NOVATOWNHALL

This is a reality check for everyone.  Bloody hilarious …

Read the rest of this entry »

Barack Obama’s campaign and its roots are going absolutely batsh-t over the new cover of New Yorker magazine, which depicts Barack Obama in Muslim garb, sharing a terrorist fist jab with Michelle Obama who has an assault rifle on her shoulder; Osama bin Laden’s portrait hangs over the mantle in the Oval Office while an American flag burns in the fireplace.

The liberal magazine’s cover is roundly recognized as satire - I have not seen the accompanying story yet but presumably the art is intended to lampoon right wing-caricatures of the Obamas, and possibly poke fun at America’s bitter minority.

But satire is harmless, right? Saturday Night Live portrayed George W. Bush as a lush, and conservative humorists painted John Kerry as a Frenchman, but those caricatures were allowed to stand with little blowback from the respective campaigns. Public figures get that kind of treatment. So why the eruptions over the Obama’s as Muslim, terrorist, America-haters?

Well, let’s see: Muslim? Check. Terrorists? Check. Hate America? Check. These accusations have all been debated fiercely, but it’s easy to see why the bitter minority might get confused.

The reason the New Yorker cover is being castigated so energetically is it strikes way too close to home.

I just got word that local television station WUSA 9 is filming in the neighborhoods of Sterling right now, focusing on blighted houses and Verizon equipment parked on our streets. The report will likely be aired on the late news tonight.

UPDATE: Heh. Here is what Channel 9 was filming.

Apparently a group of residents from neighboring houses came out to see the camera crew, and told them that there were indeed people working on the Verizon FIOS project living here.

This is around the corner from my house, about 1/4 mile away from “House A.” I wonder, now that everyone got kicked out of House A, if some of them just moved around the corner. I’m going to go by in a little while and see if any of the same trucks show up. In any case, it looks like the tactic is to just move the equipment to another street and hope nobody notices.

Being on the street, this violation should be addressed by the Sheriff’s Office, and hopefully someone will call it in or maybe some deputy will see tonight’s report. Then, it will be moved into a driveway, and it will be the Loudoun County zoning enforcement team’s turn to shine.

Ahem.

For those who are not caught up, here are my reports from

June 23

July 2.

In addition, here is my letter in today’s Independent:

Enforce the Zoning

I read with interest your front page story on “eastern Loudoun initiatives” under consideration by our Board of Supervisors. For residents of Sterling who wonder why our zoning laws have been so flagrantly abused the past few years, with overcrowded houses allowed to persist and commercial enterprises allowed to operate out of neighborhood homes, I may have found part of the answer.

I recently did some research as a result of a “problem house” on our street which, once again, Loudoun County Zoning refused to do anything about. I wrote a story detailing this case on June 23 at novatownhall.com. It turns out that the only member of the Loudoun County zoning enforcement team who speaks Spanish - and therefore, for obvious reasons, the point person for inspections of overcrowding and other complaints in Sterling - told a college publication last summer that in addition to working for Loudoun County, she is “continuing to help immigrants though part-time work for an immigration law firm.”

Of course, there is no stigma whatsoever in advocating for “immigrants” and every American should have the freedom to take civic action on matters he or she feels strongly about. But there seems to be a blatant and unconscionable conflict of interest when the one person who is supposed to be Sterling’s chief enforcement officer is also doing legal work on behalf of those so often involved in the alleged violations here.

Most Sterling residents who have attempted to file zoning violation complaints are familiar with the excuses the county’s zoning personnel give us for doing nothing, such as “Virginia’s laws are not strong enough” to allow more rigorous enforcement. But think about this: In the neighboring town of Herndon, when the new mayor and town council first took office in July, 2006, the town had nearly 90 cases of unresolved zoning violations. As of a couple months ago, that number was hovering between five and ten, because Herndon hired additional Spanish-speaking zoning inspectors, some on a part-time basis, with the charge to get the problem fixed.

It appears what is really lacking in Loudoun County is the will to enforce the zoning laws and, at least in regard to Sterling, our county government does not really want to fix the problems.

Maybe Loudoun County Administrator Kirby Bowers should make a phone call to Herndon Mayor Steve DeBenedittis. I am certain “Mayor Steve” would furnish some references of zoning inspectors who could bring an attitude adjustment to our Department of Building and Development.

