Revised data from the Commerce Department released with the second-quarter figures on Thursday showed national output shrank in the final quarter of 2007 before barely edging up at the start of this year.
"With the boost from the tax rebates now fading, lower interest rates having little positive impact and signs emerging that overseas demand is weakening, we expect the economy to contract outright in the second half of this year," said Paul Ashworth, senior U.S. economist for Capital Economics of London.
Of course, if exports dip, that is because the dollar is strengthening... which means the worst is over.
A cursory look at it signals yes. Breitbart has an article here on the new search engine developed by ex-Google employees, and this one genuinely looks different.
For a legitimate look at the web, Cuil may very well be the next big thing.
Journalists, real journalists, follow strict rules about conflicts of interest. They do not take money or gifts from groups they might cover. They also maintain a wall between news, opinion and advertising functions.
That is not the case with many bloggers. In Virginia, for example, Lowell Feld, the man behind the liberal blog RaisingKaine.com, is getting special treatment from Democrats. They will seat him on the floor of the Democratic National Convention in August as an "embedded" blogger.
Feld has had a cozy relationship with Democrats for a while, working as a paid consultant for some of their candidates.
Such relationships are increasingly common among bloggers looking to make a buck. They accept money or other perks from a candidate or party and then write about them.
Arguably, many would have written the same things anyway and only work for candidates with whom they already agree.
Perhaps, but money has a tendency to taint objectivity. That does not disqualify bloggers from a place in the media spectrum, but those who rely on them for their news and commentary should keep in mind the potential conflicts when they choose whom to trust.
Other than taking point-blank shots at Lowell Feld, the thrust of the argument is entirely -- entirely -- valid. If a journalist ever took cash from a campaign to field stories in the Roanoke Times, the Washington Post, or Richmond Times-Dispatch (or any other newspaper), that person would be finished.
The call for readers to be aware of the potential slant of a particular blogger based on whom they are accepting cash from (bribes, employment, advertising, whatever one would like to call it) is a valid point. It's akin to taking out major ads in the WaPo, then expecting preferential treatment from their reporters -- which is precisely what one gets when you buy a blogger.
I really like Democratic Central. They're factual, they're not just about Virginia politics, the articles are well written and well researched, and most of all they're close to home and don't kow-tow to reflexive political nonsense.
RealClearPolls puts the two candidates at an aggregate 5 point difference, of which the recent Gallup is an outlier. Polls showing likely voters only show a smaller margin up top, though the last time McCain was shown with a lead was in a USA Today/Gallup poll of likely voters... in the beginning of May.
McCain has not lead consistently in a head-to-head matchup vs. Obama since January 2008.
A rarity here: a Raising Kaine two-fer, this time regarding the death penalty and Tim Kaine's Catholicism:
Tim Kaine, of course, is - by his own description - a deeply religious Roman Catholic, a former Catholic missionary no less. And perhaps his deep Roman Catholic religious faith is the reason behind his moral objection to state funding of embryonic stem cell research, I don't know. As someone who strongly support embryonic stem cell research in order to cure diseases like Juvenile Diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinson's, cancer and many others, I disagree vehemently with Gov. Kaine on this one, but at least I can (sort of) understand why he might have come to his (wildly incorrect) decision.
The problem is, Gov. Kaine's being highly inconsistent in opposing embryonic stem cell funding while approving of executions. Both are opposed by the Catholic Church. On the death penalty, Pope John Paul II in 1999 said called it "both cruel and unnecessary." And in a March 1995 encyclical, Pope John Paul II wrote, "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."
Well, it just so happens that there IS such a "bloodless means." It's called "life imprisonment without the possibility of parole," and it's an option in just about every state in the country. Americans are deeply split on this issue, with a recent poll by Quinnipiac Univesrity indicating that 47% support the death penalty for convicted murderers, while 44% support life in prison with no chance of parole. But here in Virginia, apparently, it's "all systems go" on capital punishment, even with all its flaws, and even with a "deeply religious Roman Catholic" governor (who can commute death penalty sentences for ANY REASON HE WANTS), whose church strongly opposes the death penalty. Can anyone explain this? I'm baffled.
I'm baffled as well. I mean, I don't see Lowell raising these sorts of questions when Catholic teaching on say, abortion or gay marriage is at stake...
