- who are prohibited by law from raising their own salaries.
 
The amazing thing is not that the Council pleaded an "emergency" or proposed such a dramatic increase in their salaries.  It's that they already make $92,000 a year for a "part-time" position -- for a city half the size of Fairfax County.  
 
D.C. Council members defended their money grab by describing their role as akin to state officials (ignoring the fact that state legislators, who have plenary power in our Federalist system, make a fraction of those sums).  They say that their job requires them to be full-time.  
 
There is nothing more dangerous than a full-time politician.  Given too much time and opportunity, full-time legislators will pass useless and burdensome legislation in order to justify their existence.  Meanwhile, they miss the crucial experience that ordinary citizens have every day -- the experience of surviving in a market economy.  
 
Fortunately, under the Virginia Constitution, the full-time position is reserved for the Governor and Attorney General, each of whom must directly manage thousands of state employees.  That's a good thing. And that's the way it should stay.

Chap

Now that everyone knows that former Clerk of the Senate/Wilder Chief of Staff Jonah T. “Jay” Shropshire (”The Silver Fox of Martinsville”) used to be a Tally Clerk in the U.S. House of Representatives, on to what I consider to be a much tougher question:

Which current state official served with him?

The Pope is meeting this day with Ecumenical Patriarch Barthalomew I. It is a step toward eventual Christian Unity, not because it is essential that the Orthodox Church submit to the Pope, but because the Pope must take is place as one among many Patriarchs under Barthalomew. The See of Constantinople did not do anything to break away from Rome. History teaches just the oppossite, that Rome broke its ties to Constantinople. Much of the hubris that infects the Roman Curia would be cured by mending such a break and allowing the Western Church to follow the decentralized model of the East. This is essential for ecumenicism, since a main reason for Protestant disaffection are the overreach in authority claimed by the Pope. There are a few cases when the gift of binding and loosening are given to the Church. While one of these does involve St. Peter, the others involve the Church as a whole, including all of the faithful.

In Evangelical circles, there is a popular wrist band, WWJD, What Would Jesus Do? One might ask in this instance, what would St. Peter do? It can be argued that Peter went to Rome (if he did) because that is where the Emperor was. Therefore, when the Emperor Constantine went to Asia Minor and founded Constantinople, the Church that went with him became the Holy See, giving Peter's primacy to the Ecumenical Patriarch. After the Turks consolidated power in Asia Minor and over all of Islam, the See was under persecution - and still is (which is why no great pronouncements will be made today - His Holinesss the Ecumentical Patriarch does not need that headache). Peter's Church would be the one under persecution, which is fitting as radical Islam raises its head as the main source of terror in the post-cold war world.

Another place Peter might be would be Russia, which was also under persecution over the past century - and may be again if Putin shows his communist roots.

The other place Peter might go is Washington, which is where the power is. A patriarchy in a newly configured Church would be appropriate to lead English speaking Christianity and the most power city in the English speaking world is Washington (the other opton would be Galway, with its similarity to Gallatia - the earliest Gaelic Christian Church - a great Church in its own right that could be restored). I could see Cardinal McCarrick as a Gallatian Patriarch, either in Washington or Ireland. If anyone is temprementally suited to bring warring English speaking Christianity together, it is his Eminence.

Has anyone else noticed the logically flawed “defense” of Mitt Romney’s religion from some of the right-leaning blogs?

First off, let me say that, while I believe that a person’s moral compass and conviction are fair game for electoral inspection, an individual’s demonination makes little difference to me. I know a few Mormons but must confess ignorance as to their tenants. It didn’t matter in the case of my friends and roommates in the past, I see no reason why it should make a difference in a potential GOP nominee for President.

Some of the right wing have decided to take up arms in support of Gov. Romney’s religion by attacking Democrats for electing another Mormon: Sen. Reid.

Is this supposed to demonstrate some supposed hypocrisy? To the extent that I have seen Deomcrats address Gov. Romney’s faith, it has been to speculate on its effects on the Religious Right, a significant segment of the GOP base.

More significantly, no one is asking anyone to vote for Sen. Reid. Americans don’t vote for the Sentate majority leader. Sen. Reid need only garner the support of a plurality of Nevadans (which he has already done). How does that equate with Romney’s situation?