Joe Budzinski
Sterling

From the local right-wing rag:

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

…statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

Here is the report. Start about page 16 and every 5 or so pages are the “Conclusion” paragraphs.

The intelligence was problematic - but as the report amply demonstrates both Democrats and Republicans drew the same conclusions about the threat. As Hiatt notes in his editorial, we must wait and see what a future administration will do about future threats, about which side it will err on.

Our commenter Zimzo will be horrified at this: The Washington Post has joined a Jewish newspaper in furthering negative stereotypes with their impolitic naming of the religion of those accused in the Postville meat packing scandal.

Agriprocessors has been cited multiple times by federal and state regulators for food-safety, environmental, labor and animal cruelty violations. The violations were widely reported by a Jewish newspaper, the Forward, prompting Jewish advocacy groups to note that Jewish law protects workers and forbids inflicting unnecessary pain on animals.

So far, no officials from Agriprocessors have been charged in the immigration case. The company has been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for labor and environmental charges in previous years, and it faced two recent meat recalls…

“How can those who are responsible for preparing religiously fit meat not conduct themselves in a religiously proper manner? It’s an embarrassment to the Jewish community — how can this be seen as Jewishly fit?” asked Henry Karp, a Reform rabbi in Davenport, Iowa. The word “kosher” in English means “fit.”

Last week’s affidavit filed by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement quoted unnamed informants alleging that Agriprocessors paid undocumented workers $5 an hour and underreported worker injuries. The informants also asserted that there was a methamphetamine lab in the plant and that weapons were either “traded for drugs or sold” on the premises. Agriprocessors declined to comment on the allegations but said it is cooperating with the government.

Shame on all of us. Some things should never be spoken, even by a Rabbi.

I did not see the debate tonight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but it sounds like ABC did a pretty bang up job in the fair and balanced department:

Barack is defensive (understandably so when everyone is attacking him relentlessy for for he entire time) and Hillary is on topic and relentless in her attacks. But for the mendacity of the questioners and their questions.

Honestly, these people need to be removed from the Public’s airwaves and given ordinary jobs doing something useful like following the horses at Mackinac Island in the summer with a wheelbarrow and a shovel. It is painfully obvious that they have no skill at being “Journalists.”

More here:

So George Stephanopoulos is out there chatting with Newsmax columnists and Sean Hannity…

The Same George Stephanopoulos who is the Political Director of ABC, whose Good Morning America was the first National Network Program to break the Reverend Wright Story. And the Very Same ABC that’s owned by the Disney Corporation, whose other network, ESPN is in the news for Canceling not one but TWO Obama Exclusive Interviews at the executive level (edited with clarification by jethropaleorobber)

Let ABC Know what you think about this Garbage! We Expect Objectivity, not force fed conspiracy guilt by association Gotcha Controversies (and Hannity wet dreams)

Did the ABC News crew go easier on the Republicans at the January 5, 2008 debate in New Hampshire? Did Fox News go easier at the January 10 debate in South Carolina?

No, they did not - they just asked normal questions designed to force the candidates to address the sticky questions, and take a stand on current issues, often in light of the candidates’ previous statements. That’s what they do. I think the Democrat supporters, especially Obama supporters, are showing pretty thin skin at this point in the campaign, because it has not been a good few weeks for their candidates.

UPDATE: Maybe Steph was cribbing from Sean Hannity!

UPDATE II: Brrrrrr! Chilly appraisals of ABC.

UPDATE III: Shameful!

UPDATE IV: GREATEST DEBATE QUESTIONS EVER.

UPDATE V: Man, I have now seen a number of video clips of the debate on CNN and must say: This was another huge night for John McCain. He has not even had to comment or respond - he could be on a three-week golf vacation in Scotland for all anyone knows - and his stock has gone up big time. Neither of the Democrats seem remotely, plausibly “presidential.” I have problems with John McCain, but there is no denying this campaign is his to lose. The landscape could not have been made more favorable to him and all he needs to do is present a stable persona to contrast with the skittishness of these two Democrats, because neither of them gives the impression of being on solid ground.

Loudoun Easterner editor Martin Casey is a well-meaning fellow but he does not always get it right.

