Category: Random

My brother Shaun decided to focus on my comments after the recent Virginia primary:

And so the battle for the hearts and minds of the 28th Virginia Senate district is over, and decidedly in Chichester’s favor.

So what does this mean, particularly for “conservative Christians” that were the target of the Free Lance-Star editorial last week? As expected, the GOP moderates will capitalize on the victory as more than a repudiation of “negative politics” and extend it to a defeat of the conservative movement altogether.

Don’t think that will occur? Take this gem of a line for instance:

With 61 of 63 precincts reporting, John Chichester has kicked some ass and forgotten names in his primary romp over ‘challenger’ Mike Rothfeld. Damn right. I’m sorry, Rothfeld fights dirty and Chichester is a good guy. Oh, drats, he doesn’t toe the conservative line 100% of the time. You know what? GOOD! I want someone who actually thinks for himself and understands that there’s a real world outside of ideals. emphasis added

Go, Chichester.

This is the problem.

Chichester’s absence on parental notification is not going to be one more instance of a politician going MIA when the cards are down, but as statesmanship. Voting to make RU-486 a legal contraceptive is no longer antithecal to pro-life values, it’s compassion. Rejecting the Republican promise to rollback the car tax while state expenditures rise 50% over five years is no longer irresponsible, it’s construed as “fiscal responsibility.”

That’s not leadership. That’s dodging issues that are important to Virginians.

Yes yes, the election is over, and any gripes about Chichester’s voting record have been settled by the sword so to speak. But this election had nothing to do with a rejection of conservative values. People were turning out to reject negative campaigning and support their old friend.

First problem is taking a line from someone who’s opinion you questioned the very foundation of and using it as representative of an entire group. That’s like Tate declaring his loss by only 100 votes was a referendum when he had less than half of a small portion of the district’s population. But if you want to grasp for straws…

The election wasn’t just a rejection of negative campaigns but of the very people who run them. It was a rejection of bids by the far right faction to oust the more moderates within the Republican party. It was a reminder that the GOP is supposed to be a big tent.

The problem with the state and national GOP is that now they are firmly in power they feel they can push a far right agenda more. We’re seeing big conservatives coming out of the woodwork to demand that the more moderate voices of the party shape up or ship out. If they don’t, the Republican party spends time and money running someone against them, focusing on one of their own instead of putting more money and effort towards a Democrat’s seat. We’re destroying the Big Tent philosophy of the 90s. The party’s discarding it, saying more or less that Big Tent is good to build up, but once you’re in, screw them, we’re in control now and it’s our way or the highway. Short term is conservative gains. Long term is the fall of the party from power.

The Dems are facing the same thing, but for different reasons. You have some blowhards on the left saying that in order to challenge the Republicans, Democrats must embrace the strong liberal philosophies and policies. In order to compete you must contradict and polarize. Any compromise or moderation is rubber stamping the Republican party.

Elections are determined by the moderates. Republicans and Democrats can always count on their core to vote for them, but they have to appeal to those who aren’t too far one way or another. And they don’t do that by forcing out their moderate voices. The moderates spoke out in this election, and not about negative campaigning but about the efforts of the party to cave in to it’s extremes.

Friday Five

1. What do you most want to be remembered for? Up to this point? Probably just being a good guy and all. I haven’t really done anything signifigant besides that. Eventually I want to be remembered for doing lots of things to help other people, whether it’s through whatever career I choose or politics if I decide to go head first into that.

2. What quotation best fits your outlook on life? “I didn’t do it.”

3. What single achievement are you most proud of in the past year? I got back into school.

4. What about the past ten years? I survived.

5. If you were asked to give a child a single piece of advice to guide them through life, what would you say? Be good.

The Dullest Weblog In The World

Saddam Hussein Anagrams

“James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” As translated by Andre Lemaire. A quick Google search on this guy shows he does a lot of Biblical archeology which, of course, leads to doubts.

James, Joseph and Jesus were common names in ancient Jerusalem, a city of about 40,000 residents. And Lemaire estimates that there could have been as many as 20 Jameses in that city with brothers named Jesus and fathers named Joseph. But it is unlikely there would have been more than one James who had a brother of such importance that it merited having him mentioned on his ossuary, Lemaire said.

Or maybe more than 20.

Also stated in the article:

The collector, who is Jewish, was not aware that Jesus had a brother. And he only discovered the interest in the object when he met Lemaire at a dinner party last spring and asked him to decipher some Aramaic written on a number of collectibles, Shanks said.

