Courtesy of the Shenandoah Valley-Herald.
Jimmy LaRoue talks about Gilbert's back surgery and subsequent recovery, his already-impressive track record, and a few more odds and ends that really highlight some of the reasons why I (and many in the Valley) support the delegate from the 15th district.
Give it a read.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Got My Free Swag
Because I "Blog for Fred", I recently received my "I Blog For Fred" coffee mug, bumper sticker, and a few buttons due to a delay in shipping.
Little things like that make my day.
Little things like that make my day.
City of Virginia Beach Crosses the Line
(h/t Bearing Drift)
A new bar in Virginia Beach received it's ABC license...provided it follow certain restrictions, which include...
- No Rap/Hip-hop music
- Must close at midnight
- Nobody under 21 after 9 pm (that I can understand, that's a pretty standard practice in a lot of localities)
- Strict dress code with no do-rags/sneakers/athletic wear/etc...(i.e. no hip-hop gear).
First of all, it is not the city's job to enforce dress codes within bars...it is the bar's job to do so. Secondly, "last call" is usually 2 am, so I don't get the midnight closing hour. Thirdly, the city cannot determine what kind of music is played within the bar/club, the bar can do that.
Given my love of hip-hop (I know, a conservative who loves hip-hop...I'm a renaissance man), I'm personally appalled by this. I understand that the new bar was not going to be a spot for the hip-hop crowd, anyway...but that is for the establishment itself to decide...not the city.
A new bar in Virginia Beach received it's ABC license...provided it follow certain restrictions, which include...
- No Rap/Hip-hop music
- Must close at midnight
- Nobody under 21 after 9 pm (that I can understand, that's a pretty standard practice in a lot of localities)
- Strict dress code with no do-rags/sneakers/athletic wear/etc...(i.e. no hip-hop gear).
First of all, it is not the city's job to enforce dress codes within bars...it is the bar's job to do so. Secondly, "last call" is usually 2 am, so I don't get the midnight closing hour. Thirdly, the city cannot determine what kind of music is played within the bar/club, the bar can do that.
Given my love of hip-hop (I know, a conservative who loves hip-hop...I'm a renaissance man), I'm personally appalled by this. I understand that the new bar was not going to be a spot for the hip-hop crowd, anyway...but that is for the establishment itself to decide...not the city.
Thoughts on Creigh Deeds' Live Blog at DWJ...
The potential candidate for AG/Governor in 2009 answered reader questions at DWJ last week...my personal thoughts on his answers are a bit mixed. Some answers I liked, some I didn't.
- In response to my question about what would make him a candidate that is appealing to Republicans/conservatives/right-leaning moderates...he responded that it's the same thing that makes him appealing to the left...that he "gets things done". That's all well and good, and certainly admirable given the lack of "things getting done" by our government at times. However, I felt his answer was a bit of a "canned" answer. I was hoping that he would elaborate a bit on his personal stances, and how they would appeal to someone with a right-slanting P.O.V.
- His reference that the media does not focus enough on the bipartisan efforts of government to improve the lives of it's citizens was pretty much right on target, though.
- I felt Brian Kirwin's question about Deed's speech at Blogs United was a bit much, all things considered...Deeds' reply was good, and made his point very clear.
- The joke that, if he were a Republican, he would have a pet elephant named "Ron" (since he's a Democrat with a pet donkey named Harry S. Truman) was funny.
- Deeds seems to have no problems pinning the bipartisan disaster that these abuser fees have turned into on the Republicans. His statement of incorporating out-of-state drivers into these sources of revenue for transportation funding is a bit ironic...considering it was Tim Kaine that struck it out of the abuser fee legislation.
- He almost too matter-of-factly answered Jay Hughes' question about doing 82 in a 65, but it was the right answer to that question.
Overall, I don't think Deeds is a bad guy at all. He does hold pretty well to the party line, but he is a pretty efficient politician when it comes to pushing his agendas. I respect his direct answers to most of the questions (he was probably the least direct, in my opinion, when it came to my question). Would I vote for him for Governor? Probably not, as his political beliefs are just too different from mine...however, I do think that his directness and efficiency do make him a power player in the 2009 elections, and if he ran for a position like Attorney General, I don't think I would have a problem with electing him to that position (so long as Mark Obenshain isn't running).
Just my opinion.
- In response to my question about what would make him a candidate that is appealing to Republicans/conservatives/right-leaning moderates...he responded that it's the same thing that makes him appealing to the left...that he "gets things done". That's all well and good, and certainly admirable given the lack of "things getting done" by our government at times. However, I felt his answer was a bit of a "canned" answer. I was hoping that he would elaborate a bit on his personal stances, and how they would appeal to someone with a right-slanting P.O.V.
- His reference that the media does not focus enough on the bipartisan efforts of government to improve the lives of it's citizens was pretty much right on target, though.
