Have we dodged another snow bullet? Bear reports big snow up in New York State. He says it will continue to snow until Sunday. Now that’s some snow! It has started here but will it amount to anything? It is piling up on my deck pretty fast but the forecast changes from minute to minute. What is happening at your house?
Let it snow!
Or we can pray that he has a happy, healthy marriage, for all of his remaining days, regardless of how many days he has.
If practice is any predictor of success, he will, Steve.
And I can’t resist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3thnt1xi7Os
@Moon-howler
Well played Moon. Well played.
Neil Cavuto is going off on our Congressman Wolfe. This is too funny.
Lafayette, I think Wolf is winning. I think.
Did Cavuto just say idiotic questions at Wolf?
I feel the same way I felt when that guy threw a shoe at Bush. He’s OUR congressman. How dare Cavuto speak that way to OUR congressan.
I wonder why they don’t vet these quotes before they use them.
He cant treat our pledges that way. Only we can treat our pledges that way!!!!
yeah Rush, one human being I really can say I find no redeeming qualities. I use to just think he was obnoxious, not necessarily mean spirited. His treatment of Michael J Fox was just so disgusting and cruel, I have not been able to move past it. Some behavior is just unforgiveable to me, and that was it for me.
Mom,
I looks like I missed something!
Exactly. Mom understands.
After Wolf was off air, Cavuto and Stossle laughed at him and said he was so annoying.
How unprofessional. Damn them. He’s OUR annoyance.
what is james madison business park?? I was just looking into haymarket square today with fran over at planning.
James Madison Business Park is a parcel on the east side of 15 just north of the intersection with 29. The BOCS through their approval last night essentially gutted the concept of transitional areas between the development area and the Rural Crescent, I believe Corey’s quote was that the BOCS simply had to get out of the way of business. Lubely was of course up to his usual shenanigans, 15 will be a four lane or six lane divided highway, etc., etc., I still don’t know who will pay for that or when (if ever) it will happen. It does however set the table for Lubely’s plan to develop the length of 15 from its intersection with 29 all the way to Haymarket (he actually said that at the last Planning Commission meeting). It’s truly crazy, we don’t have enough infrastructure in place as it is and they approved another development with a massive trip factor. At this rate its only a matter of time until the intersection of 15 and 55 goes from LOS D to LOS F, setting up a domino effect for all the surrounding arteries. Only May questioned the application and voted against it. The rest of the BOCS again ignored the Planning Commission and Staff reccomendations for denial.
If that was Haymarket Crossing and not Haymarket Square, give me a call, there’s a real untold backstory to that one.
@mh, i was snowed in last night at 3000 feet near bruceton mills wv, and this morning drove down the mountain in terror hoping there wasn’t ice. be careful what you wish for…
Mom called it right about the JM Business Park – approving development without full consideration of transportation. The developer must be eyeballing the planned extension of VRE to Gainesville/Haymarket. But that is at least two years (or more) off.
Part of the Wellington & 28 project here in Manassas includes laying the tracks for that extension. As I understand it, the VRE will run down the tracks (more or less) along Wellington Road.
Nowhere though was consideration given in terms of additional support for PRTC runs. There is the Gainesville to WFC Metro to Pentagon, but acknowledgement in the approval should have included further funding of transportation study/pay for it.
Wolverine has been here all along — just watching, here and elsewhere on the blogs. Time for a few comments.
1. At the time of the incident in Tucson, I was almost 2400 miles away. I did not witness the incident. I do not know the area. I have never even been to Arizona. I was acquainted with neither the shooter nor the victims. I have not been a recipient of the facts of the case from law enforcement beyond those few snippets handed out to the general public. I am not privy to the current professional assessments of law enforcement officers in Tucson as to the motives of the shooter, nor have I been made aware of the totality of the motivational evidence in this case. Therefore, I have no standing whatsoever to make judgements about the case, including the motives and possible external motivations of the alleged perpetrator. Even though I spent much of my own career dealing with cases of homicide by terrorist violence, including assessment of the ulterior motivations behind such violence, I refuse to make a judgement in this case at such a distance and without all the facts in front of me. Under such circumstances my opinions would add absolutely nothing productive to the situation.