Regarding this week’s front page story (and dig that crazy graphic) on Gov. Tim Kaine’s veto of the bill which would have allowed concealed carry of firearms in establishments that serve alcohol, the editorial “Back to the Wild West?” asks

In today’s society, why does anyone other than a law enforcement officer need to take a gun, concealed or otherwise, into a restaurant or bar?

Having weapons, concealed or not, in public places — restaurants, bars or otherwise — is a scary thought that conjures up movie scenes from “Shane” and “Gunfight at the OK Coral.”

We want our law enforcement officers to carry weapons for our defense if necessary. Permits to carry concealed weapons should be issued rarely through a process rigorous enough to assure that permit holders have sound reasons for carrying a hidden weapon and also are responsible and sane persons.

Mr. Casey’s editorial displays two of the key assumptions that separate gun control proponents from 2nd Amendment supporters: Outright fear of guns, and a thoroughgoing faith that law enforcement personnel will always be there to protect us.

From the perspective of those who are not subconsciously afraid of firearms, this attitude is like flinching at the sight of a hammer or baseball bat. But cultural conditioning being what it is, many otherwise reasonable people fall into the fallacy of seeing the tool, rather than the carrier, as the problem.

The real issue is whether it is sensible for law-abiding citizens to leave their safety and security completely in the hands of law enforcement officials.

Even the gun-fearers don’t really believe this. They lock their doors at night because they know the police can’t be everywhere at a moment’s notice. Most of them probably do not have a problem with people who take self-defense courses. Kung fu kick to break a jaw - ok. Learn to stick a key in the attacker’s eye - ok. But when it comes to having a gun to defend yourself - well, that is a step too far. As though any situation in which a law abiding citizen might feel the need to protect herself with a gun is magically transformed into a situation where the cops are right nearby, every time.

It’s totally illogical, a position that simply has not been fully thought through by the gun control advocates.

I think the root of the disagreement comes down to an irrational fear of firearms and fervent hope of never having to come close to a firearm. If you read it, you will see that Mr. Casey’s editorial definitely seems to reveal such a personal aversion.

Rather than a carefully considered public policy position, gun control advocacy is more akin to fear of spiders.

A further note: The bill in question was aimed at allowing concealed carry permit holders to bring their guns into restaurants without having to display them openly, as long as they are not consuming alcohol. That’s right: Under current Virginia law it’s perfectly fine to go into Applebees wearing a firearm on your hip as long as everyone can see it.

For those who are less ostentatious and confrontational, which means nearly all concealed carry holders, they have to leave their guns in the car when they go out to eat. Leaving your gun in the car is generally not considered a good thing, the key reason being the possibility of theft. The bill simply would have allowed people who have been certified to carry a firearm all day long to keep it with them when they go out to eat.

Below the fold is visitor Loudoun Conservative’s response to the editorial.
Read the rest of this entry »

Well, the Washington Post has outdone itself for stupidity today. In not one, but two op-ed pieces, stupid women have penned stupid articles about how stupid women are. As the husband of a highly intelligent wife and the parent of three highly intelligent daughters, I was, frankly, disgusted.

The first article, by Charlotte Allen, starts off griping about women “swooning” at Obama rallies. Never mind that, to get such a front-row position, one must stand in line for hours. Never mind that the Secret Service often forbids bringing liquids. So people faint. What a surprise.

She follows up this nonsense with this beauty:

Depressing as it is, several of the supposed misogynist myths about female inferiority have been proven true. Women really are worse drivers than men, for example. A study published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public health revealed that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men’s 5.1, even though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than women.

So men have 74% more practice driving. How surprising that one gets better from practice.

She concludes with this gem:

So I don’t understand why more women don’t relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home…. Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts’ content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim.

I think I’m gonna be sick. Is this what I should teach my girls, “Well, girls are kind of dim, so just be a good little housewife”?

But wait, there’s more. In a companion article, Linda Hirshman laments

Black voters of all socioeconomic classes are voting for the black candidate. Men are voting for the male candidate regardless of race or class. But even though this is also a year with the first major female presidential candidate, women are split every way they can be. They’re the only voting bloc not voting their bloc.

[The] women’s vote has fragmented. The only conclusion: American women still aren’t strategic enough to form a meaningful political movement directed at taking power. Will they ever be?

So she’s complaining that women vote policies, not genitals. What shall we do if Obama wins the nomination, have him and McCain “whip it out” onstage, so Hirshman can vote for the bigger candidate?