uvAggravator2.0

So that's the contractor you work for...

tomato-tomato?

You'll be happy to know that CTU got knocked out by a compact EMP bomb last night. Jack Bauer is now on his own saving the world, once again...guess your EMPACT guys were right

Officially, the term they use is "operations in a non-permissive environment" - translated, we're going to try to grab the chem-bio weapons and secure any WMD-related facilities while they're still shooting at us. It's not an offensive capability as much as it is a technical operation carried out in a hostile environment, conceivably in the chaos following the collapse of the nK regime.

It sounds like the article is describing an 'offensive' capability to go and get the nuc and chem weapons that the N. Koreans are known to have. That certainly doesn't sound like a mission for the 20th Support Command. I suppose though that they could follow a special ops mission that was to secure the various storage sites. The CBRNE troops would then be responsible for 'safeing' the weapons for transport out of theater.

If he votes 'yea' he is toast. I've been designing two 4 X 6 foot Dump Richie Rick Boucher signs to mount in the bed of my truck. They'll go in about July 4th.
X-Firefighter

"Why not call it the Democratic Party and escape the confusion?" They need a new label since 'democrat' has became the new term for hate America. When everything else fails copy/imitate your oposition who you have slandered for years. This proves the democrats haven't had a new idiea in years, they keep trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
X-Firefighter

By Mar 23 you should know if you still live in a country with a representative government or a dictatorship. The phrase 'in god we trust' may change to 'Obama Akbar'.
X-Firefighter

i saw gerry connolly in a Congressional TV shot yesterday. he betrayed no emotion.

he is behind in the polls. can anyone in NOVA talk him into "NO"?

and sorry, I am in the 5th. I have no hopes for a NO vote from Perriello. (he will vote YES because of all the "fixes" supposedly to be done in Senate & when the Senate doesn't do anything, he'

Well Ken, we all make mistakes but I'm curious as to what really made you vote for him and if you voted Republican all the way down. I'm not surprised that Ken won because I personally believe he'll never lose a contested election in Virgina. (Although I hope I'm wrong in this and wouldn't mind being proven wrong) He knows how to win. He was already in the positive starting the race because he was a Republican and when in comes to issues relating to crime and such voters trust Republicans for whatever reason.

Ken definitely doesn't know what the role of the Attorney General is, plain and simple. He's using this office to further his conservative ideology which he believes the voters gave him a right to do when they elected him. He openly admitted to Ryan Nobles that he would be fine in "tricking" voters into believe he isn't a right-wing radical which obviously he proudly showed he is.

Now, with the birther comments. I'll say this. Cooch is crazy, obviously but he isn't stupid. He knows he won't use the birther argument the first time he attempts to sue the federal government for infringing on the state's rights blah blah blah. His Tea Party fanatics would LOVE him if he did and would probably make him their new God. But again, he's crazy, not stupid.

You still can't believe he got elected huh? Me neither, although I did warn not to take him lightly and I think a lot of people did thinking that Virginia wouldn't elect such an extremist. I guess this will all just be like a bad nightmare that'll end one day hopefully. Personally, I've followed the Cooch since I've been in Virginia and seen him work and personally don't think he'll ever be defeated in an electoral contest. I guess I don't have enough faith in voters, at least not for Attorney General. I don't believe most voters trust a Democrat on issues of criminal justice as much as they should.

But you are correct, keep up the pressure on him and ensure that even though this has been done very early on in his stint as Attorney General that voters don't forget about it. I'm hoping that since he is so hell bent on suing the federal government that he using the citizenship issue in order to challenge a piece of legislation, although he's crazy, not stupid!

I called Pelosi's office yesterday and got hung up on.

(202)225-4965

#1-Not going to happen. There's no discontent with Wittman in the 1st-at least among Republicans.
#2 See #1. I'd also note that the district is so gerrymandered in favor of a Republican that a crazy Tea Party candidate could strip off 10% of the Repub vote and Wittman would still win.

The writer of this post is trying to saying that buying guns at a gunshow is the problem.

Go right ahead...just remember, no one likes canned peas.

re: " Coolidge was the proponent of small government who inspired Ronald Reagan"

I love the way we all look back at history and remember what we like and forget what we don't.

Mr. Reagan presided over one of the largest socialistic and expensive programs in the history of the US that is now at the heart of Obama's "intervention" on Health Care.