2. In that vein, I have been really put off by the tendency of so many Americans out there — Americans who have no more information than I do and far less experience with actually investigating homicidal violence — to be blowing smoke out of their posteriors about the motivations of the perpetrator and casting a net of blame and guilt far and wide over fellow Americans. I have found the post-shooting dialogue so inane that I refuse to even enter that dialogue. The whole thing has started to remind me of the meetings of the new assembly in revolutionary France where people were condemned to the guillotine by the hollowings of an ignorant and vengeful mob. There are now some who say that the perpetrator in Tucson was motivated by some sort of mental illness. In truth, I would have to opine that much of the subsequent, ill-informed, and highly politicized dialogue in this country seems to be marked be a dose of something similar.
3. There is one aspect of the case on which I will give my opinion. That aspect is Sheriff Dupnik. In my opinion, the man has acted very unprofessionally in his casting of aspersions with regard to his purely personal perceptions of the ulterior motivations of the perp. The only thing he has done is to politicize his badge. I realize that he is an elected sheriff; but, once you pin on that badge, you are the chief protector of ALL the people regardless of politics. This is no ordinary political office. As a chief principal in the investigation of an on-going law enforcement case, you simply do not inject your personal political feelings into public statements. You leave that to the “other” politicians. If for some reason you have an overwhelming personal thing with the case — as in being friends with the victims — and feel that you cannot contain yourself, you hand the microphone over to your departmental spokesman whose job it is to keep public comments professional and neutral.
I am surprised by the support Dupnik has received from some PWC bloggers here. These same bloggers have long been in praise of your own Chief Deane. Do you not realize that a mark of Deane’s success has been that, despite all the personal criticism from some circles, he has largely refused to become an open part of the political fray? While I must add that I understand the difference between an appointed chief law enforcement officer and an elected one, I must also opine that, in this aspect of his performance, Deane has acted the professional. Dupnik has not. Dupnik is making himself into a “political sheriff” —- almost a throwback to the old days of the Deep South and Appalachia. That is NOT what we need in the current circumstances.
I am glad you are well, Wolverine. That was my concern.
As for the sheriffs, I hope that you have set the same standard for the other sheriffs from the area. There are several who regularly appear on Fox News, opining. Then there is Sheriff Joe.
The people of Pima County have elected Dupnik for 30 years. I guess at least 51% of them like him. It is not lost on me that many opinions were formed over his reaction to sb 1070.
yes, it was haymarket square, we’ll talk tomorrow!
Some interesting comments by Steve Thomas on BVBL about the Moonhowlings.net and his decision to post his conservative opinions over here. Well expressed. I ditto those comments. In fact, I would go further to say that this is one of the few blogs where I am not inclined to utter &%$#*(&&$%^ at the beginning, middle , or end of a post. — well, except maybe when the Moon uses the HuffPost to lead off a thread.
Thank you Wolverine and Steve both.
Huff Post is a good aggregate of posts. Sleep well knowing I generally check out thread leads more than one place. I have found that huffpost has moved away from being kos-like.
About the only place I don’t go for back up verification is the Richmond Times Dispatch. They have state news you don’t find other places.
Also I don’t always verify local newspapers like News and Messenger.
Who listened to the President’s Memorial Address? I thought he did a fabulous job.
It was good to see Sandra Day O’Connor in the front row. There was a whole cast of characters, both from the massacre and from the political world. Jan Brewer, The McCains, etc.
I did too Moon, I think he was outstanding, he said what you and I have been saying for days now, only a heck of alot more eloquently!
I thought Obama did a very fine job. He was Presidential. My congratulations to him for hitting a home run this time. I’m serious, he did a top-rate job!
Thanks, Slowpoke.
Meanwhile, on another blog the owner writes:
“In a disturbing flashback to the funeral of Rep. Paul Wellstone in 2002, President Obama held a pep rally disguised as a memorial service in Tucson, AZ complete with the distribution of t-shirts bearing “Together We Thrive” to attendees. Too Conservative calls it “A New Low In Partisanship.” Really, what monster would think to actually brand a memorial service?” —– It appears he’s not spreading God’s Word and Christian love tonight.
I agree, Slowpoke, He really was.
I just rewatched President Bush and Dr. Giovanni speak at the Tech Memorial Service not quite 4 years ago. He was also presidential and and at the same time, fatherly, which was certainly appropriate considering he was on a college campus.
