Gun owners are less bitter than non-gun owners:

According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco – as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)

Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.

Nor are they “bitter.” In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were “very happy,” while 9% were “not too happy.” Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.

Maybe they’re bitter with joy?

Can you smell what Barack is cookin’?

For those of you keeping track at home, here are the first quarter filings for candidates running for Tom Davis’s open seat in Virginia’s 11th:

Leslie Byrne (D) raised $231k and has $237k on hand
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00440909/332352/#SUMMARY

Gerry Connolly (D) raised $501k and has $422k on hand
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00445452/333752/#SUMMARY

Doug Denneny (D) raised $34k and has $14k on hand
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00437145/332033/#SUMMARY

Keith Fimian (R) raised $138k and has $742k on hand
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00437210/333649/#SUMMARY

But it’s not his hate of tires that’s at issue, it’s the lying about his hate of tires:

[D]efense attorneys also were able to get Levar Stoney, of Virginia, and Leshaunda Joy Williams, of New York, to admit they lied to Milwaukee Police Department interrogators shortly after the Nov. 2, 2004 incident in order to safely flee the city. Stoney and Williams both were in Milwaukee to help hype Dem turnout in the final weeks of the Kerry-Edwards presidential bid.

Both Stoney and Williams told the FBI in subsequent interviews that they heard most of the five men brag about their role in the slashing of tires on nearly 100 vehicles rented by the GOP.

Alright, well maybe he himself doesn’t hate tires, but he’s protective of folks who do.

Stoney also admitted he lied to Milwaukee detectives. But when approached in Virginia by the FBI he said he deemed it his “civic duty” to admit he heard the men talk about the vandalism once they returned to party headquarters.

It wasn’t his “civic duty” to tell the truth to begin with? Is it going to take the FBI approaching him to get the truth out of DPVA?

Scott and Jim hit on this over the weekend.  Jim Hoeft has thoughts as well.

D.J. McGuire points out how bloggers supporting Gilmore have made a pretty good case for Del. Bob Marshall’s Conservative approach to government. Good job, guys.

I’ll have more thoughts later…

LATER: As DJ said in his post:

Gilmore’s decision to plow “excess tax revenues” into the higher education system benefited less than one in every nine Virginia households - hardly putting money to work “for the People.”

From a different angle, however, this is even worse.  One of the many things the American right has done to change the debate on education in general is to force Americans to see that a government monopoly is not the best way to deliver education.  At the K-12 level, this has led to numerous conservative proposals for education reform under the e umbrella of educational choice - in essense, taking the entire idea of government help for education and restructuring it so that the students, not the institutions, are aided.  The conservative movement is making similar moves in housing, medical insurance, and other areas.

Gilmore’s tuition freeze, by contrast, moves in the exact opposite direction.  It doesn’t strengthen individual choice; it limits it by forcing them to use public education in order to benefit from the aid.  It doesn’t embrace the free market; it distorts it by using government power to artificially lower the prices for government-funded universities to the detriment of private and religious ones.

It comes down to who can best spend YOUR money and what it means to be a Conservative.

As one who took some time off before finishing school (three weeks to go), I have had to pay my own way during these last few years.  What drove my decision to attend VCU was a combination of factors that included very heavily the cost of tuition.   That tuition has increased by more than ten percent in the last two years and looks to go up yet again year after year.  Is this happening because the government isn’t subsidizing it enough or because the school is making bad decisions and isn’t being held accountable by me, the consumer?

That depends on who you speak to.  The administration of VCU will tell you that the state is at fault, that less funds from the state means tuition must increase.  Yet no where have the services provided to me or the students of VCU increased by 10%.  In fact, they went $10 million over budget for a business expansion and you can fully expect that buck to be passed along to the students.  But because we don’t demand accountability from the administration, no one’s going to know what’s going on, tuition will be raised again and the blame will be placed on the state.

So how are students and their families to afford these rates?  Is it up to the state to spend their money, your money, my money to pay for bad decisions on the part of VCU or GMU or UVA?

Or, are families better served by having that money in their pockets to begin with, to be able to make the choices on their own and demand greater accountability from the schools for the product they provide at the prices that they charge?

In the case of many Virginians, myself included, Gilmore’s policies to keep college “affordable” made it anything but.  Instead, it took more money out of the pockets of Virginians when they could have saved that themselves to put towards furthering their education through a means other than a state funded system that only benefits 10% of Virginian families.