...but let's not digress, because Lowell raises a valid point.
Catholic teaching on the death penalty for 1,950 years was consistent, though not as high on the social justice scale as items such as abortion. The death penalty was to be used in instances where the preservation of society required the act.
It was only the advent of the Second Vatican Council that asked the Church to look again at her relationship with the state. In doing so, the late Pope John Paul II placed the capstone of his thoughts on the matter in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae:
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".
Notice what you don't read: a proscription against exercising the death penalty. Rather, Pope John Paul II emphasizes the relative lack of need for a death penalty in a modern incarceration system... a valid point.
Still, as with most encyclicals, they reflect and build upon Church Tradition. So while to outsiders such an act is simply a change (or worse, a flip-flop), within the Christian tradition it is given the much more apologetic term of development of doctrine.
So how has Catholic teaching on the death penalty developed up to this date? The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church outlines it this way:
112. [T]here is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of punishment which society inflicts is to redress the disorder caused by the offense (CCC, n. 2266). Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while ... offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated (CCC, n. 2266). It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non existent. (Evangelium Vitae, n. 56)
In other words, the death penalty is accepted in cases of absolute necessity -- not abolished.
Of course, the real catch in all of this is that though Lowell cites Evangelium Vitae as a source for opposition to the death penalty, the encyclical was very clear on three other topic that Catholics are required to oppose -- murder, abortion, and euthanasia.
I doubt seriously Lowell (or most anti-death penalty proponents) would be as vociferous in their opposition to abortion... but again, I digress.
In the case of Governor Kaine, his personal opposition to all executions before his gubernatorial race is what is most upsetting IMO, because unlike Kennedy's example where he stated he would resign if his faith conflicted with his presumed duties, Kaine let go of his principles for the sake of political palatabilty. If Kaine truly believes this as a matter of faith, he should have been willing to stand by his faith. That he made a promise to betray his principles was a mistake... one I sincerely hope he never repeats.
Kennedy's position outlined in Profiles in Courage is -- I believe -- a far more principled stand than what our governor has permitted himself to follow. I would be hugely impressed if, in the last months of his stewardship as our first Catholic governor, Kaine practiced more of his personal beliefs rather than what was politically expedient. Kaine would certainly find me first in line to support him in ending abortion, encouraging subsidiarity, protecting the rights of the working poor, and defending a culture of life. That would be a legacy worth all the trouble of public office.
As to his Catholicism, his support for abortion rights remains scandalous and greviously wrong. But for Kaine's forebearance regarding the death penalty, his position (and the position of AG Bob McDonnell) to use it in the rare cases warranted is entirely Catholic.
I'm looking sharp on RK, not on the topic of paid bloggers, but "bloggers who make money" and continue their craft.
The short list:
*Shaun Kenney (Shaun Kenney): RPV, Bob Marshall for Senate
*Jon Henke (Q&O): George Allen for Senate, Mitch McConnell/Senate Republican Caucus
*"Loudoun Insider" (Too Conservative): Broad Run District Supervisor Lori Walters
*Vincent Harris (Too Conservative): Huckabee for President.
*Alton Foley (I'm Not Emeril): Jeff Evans for Senate 2007 (consulting)
*Brian Kirwin: Martin Williams for Senate 2007, Nick Rerras for Senate 2007, past Treasurer for Del. Bob McDonnell. (others added)
*James Walkinshaw (James Walkinshaw): Bruce Roemmelt, Andy Hurst, Gerry Connolly
*Josh Chernila (RK): Webb for Senate
*Lowell Feld (RK): Webb for Senate, Feder for Congress 2008, Bowerbank for LG 2009, South Dakota Democratic Party
*Eric Grim (RK): Bowerbank for LG 2009
*James Martin (RK, Virginia Progressive): Colgan for State Senate, Whipple for State Senate, Mathieson for Delegate, Rishell for Delegate, MacIver for Delegate, Heretick for State Senate, Oleszek for State Senate, Pollard for State Senate
*Jerome Armstrong (MyDD): Mark Warner, Brian Moran
*Kenton Ngo (750 Volts): Former campaign manager for the Ramona Morrow for School Board campaign.