Sometimes I wonder if certain members of the right can craft an argument without making an attack . . . .

From Ramsey Clark:

I live by a simple rule. If you wore the uniform, if you served your nation with honor, and especially if you fought and were wounded in battle, then you have earned the right to be treated with respect.

That's why I am so outraged that the Republican party has systematically attacked the wartime service and patriotism of veterans who are running for office as Democrats. It is despicable -- the sign of a party more concerned about hanging onto power by any means possible than with giving veterans the respect they have earned. 

Having worn a uniform for six years and served in the first Gulf War, I am disgusted to no end with these chickenhawk rat bastards.

I was marching with Veterans for Peace and Veterans for Common Sense a few years back to deliver a letter (signed by thousands of veterans) to the VA bemoaning the sorry state of veteran care.

On the way, we were treated to a group of cowardly College Republicans and Freepers with signs like "Have you forgotten?"

Now, given that this march had nothing to do with the war or September 11th, just why were these brave trust fund babies out there heckling us with their signs? To show that they disagree our plea that the VA treat wounded veterans with a little respect and compassion, as our letter addressed?

Normally I am reserved and non-confrontational in person, but that set me off. Not a single one of those cowardly kids would answer me when I asked them why they hadn't enlisted. One brave photographer, who sided with the kids and tried to protect them from our hard questions, mentioned that he was a reservist. Umm, why not active duty? Why was he taking pictures and playing around in the reserves when he felt this war was so necessary? Why was he not on active duty, instead of participating in the denigration of fellow veterans by cowardly, sheltered trust fund babies?

These brave souls, who fight with other people's blood and bodies, are not real men and women. They are cowards. UnAmerican. Traitors to liberty and domestic enemies of the Constitution. And I sincerely hope that history will judge them as such.

Link courtesy of The Anti-BS Chronicle: http://antibschronicle.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-from-wes-clark.html 

.

I have noticed bloggers on both sides of the political spectrum pooh-poohing the idea of another Gilmore or Allen candidacy. This has occurred most noticably at NLS, but also, to the extent that it is read, at Raising Kaine.

Democrats ignore these two Republicans at their peril.

It is true that suffering a statewide loss is damaging to a political reputation. No gubernatorial candidate in the modern era has succeeded in a second round. But Mark Warner lost a senate bid and came back to win the Governorship. It is true that Mark Warner’s win came on the heels of the less-than-stellar Gilmore administration. But Gilmore has never lost an election. And he tried his hardest to keep a popular campaign promise (fiscal discipline be damned).

The fact is that both Allen and Gilmore continue to have their adherents within the GOP, which is the only place that matters if you are interested in becoming a GOP candidate.

These are the scenarios that I see as most likely:

Allen runs for Governor in 2009. He is known to have enjoyed his time as Governor a great deal. Not everyone agreed with his priorities (abolishing parole, building prisons, firing career civil servants), and he suffered a debilitating setback after staking so much on the 1995 midterms and failing to flip either chamber, but he is still considered somewhat of the embodiment of the Republican Revival after 12 years in the hinterlands. Also, he remarked that he was not thrilled with Senate life.

Allen has demonstrated remarkable political resilliancy: took him a few tries to win a seat in the House of Delegates, but he did it. Was redistricted out of his House of Representatives seat, but came back to win the Governorship. Also, before he was convinced to run for Governor, he considered primarying Frank Wolf.

This man lives to be in politics. He has never really had any other career. Were he to turn on the charm again, voters may well be willing to forgive him his misstep in 2006. This was also his first time running for a large office as an incumbent. In 2009, he would have the opportunity to run as an “outsider” once again - his favorite position and one that appears to suit him well. Now, he also has his reputation to resurrect. He is also going to install his supporter as state GOP Chairman this weekend. Down? Yes. Out? Hardly.