Damn. It is hard to believe that Tech massacre was less than 4 years ago. April 16, 2007. Tech is living proof that life does go on.
The president did an outstanding job this evening of addressing this tragedy. I am glad he did not give a partisan speech.
evidently, obama invited boehner to ride to the memorial service with
him on air force one. boehner declined, choosing instead to attend an
RNC-related cocktail reception.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47521.html
Classy
Yeah, I’m hearing a lot of criticism from the right, none of which I agree with. I’m hearing garbage like “this was the kick-off of the 2012 campaign”, and how the tone was inappropriate for a memorial. Man, that’s really stretching hard to criticize, and I actually changed the channel to music on my way into work this morning because I really wasn’t digging what I was hearing.
Slow,
You had me at “I thought Obama did a great job” 🙂 I almost want to send you a virtual hug……………….
Hey! I just saw a flying pig….
While I did not see the President’s speech, from what I’ve read about it, Iwould have to agree with Slow. However, many parts of the actual memorial was politicized. I mean, what memorial hands out t-shirts with slogans…..
Why, if it happened, was it polarizing? It sounds to me like it would be unifying to those in attendance.
People often need something to hang on to.
were politicized…..coffee….lacking coffee….
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2281084/?v=1+1
Even knowing that no words would ever be fully adequate
to express the grief and sadness many of us feel, it was a good speech.
As for the “blood libel” term being anti-semitic when used in this case…..really? Really?
Nothing was said about Jews. The term is probably little known to most Americans. The two words in it fit perfectly into what the “left” was trying to do. What else would you call trying to pin the massacre of innocents on a selected class of people? In fact, Palin was not even the first to use it. This is just another smear.
As Uncle says at http://www.saysuncle.com/2011/01/13/language-police/:
Everyone knows that they’re not actually talking about Jews murdering children. Whenever someone prefaces anything by the offense at language, it is usually to minimize someone’s point or to avoid unpleasant confrontation. Sorry, that doesn’t fly.
And for something COMPLETELY different!
Is the world “overpopulated?” Not from an engineering standpoint:
http://www.simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63:the-overpopulation-myth&catid=31:general&Itemid=50)
Picture Texas with the population of New York City – all five boroughs…..and the rest of the world empty….
Cargo,
I don’t understand why anyone would argue the inappropriateness of using that terminology. I don’t disagree that Sarah Palin was unfairly exoriated, however, to use such specific terminology was simply poor judgement. Just because other conservative pundits used it first, it still doesn’t excuse her using the term. She had a wonderful opportunity to lead in this dreadful time, and in my opinion, she failed.
Just to clarify, I am not suggesting Palin was being antisemetic at all. What I am saying is that even Congresswoman Giffords stated she thought using violent terminology had no place in elections. To suggest that Sarah Palin suffered the same, i.e. blood libel, like the jews did simply is waaaayyyy over the top, just like trying to make a direct correlation that Palin is responsible for the shooting, both are false.
cargo,
Have you seen this? I am just now seeing it, very scary. I don’t relate it to what happened to Gabby Giffords, but it is frightening to watch.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41050066#41050066
When I heard “blood libel” being used in this context, I thought that the term was appropriate. There was and is “blood libel” being done. That video was frightening. Popaditch and his supporters seem to be a hateful bunch. Are there ant-semitics active in political parties. Yep. In both parties. Is Palin a victim, too? Yep. That Congressman seems to want his cake and to eat it too. Both he AND Palin are victims or is it ok to accuse Palin of inciting murder and for her to get death threats? Her website was a year old. Other sites and other politicians use shooting terminology in political campaigns. He tried to link, however subtly the use of “blood libel” by Palins to anti-semiticism. What happened at that rally was wrong. That was a near riot.
Blood libel is not being used to suggest that Palin and the right are “suffering” as the Jews did, but what is being done? Are you more upset that the term is being used, when there really isn’t another appropriate, or that fellow Americans are trying to blame one group of people in America with incitement to murder in order to discredit them for political purposes?
Yes. Blood libel is a term used in a context related to the persecution of Jews.
And it also has an actual definition as to WHAT that action was. And it was done, again, in a minor way. The left, and that commentator is a self-described socialist, is attempting to discredit and smear the right in any way possible.
For better or worse, “blood libel” now also means false accusations against ANY group about the murder of innocents.