Of course, I never worked for Bob Marshall for Senate (though I was a huge supporter) and I never took money to blog on SK.com for RPV (or anyone else for that matter). And I'm certainly not taking money for Ken Cuccinelli's 2009 AG race or McDonnell/Bolling '09 either, but I'll certainly blog about it.
Which is why Lowell is talking about the ethics of "bloggers who make money" rather than those individuals who take money to blog at the behest of their superiors.
It's one thing to make money in politics and blog about the surrounding world. It's something quite different to push a story, an opinion, a piece of misinformation, or a smear -- for a paycheck.
Now I don't have too many problems with paid bloggers... so long as they are upfront about their status (Lowell falls into this category plainly). Bloggers who have since travelled on beyond their craft and earned jobs aren't "paid bloggers".
For instance, if Lowell had never been up front about his status with the Webb campaign in 2006, I'd have called shenanigans too. That he is "making money" from his book deal I don't find scurrilous at all. In fact, more power to him.
Lowell makes one worthwhile point:
What's even funnier about all this is that, back in 2005, Waldo Jaquith proposed a "blogger code of ethics" at the Sorenson Institute's blogger conference, and I clearly remember a number of Republican bloggers objecting. Gee, I wonder why... :)
Most libertarian-streaked bloggers in the room (left and right) objected at the time because there was a sense we could self-police our own. Of course, the camaraderie between Democratic and Republican bloggers back in 2005 was much more substantive than it was post-Webb campaign... and the rift has sadly never quite healed.
Short version: If you take money to issue information on behalf of someone else, be up front about it and don't have the temerity to paint it as something else. Think of it this way -- it's the difference between "paid journalists" who talk about stories for a check bribe, and journalists paid to write about stories. Credibility isn't a resource that should be sold cheaply.
Joseph Bottom at FIRST THINGS talks about the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae. The encyclical -- which outlines the Catholic Church's position on abortion and contraception -- is fundamental to understanding why Catholics believe what they believe on pro-life issues.
FAIRFAX, VA – In a statement issued today, 11th District Congressional Candidate Keith Fimian announced the release of his new campaign website.
“This is one campaign that technology will not leave behind,” Fimian said. “The internet is becoming one of the best media I can use to communicate with the people of the 11th District. I want to demonstrate to the voters that I am here to engage in solid communication with them. There is no way I can physically meet and talk with every voter, so we have built a website for the people of the 11th District to interact with me and for me to interact with them.”
The new website allows voters to sign up and become “Fimian Fans.” They will then be able to access a personalized homepage and receive up-to-date news, information, and opportunities to get involved. Fimian Fans also have the opportunity to volunteer from their home by directly accessing the phone bank through their homepage.
“My campaign has been built on grassroots support. We want to empower our volunteers with the best and most efficient technology we can offer. Whether voters are using our automated Letter to the Editor feature or entering an endorsement, our supporters have unparalleled opportunities to be involved and informed,” said Fimian.
A small businessman, Fimian is the father of three grown daughters and lives in Oakton, VA with his wife of 26 years, Cathy. He is the Republican nominee in Virginia’s 11th Congressional District.
Notice a problem? Try finding a link in the release...
There is a line in a book I am reading (The Road to Monticello) that reflects on how Thomas Jefferson chose an education over a college degree, and did not continue attending William and Mary.
It didn’t dawn on me that there might be a few holes in my education until I was about 35. I’d just bought a house, the pipes needed fixing, and the plumber was standing in my kitchen. There he was, a short, beefy guy with a goatee and a Red Sox cap and a thick Boston accent, and I suddenly learned that I didn’t have the slightest idea what to say to someone like him. So alien was his experience to me, so unguessable his values, so mysterious his very language, that I couldn’t succeed in engaging him in a few minutes of small talk before he got down to work. Fourteen years of higher education and a handful of Ivy League dees, and there I was, stiff and stupid, struck dumb by my own dumbness. “Ivy retardation,” a friend of mine calls this. I could carry on conversations with people from other countries, in other languages, but I couldn’t talk to the man who was standing in my own house.
True, there are a handful of my friends that I would attribute to being in the role of both common man and everyman. In a strange irony, most of them hail from either the University of Virginia or the United States military -- two institutions upon which Thomas Jefferson had a great deal of influence in their formation (think USMA).
Yet for all of the people bearing diplomas, it is typically what they have done beyond their education that separates them from the pack.
