novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts in Uncategorized

I didn’t want to say anything but it will be all over the news for the next week here; about how controversial and good he was. Go to the WaPo story if you don’t know the man. I have had to live through his exploits.

When I think of Marion Barry (which only happens when his name is thrown up), I think of three things: corruption, home rule, and corruption. Sure, we all have our faults and, yes, he will have to make it right with God. He has left a following to be reckoned with, which is a tribute to his achievements. Those achievements would be how he helped those with his social programs. All he really showed is that DC politicians are basically corrupt (they’re Dems you know) and that home rule, or even statehood, does not belong to the District of Columbia. But things haven’t changed and, I’m fairly certain, won’t in the future. Best let it be that another corrupt politician has left this earth and he will have more company soon to follow in the near future. When corrupt politicians have no more influence on the people (death is a strong indicator of such) then it is a better day for the people on the whole. I just hate having to hear the tripe about this guy for a week. Like I did with Ted Kennedy.

This report lists a few election where Voter ID laws have made it a little harder to go from polling place to polling place casting votes as different people.  That’s why the demonrats oppose such laws.

With the new Voter ID law in Texas, the vote total was down 4.6% from 2010, and in Virginia, it was down about 1% from the 2010 midterms.  But there was no Senate election that year, either.  “While there are no studies yet on the impact on turnout in Virginia, Nate Silver estimates, based on academic studies, that in general such laws reduce turnout by about 2.4 percent.”

But wait, there were 11% fewer votes cast in Maryland this year, too!  And down 9.5% in Massachusetts!!  How can that be?  There is no Voter ID law in Maryland or Massachusetts disenfranchising the fraudulent.

So where is the disenfranchisement that was supposed to happen?

Whither Now?

30 comments

OK — so Republicans will be in control of both the House and Senate starting January 3rd.  Will 0bama work with the Republicans as Clinton did, and as Bush worked with the Demonrats in his last two years?  Not likely.  0bama is not the pragmatist his predecessors were.  I expect 0bama, unlike Bush, to use his veto power liberally.

So what can this new Republican majority do?

First, it now has even more power over the budget than it had with just control of the House.  The deficit has been coming down, and it can be brought down more.  Congress has to eschew omnibus budget bills and pass them one at a time.

First, pass a bill to authorize spending for debt service.  Nothing more.  At that point, the “default lie” is taken off the table.  Demonrats will no longer be able to say we will default on our debt if we do not pass spending bills.

Second, pass a defense spending authorization bill.  Providing for the Common Defense of the United States is the second thing the U.S. Constitution assigns to the U.S. government.  Only after that these first two authorization bills are passed and signed into law should Congress take up other spending bill.

Next on the list is “provide for the General Welfare of the United States.”  I think we can all agree on the majority of things that this entails.  The Interstate Highway System, for instance, provides for the general welfare of the States by facilitating travel and trade between the States.  FEMA, despite disagreements about how it does things and how efficiently it does things, goes directly to that general welfare of the States.  It is simply not practical for each State to supply itself with everything it might need to meet all potential disasters, and whatever is so stored is likely to be wrecked by the disaster anyway.

When that bill — probably the largest of all — is passed and signed into law, then Congress should move down through Article I, Section 8, and write spending authorization bills line by line.

No real surprise, the 17th richest member of Congress, Rep. Alan Grayson (Demonrat, of course), has decided that the taxpayers should support his wife and children.  His “logic” (such as it is for progs) is that, after twenty-nine years of marriage, he discovered that his wife was never divorced from her first husband, so the marriage is illegitimate.

That’s rich even for a prog.  First of all, “everyone who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18b) , so you have no leg to stand on there anyway.

Second, don’t progs believe that people should be allowed to marry anyone they love?  So what difference does it make that she was already married?  By prog “logic”, shouldn’t one still be allowed to marry ANYONE?

No morals.  No responsibility.  That’s the prog way.

Great line from Forrest Gump. Now here‘s a bit of stupidity to chew on — “Smarter people are no better off”.

You heard that right. Check out the “logic”:

On the surface, Zagorsky’s analysis confirms the findings of previous studies linking higher intelligence with higher income. “Each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year,” he says. For example, a person with a score of 130 (in the top 2%, in terms of IQ) might earn about $12,000 more per year than someone with an average IQ score of about 100.

On the surface, people with higher intelligence scores also had greater wealth. The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100.