- I felt Brian Kirwin's question about Deed's speech at Blogs United was a bit much, all things considered...Deeds' reply was good, and made his point very clear.
- The joke that, if he were a Republican, he would have a pet elephant named "Ron" (since he's a Democrat with a pet donkey named Harry S. Truman) was funny.
- Deeds seems to have no problems pinning the bipartisan disaster that these abuser fees have turned into on the Republicans. His statement of incorporating out-of-state drivers into these sources of revenue for transportation funding is a bit ironic...considering it was Tim Kaine that struck it out of the abuser fee legislation.
- He almost too matter-of-factly answered Jay Hughes' question about doing 82 in a 65, but it was the right answer to that question.
Overall, I don't think Deeds is a bad guy at all. He does hold pretty well to the party line, but he is a pretty efficient politician when it comes to pushing his agendas. I respect his direct answers to most of the questions (he was probably the least direct, in my opinion, when it came to my question). Would I vote for him for Governor? Probably not, as his political beliefs are just too different from mine...however, I do think that his directness and efficiency do make him a power player in the 2009 elections, and if he ran for a position like Attorney General, I don't think I would have a problem with electing him to that position (so long as Mark Obenshain isn't running).
Just my opinion.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Ignorance On Display
Imagine you're Boise State University running back Ian Johnson. On January 1st, you took the undefeated, and sorely underrated Boise State Broncos to a 43-42 win over the overwhelmingly-favored Oklahoma Sooners in the Fiesta Bowl. In fact, you scored the winning touchdown on the oldest trick play in the book...the "Statue of Liberty" play. Post-game, on national television, you propose to your girlfriend, who is a cheerleader on the sidelines, and she accepts.
Does the script get any better than that?
It doesn't. However, Johnson is having to hire extra security for his Saturday wedding to his college sweetheart, Chrissy Popadics, because of racial threats made to the two of them...only because Johnson is black and Popadics is white. Apparently, these threats are being made from both whites and blacks who object to such a thing as interracial marriage.
In the 21st Century, you'd think that something like this would still be going on. However, ignorance is still out there...and to be honest, I don't care if you're white, black, hispanic, asian, conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian, male or female...I think we can all agree that ignorance like this has no racial, political, or gender-based boundaries. I also think that we can all agree that ignorance like this has no place in our society.
Read about this at Yahoo! Sports.
Does the script get any better than that?
It doesn't. However, Johnson is having to hire extra security for his Saturday wedding to his college sweetheart, Chrissy Popadics, because of racial threats made to the two of them...only because Johnson is black and Popadics is white. Apparently, these threats are being made from both whites and blacks who object to such a thing as interracial marriage.
In the 21st Century, you'd think that something like this would still be going on. However, ignorance is still out there...and to be honest, I don't care if you're white, black, hispanic, asian, conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian, male or female...I think we can all agree that ignorance like this has no racial, political, or gender-based boundaries. I also think that we can all agree that ignorance like this has no place in our society.
Read about this at Yahoo! Sports.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Weekly Podium - "Grudging Acceptance"
(Cross-posted at The New Dominion)
We live in a capitalist democracy. We have had a basic system in place for hundreds of years. It has worked thus far, and should continue to work, as all we have done is tinker with the system...but, generally speaking, we still operate under the same constitution as was drafted in 1787. Our nation has a great standard of living, good life expectancy, and a reasonable amount of other aspects about our society to remain optimistic about our future.
So why do so many people want to change things so drastically?
Simply put, our nation is not perfect. Never has been, never will be. Perfection is impossible for a nation of 300 million people to create. However, I tend to believe that with our flaws, we are still as excellent a nation as ever in today's global society. While different countries may rank higher than us in certain individual areas, the United States as a whole is as good as it gets.
One of those things that makes our nation so strong is the balance of power within our government, and not just through the 3 branches of government, but through the representation of the two major ideological wings of political thought. Modern American liberalism and conservatism are designed, in a sense, to keep each other in balance.
How is this so? Well, let's compare the two sides on social and economical issues. For the sake of simplifying the comparison, I'm leaving out libertarians, populists, communists, fascists. Libertarians may be the rising 3rd party, but right now we're still in a predominantly two-party system. For all intents and purposes, Democrats represent the centrist-left and liberal wing, while the Republicans represent the centrist-right and conservative wing.
Democrats have, traditionally-speaking, done well with voters who are in favor of the proliferation of social issues. Pro-abortion rights, pro-gay marriage, pro-welfare expansion, etc..., these have always been part of the modern liberal agenda. There is a belief by liberals that the government is partially responsible for providing direct benefits and assistance to those below the poverty level and in the working classes in order to give the lower classes a "fair chance".