Gilmore runs for Senate in 2008. After 7 years, few voters will remember what a mess the state was in after his stewardship. Besides, he’s not running for Governor. Federal issues are fundamentally different, and Virginia is more GOP-leaning in federal elections. The federal scene also pitches to his wheelhouse: taxes and security. He was the last statewide tax-cutter we have had (although the Warner Administration did cut the food tax and removed more low-income Virginians off of the tax rolls, but because he also raised the sales tax, apparently such things don’t count to the editorial staff at the RTD). Gilmore cut the car tax. And if he had had his way, it would be eliminated right now. He can say he wants to go to the Senate and do the same thing. People will listen. He also has Homeland Security credentials.

Gilmore may run regardless of what the rest of the landscape looks like in 2008. I see no reason why he wouldn’t primary John Warner. And win. After all, a not-insignificant chunk of the GOP has no great love for the senior senator. Warner would also not likely benefit from any Democratic crossover for two reasons: first, the GOP party plan might exclude them from the primary (which Warner would surely demand be the nomination method); second, if Gilmore was going to be the alternative to Warner, Democrats might have a chance of picking up the seat. Are there enough engaged independent voters that would participate in a GOP primary to save Warner? I’m skeptical.

Who else would Gilmore have to overcome? Tom Davis won’t run if Warner does. If Warner doesn’t, Gilmore would still look mighty attractive to GOP stalwarts who don’t trust Davis’ moderate record. His campaign largesse will convince only so many. Eric Cantor will probably stay in the House, where he has rocketted up the leadership, even if he is in the minority. He is young enough to become Speaker of the House one day. Heads up Gilmore/Davis? Even in a primary, if I’m Gilmore, I like those odds.

Gilmore for President? Well, that’s just crazy-talk. But it would boost his profile back home (and garner him some good contacts).

It is entertaining to think who the Democrats would nominate. Warner/Allen seems likely, and would be an instant classic. Against Gilmore? A rematch with Beyer? If Virginians can forget about the budget mess, perhaps they can also forget that Beyer was Howard Dean’s Treasurer. Gilmore beat him once; does Beyer want a rematch? Is L.F. too old? Leslie Byrne, back again? Interestingly, while both Gilmore and Allen would be retreads, so too would most of the Democratic names that come to mind. I can’t see Creigh Deeds running for federal office. Is there some weathly self-financier waiting in the wings? Another Webb, perhaps? Or would Harris Miller get his shot?

Thoughts?

The Supreme Court takes up a major global warming case today, as the Bush administration makes a bizarre argument. Despite its reliance on the unitary executive theory, that Congress and the Supreme Court cannot restrict the unlimited power of the presidency, from torturing terror suspects to ignoring the intent of law through signing statements, the White House is arguing it is powerless to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Jim Webb at a campaign rally in September 2006[1]

Richmond, Virginia — November 29, 2006

Senator-elect Jim Webb had a verbal run-in with President George W. Bush a couple of weeks ago and the predictable hyperbolic spin is underway. Republican bloggers are bragging that “Bush smacked Webb into place.” Please.

What did happen is that Webb sent an important message: he’s not ready to make nice.

Other current and former members of Congress have written about the pressure to conform when they first joined after being elected. Republican Joe Scarborough talked candidly about how charming he found Bill Clinton when he first joined Congress, and has talked about how surprised he was to find himself shaking hands and taking pictures with Clinton soon after the bitter mid-term elections of 1994.

Before the mid-term elections, President Bush struck an uncompromising pose, claiming through his spokeman that he had no plans for working with a Democratic Congress. Immediately following George Allen’s concession speech, Bush began waving the banner of bipartisanship.

Webb isn’t having any of it. George W. Bush now has an opponent in the Senate that won’t get along or go along. In refusing to stand in a receiving line or have his picture taken, Webb is signalling that his term in the Senate will not be “business as usual.” Webb was elected after campaigning specifically on his opposition to Bush’s War in Iraq. Many Republicans criticized him for talking of nothing else. Why then the surprise when Webb came out swinging (rhetorically speaking, of course)?

Let’s face it: Bush was foolish to approach Webb on the issue of the war. His gesture might have been well-meant, but it was certainly ill-advised. The war is an extremely emotional hot-button issue for Webb. What did Bush think Webb would do? Commiserate with Bush over his daughters’ troubles during their party-fling in Argentina? Not exactly the same thing Mr. President, even if Argentineans are calling for the Bush twins to pull out of their country.