But when Zagorsky controlled for other factors – such as divorce, years spent in school, type of work and inheritance – he found no link between IQ and net worth. In fact, people with a slightly above-average IQ of 105 , had an average net worth higher than those who were just a bit smarter, with a score of 110.

People who had divorced once had about $9600 less wealth on average than their never-divorced counterparts. And those who smoked heavily had an $11,000 reduction in net worth. These external factors – rather than IQ – could explain the differences in wealth, Zagorsky suggests.

Let’s see…

  • Choose to stay in school… learn useful skills… choose a good career… earn more money!
  • Choose spouse more wisely… less likely to divorce… less likely to have to support two households and two divorce lawyers… keep more money!
  • Choose not to smoke…  don’t spend $5 per day on cigarettes…  save extra $1825 per year…  that $11,000 comes in just six years!

So the reason smart people are better off is not because they are smart, but because they do less stupid shit.

Does it never occur to these “researchers” that smart people stay in school longer because that’s what they are good at?  Does it never occur to them that smart people choose more lucrative careers because they can, and stupid people can’t?  Does is never occur to them that smart people choose their spouses more wisely because they have the intellectual capacity to make better choices?  Does it never occur to them that smart people save more because they have more self-control?

Apparently, the researchers are too stupid to figure out that smart people do less stupid shit because they are not stupid shits.

At the Worth Youth Chess Championships in Durban, South Africa, our pride of Virginia, Jennifer Yu, won the GOLD MEDAL in the 12G division (girls 12 and under). A little further down the page, you will will see Akshita Gorti, also of Virginia, in 12th place.

And our own Aasa Dommalapati took 14th place in the 10G division.

Doing Virginia proud, girls! Congratulations!

This topic has been weighing on my mind for some time. Even now, I am reluctant to write about it. But it is important.

Early in the swim season, one of our young instructors was accused by a parent of “inappropriately touching” her daughter while teaching her how to swim. The police investigator asked the boy and his mother to come in for an interview. During the “interview” (interrogation is a better word), the interrogator “mislead” (lied) about evidence saying, “We had a nurse specialist perform an examination of the girl. What if I told you we had DNA evidence?” (See? The interrogator didn’t say they DID have DNA evidence, only “what if….” In fact, the examination showed no evidence of assault.) The interrogator implied that there were other accusations. There were not. The interrogator implied that there would be leniency if he just admitted to the crime, when in fact she just wanted him to incriminate himself enough for her to file charges. He did, finally saying he had done it “once or twice” during backstroke, when he was holding her level so her bottom didn’t sink. The interrogator charged him with sexual assault.

Then came the court case. They got the interrogator, on the stand, to admit that she lied to get the “confession.” (From that point on, anything the interrogator says is immediately suspect. If she will lie to get a confession, why would she not lie to get a conviction?) She admitted that the accused and his mother had not been informed of his Miranda rights, nor was he or his mother told that the interrogation was being recorded.) Then, the accuser herself took the stand. She said the alleged assault came every day while she was doing breast stroke. Then she was asked whether the person who had done that was in the courtroom. She took a minute to look at everyone in the room, and said, “No.” The defense attorney, obviously, saw no point to cross-examining.

So them the girl’s mom took the stand. First, she lied and said she was at every practice. Then, she recanted on that. She then said she had not see any other swim instructors that day, when one was sitting in the courtroom (and the woman had walked by her three times already) and two more were sitting outside! Apparently, she knew the name of the accused boy’s mother, knew he was one of the instructors, found a three-year-old facebook picture, and accused him!

My suspicion is that this was a girl who was not a good swimmer (thus she needed help staying afloat during the backstroke) and didn’t want to go to practice anymore. “Well, WHY don’t you want to go?” “I don’t like it.” “But WHY don’t you like it? Did something happen?” “Yes.” “What? Did someone do something you didn’t like?” “Yes” “What?” “Nothing, really.” “What do you mean, NOTHING? Did someone touch you?” And it just degenerates from there. Mom with the leading questions, and the girl going along because she hates swimming. (Which doesn’t look good because her mom is on the Board for that pool. It was not the accused’s home pool.)

What kind of an effed-up justice system do we have that an boy can be accused of such a crime, which would result in his being barred from ever working with children again — not in swimming, not in Scouts, never — with ZERO evidence and a bullied confession given with false promises of leniency? This “investigator,” who did not actual investigation at all, should be fired and charged with misconduct. The mother should be charged with making false accusations, and at a minimum, should be required to pay the accused’s legal fees.