When Virginia was faced with a surplus, Gilmore didn’t give that money back to Virginians, he increased spending and locked Virginia into a system that continued to take money from every family to no effective end.

When did increasing spending become a Conservative value?

LegiStorm is causing a bit of a to-do by posting the salaries of members of Congress and their staff:

“Who knew it was going to get posted on the Web? It’s shocking,” said one House Democratic chief of staff, who requested anonymity to discuss her personal finances. “Now that anybody can look it up on the Web, I don’t know if I like it anymore.”

Her forms for 2006, which were filed last spring, included her home address and 32 pages of detailed statements about bank accounts under the name of her husband and daughter. That prompted her to raise concerns about identity theft at a chiefs of staff meeting in March.

…

Under federal law, staffers who earn more than $110,000 a year must file financial disclosure forms. In addition to staffers’ financial holdings, the documents show any outside income, gifts received and official positions held with outside groups.

Before LegiStorm existed, anyone searching for salary and financial disclosure information had to trek down to the basement of the Cannon House Office Building to rummage through the records. Those searching for financial disclosure forms, either for a lawmaker or a staffer, had to enter their name into a computer database, leaving a record of whose documents they were examining.

LegiStorm claims that since starting they’ve helped shed light on some questionable transactions among top staffers. The House is looking into changing their forms to limit the personal information on there, but I don’t see this type of service as a bad thing given that aides are the movers and the shakers and being paid with money that comes from our pockets.

Leslie caught onto this back on Saturday.

So Delegate Jeff Frederick has decided that he can save the Virginia GOP and is running against current Republican Party of Virginia Chair John Hager for his seat. It leads one to wonder that if Del. Frederick really is to be the “future” of the RPV, one must ask what he has done in the past.

There really doesn’t seem to be much.

In 2004 Del. Frederick established Virginia’s Future PAC with a $100 contribution. That’s it. Nothing else since then. No helping other candidates in the state, no fundraising, just $100 sitting there. Though maybe it’s not there anymore since the PAC paid for Frederick’s Chairman campaign website:

Let’s go beyond the PAC. Individually, Del. Frederick has donated $1,500 over the last few years, $1,000 of that to candidates, $500 to the Dominion Leadership Trust PAC, the PAC established by Del. Bill Howell to do, well, what? Lose House seats like there’s no tomorrow?

What has Jeff Frederick done to be Chairman of the RPV? Where has he proven his ability to raise funds, assist candidates and campaigns, coordinate anything on a statewide level, and on and on and on?

Where does Jeff Frederick provide any reason to vote FOR him?

Nearly 20% of Pennsylvania Democratic Primary voters say they’d vote for John McCain should their candidate lose.

Yes, this is real. And it’s from Canada.

“At Virgin Mobile,” the ad goes on to say, “you’re more than just a number. When you call us we’ll treat you like a person, not a client. Whether you’re #9 or #900, you’ll get hooked up with somebody who’ll finally treat you just how you want to be treated.”

Ben Tribbett wonders if Hillary Clinton is being Macacaed.

Is Barack Obama the Messiah?

While Obama and Clinton might be pulling in the big bucks at the top of the ticket, the DNC just can’t seem to match the momentum:

The Democratic National Committee ended 2007 nearly flat broke, with cash of $2.9 million and debts of $2.2 million. Since then it has raised some money, paid down debt and managed to put $3.7 million in its piggy bank. This compares, however, with $25 million that the Republican National Committee has in cash on hand, after having raised $97 million since the beginning of 2007.

…

Democrats say their limited party fund-raising is a result of several factors, including the competition for dollars from the presidential candidates and the party’s Congressional fund-raising committees. And they also say the D.N.C. is hamstrung by its inability to raise money in any serious way without a presidential nominee to rally around.

Since the beginning of 2007, the Democrats have raised $60.5 million, and have spent most of it. Not only does the D.N.C. have far less cash on hand than does the R.N.C., but in this election cycle the R.N.C. has also outraised the D.N.C. by $37 million.

The NYT goes on to describe why the Dems might be seeing this shortfall, pointing to the lack of a nominee to help raise money, but Republican’s just pulled in their nominee and Democrats are coming off of big wins across the board in 2006.  Does this show a failure to capitalize on that momentum or simply a grand strategy on the part of Howard Dean and the others at DNC?  Or is this the pendulum coming back and the RNC preparing itself for a big push this year?

David All points out that Facebook will now allow you to add your party affiliation on your profile under “Political Views”. This is good for All’s purposes as a business man who is trying to target the Republican Party for clients, and for others who wish to show their pride in their party.  It’s especially good if you’re an advertiser trying to target Republican’s specifically.