Political bloggers of all stripes should rejoice: Webb is not going to be boring to watch. I predict that he’ll keep us all on our toes. You can read Michael Shear’s latest take on the altercation here in The Washington Post.

Jim Webb at a campaign rally in September 2006[1]

Richmond, Virginia — November 29, 2006

Senator-elect Jim Webb had a verbal run-in with President George W. Bush a couple of weeks ago and the predictable hyperbolic spin is underway. Republican bloggers are bragging that “Bush smacked Webb into place.” Please.

What did happen is that Webb sent an important message: he’s not ready to make nice.

Other current and former members of Congress have written about the pressure to conform when they first joined after being elected. Republican Joe Scarborough talked candidly about how charming he found Bill Clinton when he first joined Congress, and has talked about how surprised he was to find himself shaking hands and taking pictures with Clinton soon after the bitter mid-term elections of 1994.

Before the mid-term elections, President Bush struck an uncompromising pose, claiming through his spokeman that he had no plans for working with a Democratic Congress. Immediately following George Allen’s concession speech, Bush began waving the banner of bipartisanship.

Webb isn’t having any of it. George W. Bush now has an opponent in the Senate that won’t get along or go along. In refusing to stand in a receiving line or have his picture taken, Webb is signalling that his term in the Senate will not be “business as usual.” Webb was elected after campaigning specifically on his opposition to Bush’s War in Iraq. Many Republicans criticized him for talking of nothing else. Why then the surprise when Webb came out swinging (rhetorically speaking, of course)?

Let’s face it: Bush was foolish to approach Webb on the issue of the war. His gesture might have been well-meant, but it was certainly ill-advised. The war is an extremely emotional hot-button issue for Webb. What did Bush think Webb would do? Commiserate with Bush over his daughters’ troubles during their party-fling in Argentina? Not exactly the same thing Mr. President, even if Argentineans are calling for the Bush twins to pull out of their country.

Political bloggers of all stripes should rejoice: Webb is not going to be boring to watch. I predict that he’ll keep us all on our toes. You can read Michael Shear’s latest take on the altercation here in The Washington Post.

I've finally finished the merger of my old WordPress installation with this Mambo CMS.  Long-time readers know this website began with Blogger, then MovableType, on to WordPress and finally to the Mambo CMS you see today.

YES!!!!  This has been pending for nearly a year (see the Website Updates category under News/Blog Archives for more).

All WordPress blog entries and comments have been imported and reformated.  The old WordPress blog has been completely deleted.  This should improve download times and certainly liberated a bunch of my server space.  Some subject archives have been merged as well (see News/Blog Archives on right).  The sports, movies and television, and music categories have been merged into a new category - Popular Culture.  The interracial marriage and multiracial identity categories have been merged as well.  There will likely be more consolidations in the future as the thought occurs to me.

.

Grab a cup of coffee and get comfortable, kids, it's story time.

This story begins not too long ago (1971), and not so far away ( Newark , New Jersey ...the “armpit of the nation”). It is here where the seeds of my existence were borne. No, not my conception, but the arrival of my mother into this country. She was a 16-year-old born and raised in a small farming town outside of Vitoria , Brazil.

Along with her parents, my grandparents, they moved to this country with all of the hopes and dreams of millions of immigrants before them. They were looking to improve their lives in a land of opportunity.

My mother was not without responsibility. She went to high school during the day, and worked 12 hours a night as an in-house nurse for sick and elderly patients who needed 24/7 care. My grandmother worked the day shift, and would be relieved by my mother in the evenings. One would think that my mother made pretty decent wages for a high school student, considering all of the work that she was doing during this time. However, she did not see a cent of her money, as it was all sent back to Brazil for her 2 brothers and 1 sister to attend colleges there (a common trait among immigrants).

Did I mention that when she moved to this country, she did not speak a word of English? This was before the days of "ESL"(English as a Second Language) classes. In fact, during her first day of school, her English teacher said to her, "you will only speak English in my class". So did my mother go and protest this to the Principal? Did she claim racial inequality and cry out that the school was not catering to her needs as an individual by making her learn English?
No, she taught herself how to speak English. Her reasoning was simple, English was the language spoken in the United States , so she should learn how to speak the language.