Still, I look at my wife's UVA diploma with a small degree of envy. While I attended Catholic University, I never graduated. While I read virtually every book I can lay a hand upon (ask Mrs. Kenney what she thinks about my library), one fact does bear reckoning -- much of what I have learned in an impromptu education has had no course, no guidance, and no mentor.
That above all else is what is missing. Most every "great" in history can point back to an exceptional teacher who laid the foundations, someone who guided that pupil to greatness.
Perhaps in the end that is the secret... a self-motivated learner and an exceptional teacher to guide the student. I suspect that exceptional teachers can do more to help create the former, though I doubt that the current American education system at any level provides for this.
How many professionals would love to teach, but refuse because they can make more in the professional sector? Similarly, how many career-oriented college grads are trained specifically in pedagogy (i.e. an education major)? Worse still, is it serving anyone at any level -- teachers, students, administrators, or the school system?
Rainer Brüderle, deputy leader of the opposition Free Democrats, said Obama's advisers had little idea of the historical significance of the Victory Column. 'It was the symbol of German superiority over Denmark, Austria and France,' Brüderle told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag.
The monument was built in 1864 to commemorate Prussia's victory over Denmark. When it was inaugurated, Prussia had defeated Austria during the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71.
Get ready for all the "this isn't the first time a motivating speaker campaigned on hope and change in Berlin" commentary from the polemicists. Still, the choice of the Siegessäule was a bit surprising to me, to say the least, though it's more concerning that Obama's upper-level staff couldn't do the research to know better.
The numbers are mind-boggling. The extra $1.5 billion for FY05-06 is more than Warner’s entire tax hike. Over the entire eight years, the difference is $6.7 billion - $2.2B more than raised by Warner’s tax hike over that six year period. Imagine how that $2.2 billion could have been improved, say, our transportation network.
So, if you want to know why your taxes went up, and (for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads) why you’re snarled in traffic, today’s debate gave the answer: it was so Mark Warner could knock out low-income private health insurance and expand government controlled health care.
With tabled goodness. Why the MSM has chosen to whistle past the graveyard on this one is to be expected... but with numbers this stark, if you're not outraged you simply don't know what's going on.
Personally, if we could make rail work in America, I'd ride. Unfortunately, we'd need a level of planning that would seem positively rebellious with a side order of bacon in order to make it realistic.
Dobson said on the radio program he must consider McCain's record against abortion rights and support for smaller government, and added McCain 'seems to understand the Muslim threat.' He also indicated McCain's choice of a running mate will be a factor.
Of his new position, Dobson said in the statement to the AP, 'If that is a flip-flop, then so be it.'
Yes it is, Dr. Dobson.
Of course, I always thought of terrorism as something different than faith (PLO, IRA, Provos, FARC, Red Army Faction, Action Direct, and ETA for any worthwhile examples), but who am I to take issue with conflating the two?
We have long thought that the likes of Dobson and the political evangelical right an embarrassment to people of Faith who happen to also hold conservative political views. They seem full of self-importance that their political views are the only right views and hence also tie biblical faith into those views. It is an embarrassment because Dobson places politics on the level of theology and then derides all who might disagree with his political position. Dobson seems to raise politics to the level of Biblical belief, and hence salvation. If Dobson and other fundamentalists are concerned for salvation, they should know that politics is not the way to conduct it--evangelizing is the way in the true meaning of the word.
I don't go as far as R&R in their critique of Dobson. While I certainly agree that Dobson's rhetoric could stand much improvement, Obama's question of "who's Christianity" doesn't present the same problems one might assume, for two reasons.
First, those of the so-called "religious left" drink their own Kool-Aid, honestly believing that evangelical Christians seek to impose a theocratic mullahcracy in America. That's rubbish... but again, it is believed for the sake of expediency (i.e. safer than discussing real problems with a society that enforces and upholds the lowest common denominator).
Second, with the bankruptcy of the religious left cast aside, there really is an evangelistic tone that gets continuously lost in the political spectrum of the debate. Ultimately, churches evangelize new members through persuasion, and not government program. Right action can never be subsidized through faith-based programs (as big-government conservatives might have it) or through government program (as their not-too-distant religious left cousins demand).