At the same time, they take a bit of a "hands-off" approach to censorship of the arts, which appeals to the elite classes of Hollywood, the music industry, and the art world. Higher taxes are seen as a necessary evil, and that tax money that goes towards helping promote social programs is seen as "the more fortunate taking care of the less fortunate". Businesses tend to be regulated more in Democrat-controlled governments to promote fair practices and competition.
Republicans, on the other hand, generally believe that the economy prospers when the markets are free and open, and businesses are allowed more "free range" to operate. Lower taxes mean more money in the pocket of the consumers and the businesses, which allows them to spend more, which allows the prospering of businesses. The prospering of business, in turn, leads to growth of these businesses and more jobs. With the proliferation of jobs, the opportunity for the working class to move to better-paying jobs with more benefits is greater.
As for social issues, Republicans have only recently (since the late-80's/early-90's) moved towards taking stronger stances on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, both of which many conservatives oppose on moral grounds.
Now, of course, this is a very generalized, "in a nutshell" comparison, and I could go into much greater detail, but that would require much more time and space. I am inclined to believe that the majority of Americans are moderates that lean one way or another. While the constant debates, dissent, and political bantering that goes on between the parties can be very tiring, it helps keeps things in balance.
Yes, there needs to be assistance for the poor, the unemployed, and those who suffer from events beyond their control. However, you can't simply dole out welfare checks...nor can you ignore the immediate needs of these people while focusing on eventual solutions such as job growth.
Businesses should be allowed to grow and prosper with opportunities provided for smaller businesses to compete on the open market. Regulations on product quality and certain business practices are important, as well.
Even the accusations of media bias somewhat balances itself out. Liberals have a greater influence in the newspapers and on television news. Conservatives have a greater influence through talk radio and Fox News. This is one of the reasons why I'm not in favor of the so-called "fairness doctrine", it's already pretty well divided so that both ideologies have their own outlets within the media.
This is why, when I hear cries of "conservatism is dead" from liberals or declarations of a permanent majority from conservatives, I begin to wonder if anyone has really been paying attention to how our nation works. The mood of the American populous may sway from right to left and back again as time passes, but it never goes so far as to force one of the two major ideologies into extinction.
I make it pretty obvious that I generally support conservative-leaning viewpoints and ideology, and I personally believe that our country functions best when leaning conservative. However, despite my general disagreement with the current liberal agenda, I do know that Democrats do have a place in our political sphere. I cannot, in good faith, declare that modern liberalism should rot and die and is an evil on par with Satan.
There are those on both sides, however, that disagree with me, and believe that those with opposing viewpoints are either ignorant, evil, or just plain un-American. While they are entitled to this opinion, I can't say I share the same viewpoint. Although I think most Democratic viewpoints are not the right solutions to keep America a prosperous nation, that doesn't mean they are evil.
Conservatives and liberals may not like each other, and I don't suspect that they really will at any time soon. However, if we're ever going to tone down the potency of the sheer venom-spitting going on between the pundits on both sides of the aisle, we all need to learn to grudgingly accept the other side's existence.
We live in a capitalist democracy. We have had a basic system in place for hundreds of years. It has worked thus far, and should continue to work, as all we have done is tinker with the system...but, generally speaking, we still operate under the same constitution as was drafted in 1787. Our nation has a great standard of living, good life expectancy, and a reasonable amount of other aspects about our society to remain optimistic about our future.
So why do so many people want to change things so drastically?
Simply put, our nation is not perfect. Never has been, never will be. Perfection is impossible for a nation of 300 million people to create. However, I tend to believe that with our flaws, we are still as excellent a nation as ever in today's global society. While different countries may rank higher than us in certain individual areas, the United States as a whole is as good as it gets.
One of those things that makes our nation so strong is the balance of power within our government, and not just through the 3 branches of government, but through the representation of the two major ideological wings of political thought. Modern American liberalism and conservatism are designed, in a sense, to keep each other in balance.
How is this so? Well, let's compare the two sides on social and economical issues. For the sake of simplifying the comparison, I'm leaving out libertarians, populists, communists, fascists. Libertarians may be the rising 3rd party, but right now we're still in a predominantly two-party system. For all intents and purposes, Democrats represent the centrist-left and liberal wing, while the Republicans represent the centrist-right and conservative wing.
Democrats have, traditionally-speaking, done well with voters who are in favor of the proliferation of social issues. Pro-abortion rights, pro-gay marriage, pro-welfare expansion, etc..., these have always been part of the modern liberal agenda. There is a belief by liberals that the government is partially responsible for providing direct benefits and assistance to those below the poverty level and in the working classes in order to give the lower classes a "fair chance".