Elena, that video is pretty bad. Especially if the man’s kids or grandkids were nearby. There is simply no excuse for that. I will point out that while they did vent – inappropriatly – nothing happened afterwards.
The second video is also interesting. The interview with Loughners’ neighbor.
I agree with the use of blood label in this context. I don’t see any issue with her use of that phrase. We only have to look at this blog to see the many anti-palin comments that were posted that we’re proven to be untrue. The lady was verbally lynched by the media and professional politico’s.
Marinm and Cargo,
Let’s just agree that we can all do a better job of treating each other the way we would like to be treated and in the future that is what we should all strive to improve 🙂
You all have finally done it. I hate logging on to my own blog. The continual picking has actually made me sick. I am so sick of denial by the right when no one of significance has accused them of anything.
The victim mentality is over the top.
Who cares about Boehner. He was offered. He had a -prior obligation.
Hey, I’ll feed you one. I haven’t been paying too much attention to this stuff lately, but did you catch Neil Cavuto handing Frank Wolf his ass over earmark bans? Wolf is not the laughing stock of Fox News and conservatives across the country over this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9SNNYkWq3Q
Yes, I saw it. I am not a big fan of Frank Wolf but I thought Cavulto was very rude to him and wouldn’t let him make his point, which was somewhat complex.
A FOXey being rude to a guest!
Oh my, who could have imagined?
“A Great Speech Mr. President” — lead posting in today’s Too Conservative blog.
He notes that he is a conservative that often doesn’t agree with the President,
but praised him for finding the right words in Tucson.
I am delighted at reading the reports of Gabrielle Gifford’s increasing responsiveness. Miraculous!
Either Cavuto is slow on the uptake or has become so determined to direct an interview in his preferred direction that he is willing even to start a fight with a guest who is generally in the same ballpark with him. Bad performance by Cavuto. I don’t think he did his homework very well.
But also a miss by Wolf in not recognizing immediately Cavuto’s tactics and stopping to explain in technical terms the very basic differentiation with regard to the definition of “earmarks.” Instead, Frank went on too long about the issues instead of the technicalities of the original question. I once wrote Frank a rather pointed letter about his seeming failure, despite long tenure and important committee assignments, to find a way to get more face time on the media to discuss key issues. Perhaps this interview shows that he has not had enough of such face time to craft the right tactics for it when it does happen. The hilarious thing here is that they both agreed on “earmarks” being ticketed to specific and important issues and receiving a clear cut, straight up-and-down vote on the merits. And yet they went on cutting each other up right to the end. Bad performance on both sides.
I think that Cavuto was playing to the overly stretched attitude of some in the Tea Party toward the idea of “earmarks.” I see that as a baby and bath water view. My own feeling is that some “earmarks” can be justified if the issue is important enough on a national or even regional scale. Allocation of money for anti-gang programs, for example, is, in my opinion, a response to a pressing issue which stretches from Northern Virginia all the way to South Central Los Angeles, with a lot of stops in between. I have seen such “earmarks” benefit my own community and make the streets of my own neighborhood a lot safer. I hope it would have the same effect elsewhere. In my view, that was money well spent. It is not on a par with an amendment attached to the ass end of another major bill which might provide money for a hypthetical museum in Podunk County to be called the “Cheddar Cheese Hall of Fame.”
But I do agree that “earmarks” such as those favored by Wolf do call for a separate, up-and-down debate and vote and that we have to start doing tradeoffs in spending based on an agreement on priorities. We want money to fight off the gangs and we had better decide where we can cut somewhere else to cover it. The cheddar cheese can wait. Fighting the gangs cannot.
We cannot operate just using a simplified blanket definition of “earmarks.” You have to differentiate. If the representative from New Orleans, for example, asks for money to effect an absolute federal fix for the dikes and retaining walls surrounding his city, is that to be called an “earmark” or is it to be called a necessity to save the lives of our fellow citizens in some possible future disaster? Some in the Tea Party have to stop operating in a system of absolutes. But I will continue to advocate that budgetary priorities and real tradeoffs become a critical part of the entire endeavor, or our budget deficits and that astronomical national debt could make the entire thing moot.
I66 was many earmarks garnered by Rep Tom Davis, I think we all appreciate that!
agreed Emma, I think alot of people are holding their breath, praying the improvements continue.