The frightening thing is that big-government conservativism embraced by the "compassionate conservative" ideal championed by President Bush and crystallized by Mike Huckabee this year share a great deal with the neo-evangelicals of the religious left.
The only difference is in the ends, because in packaging and rhetoric they sadly share a great deal. Dobson will hopefully stick to his guns and not formally endorse, because short of a handful of evangelical and Catholic leaders within the chorus, his voice is one McCain needs to hear.
Short version: Linking over and over again to a specific blog posts is a quick way to up your Google rating. It's called "Google bombing" and though the tactic is quite old, it's relevancy is in decline as Google continues to refine it's methodology.
Dems used it quite effectively in 2006. Is it any surprise that the handful of SWAC bloggers learned the ropes?
UPDATE: Yankee Phil hits back on the critique that SWAC bloggers might be "splogs":
It is perfectly clear that Swacgirl is not an "artificially created" web site. It is a site dedicated to the things in life that Swacgirl enjoys. She has lots of political stuff, but she has beautiful pictures of Augusta County. She has photo displays of the many events she attends. There is not one drop of "artificial" there.
You know, artificial turf designed to look like grassroots? The WaPo explains in detail:
Simmons and Gardner are among 500 contract workers for Democracy Data & Communications (DDC), an Alexandria company that specializes in lobbying from the grass roots. DDC pays the two women to spend much of their day telephoning people around the country and asking them to sign letters to Congress that press for legislation.
The workers are paid $10 to $15 an hour, depending on their expertise. DDC says lobby groups pay the company $75 to $125 per letter sent, depending on the difficulty of the campaign.
Whether lawmakers know it or not -- and some might be disappointed to learn -- the practice is not only common but growing. Interest groups, preparing for a new president and the sweeping initiatives he no doubt will launch, are increasingly hiring folks like Simmons and Gardner to build lists of voters-back-home who can be called upon to contact Washington.
The seemingly heartfelt letters they produce are among the most persuasive kinds of communications that Congress receives, polls of congressional offices have shown.
It's the constituent difference between a piece of antique furniture with loads of character, or the cheap crap you'd find in any Wal-Mart; the heartfelt from the mass produced.
Just one more way you are being manipulated by people who think they are smarter than you.
It's pretty apparent that the Denver Channel 9 reporter did not have a good handle on the crowd... still, that's one heck of a punch to the gut. I'm surprised Dick Wadhams let Schaffer hit that hard.
There is no winning this technical debate. (Elberse calls Anderson's definitions "arbitrary.") But even if Anderson is right and Elberse is wrong, the shift from hits to niches is obviously slight—we are not entering an era devoid of blockbusters. Anderson readily concedes this and points out that he's never predicted the end of big hits. Often, though, his fans have.
It's also clear that even in this supposed age of the Long Tail, companies that favor a slow, meticulous approach and a small catalog see enormous rewards.
Or as we might call it in a political universe, it's all about message control.
The car reportedly has anti-lock brakes, stability control and airbags. According to Canadian Driver, "Volkswagen says the One-Liter Car is as safe as a GT sports car registered for racing. With the aid of computer crash simulations, the car was designed with built-in crash tubes, pressure sensors for airbag control and front crumple zones.
Let me go back to that dinner, 21 years ago. There I was, shut off from this wise, amazing old man. Then he zaps me with one of the top 5 pieces of information I’ve ever received in this life, and all I was thankful for was how it benefited me.
I completely ignored the deeper lesson which is do not judge, and get outside yourself, and realize that everyone and everything has its own story, and something to teach you, and that they’re also trying – consciously or unconsciously – to learn and grow from you and everything else around them. And they’re trying with the same passion and hunger and confusion that I was feeling – no matter where they were in their lives, no matter how old or how young.
I’m not saying that you guys shouldn’t go out there and see and do everything there is to see and do. Go. As fast as you can. I don’t know how much longer this world has got, to be honest.
All of you have been given a harsh gift. It’s the same gift the graduating class of 1917, and 1938, and 1968 and now you guys got – the chance to enter adulthood when the world teeters on the rim of the sphincter of oblivion. You’re jumping into the deep end. You have no choice but to be exceptional.
The entire speech is well worth reading, and Patton Oswalt is indeed a Virginia (well... Northern Virginia) native.