Jesus having any siblings is actually a debate that rages to this day. Some faiths believe he did, others believe he did not. I think the basis for saying he did was he refered to James as his brother in the Bible, but was it brother in the sense that ALL people are Jesus’s brothers and sisters or that it’s a translation of “friend” or was he really saying blood brother?

Still, very interesting.

It just seems forced. Doonesbury is hopping on the blog bandwagon. Or on the one mocking it. But, ultimately, this strip just doesn’t sit well with me. It’s something I’d expect from another strip like Beetle Baily with that stupid Gizmo character trying to explain to the General how to turn the computer on or something like that. I mean, I think it’s just that I expect more from Doonesbury. Sure, the strip’s all about current events and what not, but maybe it’s the delivery. Maybe it’s the punchline. Who knows. It’s just disappointing.

Oh well.

Maybe Huey will get a blog on Boondocks.

And my previous post really leads me into another point I’ve been meaning to make. The “panic” being felt by us here in the Fredericksburg/Washington DC/Southern Maryland area (living in Fredericksburg and commuting to DC, I kinda fall in all sorts of categories). It’s not really so much panic as just caution and anger. Not that I’ve seen. Out of everyone I know only one person is in a panic, and she’s just nuts about these things. She thought she was going to get anthrax right before a car bomb blew up her apartment building.

But people around here aren’t running for the hills or locking themselves in their houses. They can’t, really. This is where we live and work and shop and go about our daily lives. We can’t change that, not too much. There’s only so much you can do. So, sure we move a bit more when we’re filling up our gas tanks and keep an eye over our shoulder when we’re walking to and from stores, but there’s not panic. Most of the panic is outside of the area, people not wanting to come around here for fear of being shot or people just completely flipping out about the whole thing.

Why? Not that you guys don’t have a right and all, but, please, calm down. We’re okay. Sure, we have to be careful, but anyone not being careful in this crazy world really needs a wake up call as it is. Especially in DC where the crime rate is higher than most metro areas and the murder rate borders on the highest.

We’re doing fine, people. Thanks for your concern. Just give your kids extra hugs and kisses and hope this is an isolated incident.

On a lighter note, go check out this Madness.

Jenn and I (and our friend Amy) just got back from an auction. For $103 total we got a 8 person china set (bone china from some really fancy, expensive company), a tin of recipes, stamps and drawings, 8 boxes of books, 2 blankets, a fur coat (came with a bunch of other stuff, I don’t want it), 2 fans, and a radio/record cabinet that’s kinda broken but can be fixed up (that was only $2). Woo! Jenn and I always do well at these things. Spent $15 at the first one we went to and came out with a working electric typewriter and record player (both from the 60s), a wodden bowling pin, three boxes of records, a box of sheet music, some glasses, and a few other trinkets. The other one we spent $10 and got an 8mm film projector and a Model-T window frame. Yeah! Auctions rule.

I’m not saying I completely support an attack, but the Bush Administration does have a case for not referring to any attack as a preemptive strike. I mean, think about it here. Iraq had been violating sanctions and embargos placed upon them since the end of the Gulf War in the early 90s. They have refused to allow proper inspections, they have violated the no-fly zones, they have placed military armaments into positions which threatened our planes in the region, they have violated trade embargos and failed to distribute food to the people as agreed through the oil for food programs.

In short, Saddam has not held up his end of the deal to end the Gulf War. And if he has not followed through on his end, then, technically, the war is not over.

Any attack the United States makes against Iraq can be termed as an enforcement of the agreement, or, better still, a humanitarian mission for the sake of the Iraqi people. We have ample evidence of Saddam harming his own people through everything from testing of military weapons to witholding food and money that is supposed to be distributed to the Iraqi citizens.

And, really, the United Nations does not have much room to complain in that respect. Then we’d be treating Iraq the same way we treated Somolia. That was a humanitarian mission to help the people that ended up being a manhunt for a warlord that they felt was keeping food and goods from the people. Sure, the Iraqi people aren’t as bad off as Somalian’s, but should we wait until they are?

The Bush Administration has a perfect arguement right here, though, worded a bit differently and supported with evidence the public does not have ready access to. The world community would be better able to agree to an attack if we simply remind them that this is not a matter of preemting, this is simply a matter of enforcing and aiding.

Relicious has linked to me so they must be cool!