At the same time, they take a bit of a "hands-off" approach to censorship of the arts, which appeals to the elite classes of Hollywood, the music industry, and the art world. Higher taxes are seen as a necessary evil, and that tax money that goes towards helping promote social programs is seen as "the more fortunate taking care of the less fortunate". Businesses tend to be regulated more in Democrat-controlled governments to promote fair practices and competition.
Republicans, on the other hand, generally believe that the economy prospers when the markets are free and open, and businesses are allowed more "free range" to operate. Lower taxes mean more money in the pocket of the consumers and the businesses, which allows them to spend more, which allows the prospering of businesses. The prospering of business, in turn, leads to growth of these businesses and more jobs. With the proliferation of jobs, the opportunity for the working class to move to better-paying jobs with more benefits is greater.
As for social issues, Republicans have only recently (since the late-80's/early-90's) moved towards taking stronger stances on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, both of which many conservatives oppose on moral grounds.
Now, of course, this is a very generalized, "in a nutshell" comparison, and I could go into much greater detail, but that would require much more time and space. I am inclined to believe that the majority of Americans are moderates that lean one way or another. While the constant debates, dissent, and political bantering that goes on between the parties can be very tiring, it helps keeps things in balance.
Yes, there needs to be assistance for the poor, the unemployed, and those who suffer from events beyond their control. However, you can't simply dole out welfare checks...nor can you ignore the immediate needs of these people while focusing on eventual solutions such as job growth.
Businesses should be allowed to grow and prosper with opportunities provided for smaller businesses to compete on the open market. Regulations on product quality and certain business practices are important, as well.
Even the accusations of media bias somewhat balances itself out. Liberals have a greater influence in the newspapers and on television news. Conservatives have a greater influence through talk radio and Fox News. This is one of the reasons why I'm not in favor of the so-called "fairness doctrine", it's already pretty well divided so that both ideologies have their own outlets within the media.
This is why, when I hear cries of "conservatism is dead" from liberals or declarations of a permanent majority from conservatives, I begin to wonder if anyone has really been paying attention to how our nation works. The mood of the American populous may sway from right to left and back again as time passes, but it never goes so far as to force one of the two major ideologies into extinction.
I make it pretty obvious that I generally support conservative-leaning viewpoints and ideology, and I personally believe that our country functions best when leaning conservative. However, despite my general disagreement with the current liberal agenda, I do know that Democrats do have a place in our political sphere. I cannot, in good faith, declare that modern liberalism should rot and die and is an evil on par with Satan.
There are those on both sides, however, that disagree with me, and believe that those with opposing viewpoints are either ignorant, evil, or just plain un-American. While they are entitled to this opinion, I can't say I share the same viewpoint. Although I think most Democratic viewpoints are not the right solutions to keep America a prosperous nation, that doesn't mean they are evil.
Conservatives and liberals may not like each other, and I don't suspect that they really will at any time soon. However, if we're ever going to tone down the potency of the sheer venom-spitting going on between the pundits on both sides of the aisle, we all need to learn to grudgingly accept the other side's existence.
Hold The Phone...
For over a week or so, now...we've been hearing bipartisan blogger cries for immediate repeal of the Abuser Fees. They've advocated the bombardment of all members of the General Assembly to hold a special session, and to pressure current pro-Abuser Fee delegates and senators into changing their position and opposing the Fees.
So Scott Lingamfelter saw the public's reaction, and changed his position due to this sudden and virulent backlash against the fees. Pretty much, the goal of the blogs to convince the pro-Fee politicians to change their minds was actually met in regards to Lingamfelter.
Immediately, the liberal blogs within the state jump on Lingamfelter and declare him a "flip-flopper", stated that he was simply trying to "save himself from losing" his reelection campaign, and generally derided him for changing his mind...which is what THEY wanted him to do in the first place!!!
If you want politicians to support your cause, don't criticize them when they do. Hypocrites...if anything, the liberal blogs should be blasting Democrats in the General Assembly for NOT recognizing what the people are demanding.
So Scott Lingamfelter saw the public's reaction, and changed his position due to this sudden and virulent backlash against the fees. Pretty much, the goal of the blogs to convince the pro-Fee politicians to change their minds was actually met in regards to Lingamfelter.
Immediately, the liberal blogs within the state jump on Lingamfelter and declare him a "flip-flopper", stated that he was simply trying to "save himself from losing" his reelection campaign, and generally derided him for changing his mind...which is what THEY wanted him to do in the first place!!!
If you want politicians to support your cause, don't criticize them when they do. Hypocrites...if anything, the liberal blogs should be blasting Democrats in the General Assembly for NOT recognizing what the people are demanding.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Creigh Deeds at Daily Whackjob
Leave your questions here today, and Deeds will be answering them tomorrow.
So far, the first 3 questions all deal with a possible 2009 run at the Governor's mansion.
So far, the first 3 questions all deal with a possible 2009 run at the Governor's mansion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