So now the Securities and Exchange Commission is gearing up for an investigation on the rank speculation going on inside Wall Street, speculation that almost tipped Lehman Bros. over and is threatening to do to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae what the speculators did to the housing market and Bear Stearns -- seed rumors, pick up the pieces, and profit hugely.
If there's an investigation to be done, start there. I've screamed about this before in August 2007 (and take some small conceit in being right), but this is out of control -- and getting worse.
The post is about Richard Vigeurie blasting John McCain... how Hispanics made it in there is a different question, but it does leave the question open as to how *you* would like to be pandered to.
Since I'm Irish-Lebanese, deep Virginia roots, and a Republican... perhaps a Guinness?
Obviously full disclosure is key. While bloggers on the take from politicians are one thing, pseudonymous bloggers that are actually reporters seeding stories are quite another (and yes, they have existed in the past).
Caveat emptor indeed. The best insurance? A blog, with a name behind a good reputation, that demands full disclosure.
Transparency. Authenticity. Confinement. It's a framework I've discussed before at a previous Sorenson Blog Summit, and it bears repeating over and over again. The first two are the responsibility of the author -- it's that third criteria where the reader needs to be able to take what they read for what it is, and confine the information in the package it's presented.
The Roanoke Times editorial is worth reading, save for the fact that political bloggers truly interested in the survival of the medium need to understand that cozying up to, abetting, or imitating the hired guns only waters down the medium.
Sadly, there's many on both sides that still don't get it.
A random example: on June 11, a user called way21337 uploaded a video to YouTube. It's titled My new gerbil, and it shows, in fact, a black-and-white gerbil snuffling around cutely in somebody's hand. It is 11 seconds long. By press time, it had acquired 102 comments. Let's take a look! They begin with NewTyhuss, who writes, "sweet!" Things start going south with comment No. 4: "id hit it." (Good one, ZRace67!) After a week, we're down to eldergod: "why dont u shove that gerbil up yur ass and quit posting stupid videos." bwalhof writes, "kill yourself. fast." And so on.
Most people will wrongly judge the popularity of a website based on comment sections without really considering that the bloggers themselves will often say outrageous things on their own -- called "sock puppetry" to mimic one person talking between... himself. Other times, two people can banter back and forth 30 times on a website, and the casual observer will see 60 comments.
Must be popular.
On this blog, I have often received criticism for not opening up my comments section to anonymous bloggers. Still, the readership remains relatively high for Virginia-based blogs, and unlike most sites when comments are made, they do add to the conversation rather than detract (or distract).
The endgame results in two types of bloggers thus far. The old school, in it for the free exchange of ideas. Then there's the drama queen, splash-and-trash, attention-whoring folks that never quite overcame their obscurity in high school. And yes, if you take offense, you are clearly in the second category.
Better question: Does that make me basically mean? Perhaps... but at least I'm not being anonymous about it.
Most notable is where they do not reserve time in Virginia, as opposed to where they are reserving time elsewhere. VA-11 makes the cut, but Drake, Goode, and Wolf all are viewed as long-shots (read: unwinable) for the D-Trip.
The Politico has the story here. Snow actually has a Virginia background, having written editorials for the Virginia-Pilot, and will be truly missed. Probably one of the best communicators I have seen in action.
Acton Institute's PowerBlog reviews Civ IV, and offers some of the same critiques I might offer. Don't get me wrong -- Civilization IV is one of the greatest games ever produced (and Beyond the Sword is an excellent addition), but the fact that a command-and-control economy seems to be the most optimal set, or that the free market is given short thrift are problems that one simply suffers through.
Some of the other problems in gameplay (an emphasis on conquest, for instance) are unavoidable. One wonders how an armed society would react to an "invasion" as opposed to an unarmed society... and while BTS does structurally provide for such values, no one has gotten around to creating the truly tailorable government, then smashing them against one another.
I made sure to videotape the faces of all four Gilmore Gang members before I left, but I certainly did not want to place the Orange Market's owner in the position of having to decide whether to ask a long-time customer and friend to leave his business premises, so I left quietly of my own accord.
Of course, all of this is on tape, and I also took along a friend to serve as a witness in case that became necessary. As we left the Orange Market premises, one of the young male Gilmore Gang members followed us across the parking lot and kept watch on us as we crossed the street, talked together for a moment and then got into our cars to leave.