But, personally, when talking about “Political Views”, I don’t think party, I think ideology. Granted, this may just be a matter of semantics, but my “Political Views” are more Conservative or Libertarian than they are Republican Party. And my ideology will trump my party if it comes down to the issues.  So I don’t plan on changing to the Republican Party.  Now if they created a new category for “Political Affiliation” that was distinct from “Political Views”, sign me up.

John McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination last night and Hillary Clinton won just enough to try and make the argument today that she’d make a good running mate with Barack Obama. Not so fast, says spoil-sport Obama.  While Clinton took three off four yesterday, she barely edged him out in delegates.  This is still Obama’s nomination to lose, but a drawn out primary is not something the Democrats should be looking forward to (and something the Republicans have got to love).

4:50 p.m. NOTE: After receiving notification from readers seeking some clarification I realize that this post might be a whole lot vague.  For starters, this is concerning a pseudonymous political blog.  I do know what blog is being discussed but want to avoid naming names as everyone else has.  That said, I think by reading Jane’s original post you can get a feel for the gist of the site being discussed as it fits a certain “type” of blog that I’m trying to address generally.  What I see at issue here is pseudonymous blogging and how it creates an ethical dilemma for bloggers and blog readers.  This applies beyond political blogs and continues on a thread I’ve harped on quite a few times in the past: ethical blogging.  I’m sorry if my original post and title misled anyone or brought folks here through what may appear as less than honest means.  If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a comment or e-mail me directly.

No one’s naming names, but Jane at Conservativa has gotten the ball rolling on wondering about the face(s) behind a blog that’s relatively new to the Virginia Blogosphere:

1. The visual format is standard/well-done. No rookie mistakes at all. But also no graphics, photos, etc. to lend personality.
2. Writing quality overall too good to be from an inexperienced writer.
3. Overall tone of the writing: uneven. Mostly boilerplate, but then it flares into mini-rants.
4. Peculiar set of RSS feeds and links in the blogroll. Indicative of a wish to get read and get links in return, rather than expressive of a person with a point of view.
5. It has been up and running less than a year.
6. The author is pseudonymous.

(There’s one more thing which I have not listed, and it’s the real giveaway). The presence of all these things together sets off my B.S. detector.

Scott, Jim Hoeft and Jim Riley all have brief takes as well.

Now, while there shouldn’t be any blogging police asking for a new blogger’s papers, this issue is quite vital to the future of the blogosphere.

Transparency.

There are times when writing under a pseudonym is necessary and makes sense: whistle blowing, impact on employment/day-to-day livelihood, etc. But blogging under a pen name should also be greeted by bloggers and readers alike with a certain level of suspicion. Especially when the blogger comes out the gate appearing to want the widest audience possible with only the slightest hint of actual substance on who is really behind the blog.

The problem with this type of blogging is how the rest of the world perceives it. Many people who don’t regularly do blogs don’t know what to make of a pseudonymous site. Many actually accept this as the norm, and dismiss blogging as a result. Others rely on it too much, which then allows the author to be less than honest in their purpose, creating stories and the perception of actual news where there otherwise might be nothing but smoke and mirrors.

There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone from creating a blog under a false name and stating an outright lie. There is nothing preventing that same person from creating five other blogs under other false names that repeat this lie, that comment on the site to make it seem like this lie has feet, that sock puppet with one another to give the perception of meat when there’s nothing there.

Not that this level of abuse has been seen (yet), but this is the snowball the blogosphere faces if it does not question its sources, whether they be other blogs or anonymous e-mails that pop up in the inbox.

Pseudonymous blogging has its place, and many pseudonymous bloggers have been somewhat successful, establishing themselves either through their reasoned work on their blogs or the poorly kept secret of their real name. But look across the Virginia blogosphere and you’ll see the large number of bloggers who started under a pseudonym and now blog under their real name. Transparency has won out because we’ve been able to assess them, evaluate them, criticize them, and ultimately welcome them into our circles. Even blogging by elected officials and campaigns has been welcomed.

But a healthy dose of skepticism is bound to great new pseudonymous bloggers and rightfully so. A lot of the Virginia political blogosphere is built on a two-way street paved in trust and respect. You have to earn your pen name. You have to earn our trust. And you have to be honest with us so we can do that.

Too many of us take this blogging thing way too seriously to willingly allow it to be abused for short term political gain.