Novel concept, eh?

Nonetheless, through dedication and hard work, my mother not only learned the language, but earned her High School diploma. By the late 1970's/early 1980's, she dated and married my father, and was studying to become a nurse. Unfortunately for my mother career-wise, she had a child (whose article you are reading now), and decided to be a stay-at-home mother during my formative years. After a few years, my mother decided to begin a business baking wedding cakes, so she contracted with Hotels and local catering businesses, and ran a fairly successful business in-and-around the Washington , D.C. metropolitan area.

After moving to Pennsylvania in the early 90’s, she sold all of her equipment, and went back to school. After obtaining a Bachelor's in Fine Arts/Photography from Shepherd College (she graduated Magna Cum Laude) in 1997, my mother decided she needed a better degree to obtain a more stable career. She enrolled at James Madison University , obtaining a second Bachelor's in Education (graduating Summa Cum Laude). She has completed a Masters degree in Curriculum Development and is soon to finish her Master’s in Counseling.

You may be thinking, "that's a nice story, but is there a point to this?" To answer your thoughts, there is.

Many liberals, and a few moderate conservatives, want to grant immediate legal status to illegal immigrants. Their reasons are varied. Some believe it would stop the endless cycle of deporting illegal immigrants, just to have them come across the border again, get deported again, re-immigrate, and repeat this cycle over and over.

The other, and most laughable one, espouses the mantra that we "were all immigrants once". Yes, but I'd venture to say that over 90% of legal residents of the United States have ancestors who legally immigrated into this country. Even during the colonial period, there was a process in which you had to go through in order to come to America , although sometimes it involved being a criminal or being sent to debtor's prison. Think about what you learned in History class about Ellis Island . That was the legal way of immigrating into America.

Needless to say, to legalize the illegal immigrants is tantamount to taking the proud heritage of millions of American families, including mine, and spitting on it. The fact that people took the harder road, waited their turn, and came to this country in a legal, lawful way becomes worthless.

In fact, since beating your wife with a stick thinner than your thumb was once legal, let's make it legal again! Does THAT statement put it all into perspective for you?

Getting back to my family, let me provide another great example of American immigration policies. My uncle Carlos, who is a practicing urologist in Brazil and owns several homes in the country, tried to come to the United States to visit his mother and father and was denied entry because “he was liable not to return home because his profession would allow him to be successful here and he might disappear into the country.”

So, using similar logic, we legalize those who simply jumped the border into the United States …yet, we prevent those who are successful from visiting relatives from setting foot on American soil. Makes absolutely perfect sense, doesn’t it? I mean, there can’t be any flaws within THAT line of thinking, is there?

Also, it is the liberal institution known as the American educational system that insists that we spend our hard-earned tax dollars to quietly imply that immigrants are stupid and worthless.
Example, why are many school systems in our country allowing high school students who barely speak English (but whose first language is Spanish) taking the same entry level Spanish classes as American students? First-year Spanish to a 16-year-old native speaker is like sending a 16-year-old American-born student to 3rd grade to study English.

So, in essence, the "educators" believe that 16-year-old Spanish-speaking immigrants have the intellectual capability of a 3rd grader. Plus, they're making it that much easier for the Spanish-speaking students to get a diploma, because they're making them learn the simple aspects of a language that they've already mastered! It's like saying "well, since you're not smart enough to get this diploma on your own, so we'll make it easier for you."

So now, the liberals not only believe that it's ok to spit upon the heritage of most American families, but that most immigrants and their children are less intellectually capable than American-born students.

I believe that changes do need to be made. The change that needs to be made is a reversion to enforcing our domestic policies no matter how other countries feel about them. Do not let Mexico or any other country make us feel we are hurting them with our policies. We already are giving them jobs their own economies can’t create. If they desire to work here then they must compete legally for entry, just like my ancestors did. Any change to that changes who and what we are.

So to those who think we should simply assign legal status who took the easy way in, I say, “How dare you spit upon my heritage? Shame on you for attempting to devalue my ancestry, my intelligence, and everything else that makes me what I am…a damn proud American.”