Tomorrow morning my video tape will be converted to several DVDs and I will also have those final 90 seconds - when the Gilmore Gang obstructed and confronted me - of filming converted to either a JPEG or an MPEG file so that it can be transmitted via e-mail to the Warner campaign, to Raising Kaine if you'd like, and perhaps to YouTube for greater potential broadcast purposes.
Here's the problem. If you stalk a random person, that fits the definition of creepy. If you stalk a politician for the purposes of intimidation (which this was), you've already violated the boundaries of decorum.
Just smash the damn camera next time.
And please, don't claim these stalkers are "journalists" or bloggers masquerading as journalists trying to get a story. Journalists don't actively participate in the process... these ambushers record the event specifically to produce an outcome of their choosing. A bit of integrity would go a heck of a long way, fellas.
I hate to make the argument, but there have been political movements in the past who reveled in ambushing the opposing political movement... and frankly, that's precisely what these so-called progressives are doing. The reaction is a fine line between distinguishing between protecting the integrity of free speech and free expression, or preventing disruption via security details.
Some maturity and some integrity might air on the side of the latter... but the behavior of the "splash-and-trash" progressive faction of the Democratic Party (and the MSM that feeds or blithely ignores them) gives little credence to truth, much less anything short of total victory... whatever that might be.
Sadly, wthey are doing it at Mark Warner's (or his campaign's) behest is the real question. I doubt this, but in an age of sponsored bloggers and astroturf online -- as opposed to genuine grassroots -- rarely am I surprised anymore.
Yet another pleasantly surprised voter engages a Catholic politician, this time on the role of faith in the political arena:
Tom's response was interesting and unexpected. He made a distinction between religion in legislation (which he says he opposes), and religion in politics. He said that religion does have a place in politics if for no other reason than to understand the motivations of politicians. If a politician is casting a particular vote for religious reasons, that motivation should be public, not rationalized.
Not terribly far off course. One might hasten to add that religious belief forms one's character, and that character is inseparable from the individual. In short, faith informs conscience.
Jack Kennedy certainly believed this. It's a small wonder why today's modern left-leaning Catholics (Perriello included) don't share Kennedy's convictions, but rather are more than willing to allow political expediency contradict their own inner mores, character, and yes -- their faith.
This shouldn't be surprising. Republicans hate the "do-nothing Congress" almost as much as the Democrats hate their "do-nothing Congress." It used to be that a common theme with Democratic leadership (at least in the House) was the tradition of getting things done and greasing the wheels of power.
That tradition of Tip O'Neill is sadly lost, perhaps not to be recovered in a generation. At least Republicans during the 1990's had an example to follow... whether that is damning or faint praise (or both) is for the reader to decide.
RPV Chairman Jeff Frederick does the Tertium Quids Podcast, talking about HB 6055 (he opposes), the inheritance he received at RPV (says it's worse than he thought), and talks a bit about the GOP brand (need to rebuild the image, this time with substance).
You can listen to the podcast in its entirety. Well done, and one I will be adding to my iTunes list right now.
For as marginally concerned as I was (well... tasteless would have been a better word) about President Bush's interruptionmedia stunt attendance at Monticello's swearing in of new citizens on the Independence Day, the behavior of the war protestors was deplorable at best: So much for the high road.
From the air-conditioned comfort of my living room, I am watching this year's naturalization ceremony at Monticello, with featured guest speaker George W. Bush. Channel 29 (WVIR-TV) is covering the event live, with Crystal Cameron on the scene and the Charlottesville Municipal Band playing in the background.
Okay... so he's not slugging it out with the intrepid souls at Monticello Mountain. But an admirable effort nonetheless!
Suspend judgment for a moment until you watch this (and forgive the fact that it is Keith Olbermann asking the questions):Webb is saying (rightly) that politics should stay out of military service, and that military service should not be a prerequisite for public service or a political talking point.
In short, it's military service. And it's something quite different if it's used for political gain.
Take the politics out, remove the grandstanding of General Wesley "I Almost Started World War III" Clark, and forget that Webb is a Democrat.
ShaunKenney.com is one of Virginia's
oldest political blogs, focusing on the role of religion and politics in public
life. Shaun Kenney, 30, lives in Fluvanna County, Virginia.