To Wit:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)

for a man who is often quoted now days by small govt conservatives, as feeling that the govt is the problem.. he sure supported something that is the ultimate in nanny-state politics.

No only does the govt MANDATE Free health care for everyone including illegals but it is the epitome of an unfunded mandate that now is at the root of our health care crisis.

and yet.. not one of those who profess love of Mr. Reagan's policies has dared to suggest that the first step in rolling back the nanny state is the repeal of EMTALA.

why do I mention this?

well.. I used to be content when people advised that..over time.. history will (correctly) judge our Presidents.

no more.

it's become obvious whether it's Hoover or Reagan or Coolidge that each of us has our own rose-colored glasses when viewing past presidents.

I still have a great deal of trouble with the concept that of all the prior Presidents, that Obama most resembles Hoover.. but I'm going to try to keep an open mind on this because there are other groups out there that say Obama most resembles Jimmy Carter.

but I finish by asking again - those who feel that Obama is not doing what needs to be done (with respect to the economy) - what is he not doing what he should be doing?

and no.. I'm not buying the tax-cut rat-trap.

so Hoover was an activist...interventionist.. more like a RINO R than a Reagan R?

so he did act but wrongly or ineffectively?

and that the thread between him and Obama?

that they both are/were interventionist but inept?

Here's another thing I find interesting.

More than 60 years after Hoover's time there is not strong and unified agreement as to his role in the Great Depression but in less than a year, Obama's role is viewed with more certainty....

Its was the Feds fault during Hoovers time and Obama's fault this time?

Jim:

Since an historical account of Coolidge, Hoover and FDR (compared to Obama) is off topic for this post and since we've been warned to stay on topic, I have posted an article on the matter on Groveton's Virginia...

"Barack Hussein Hoover"

http://bit.ly/d0gTHH

Hoover was not a small-government conservative in the mold of Calvin Coolidge. Indeed, when Hoover served as Secretary of Commerce under him, Coolidge was not that fond of him, calling him "Wonder Boy." Hoover believed in a vigorous federal government. Two big things happened on his watch that turned the stock market crash of 1929 into the Great Depression of the 1930s. First, the Federal Reserve contracted the money supply. (Read your Milton Friedman.) Second, he signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which triggered a trade war with our European trading partners. According to Amity Shlaes' book, "The Forgotten Man," Hoover got the government engaged in a lot of other stuff, but, frankly, I forget the details, and I don't think they were terribly significant in affecting the economic outcome.

FDR, of course, expanded the role of government enormously, charged the likes of Insull and Mellon with criminal indictments (both men were exonerated), cranked up the top income tax bracket to 87%, tilted the playing field in favor of labor, tried to pack the Supreme Court, and in general paralyzed the capitalist class, precipitating the 1937 recession within a depression. Only World War II got us out of the Depression. Shlaes argues that it wasn't the government spending that saved the country, but Roosevelt's backing off his class warfare: He needed the captains of industry to help him build the American war machine.

Yeah, because life was so great while Bush was President and the Republicans were in charge.

Not.

We have the Mexicans slaughtering American citizens, congress passing major legislation in a manner typical of a banana republic, our country’s credit rating fast moving into the “bankrupt” status, as the children who gained control of our country play fast and loose with our laws and our posterity.

Our country is now the laughing stock of the world, no country respects us even third world dictators give us the finger (not calling us number one).

Meanwhile this silly post gets a hundred responses, mostly from whiny liberals in an alternate universe.

Is this all the left has to offer?

In a word…. pathetic…

or better yet …

In a word…. November.

I really can’t wait till the adults get back in charge.

James- stop being a douchebag.

Morton wants file suit, make this whole thing public?

Then let the stupid prick open up that can of worms!

He knows better than that.

It's been inside beltway buzz for decades.

A nice public investigative story about what really happen will only benefit our side.

JAMES YOUNG FOR PRESIDENT

HUSSEIN SHOW YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!1

James,

Anyone tell you today that you're a fucking douchebag?

Spock, it is well that you hide your identity like the coward that you are, for what you said about Morton Blackwell is beyond any doubt actionable.

'Course, considering the source, there's probably no damages.

OBAMA IS A MUSLIM... HE REFUSES TO SHOW HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE... WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE HUESSEIN???!

OBAMA IS TRYING TO USE SWINE FLU TO FORM A POLICE STATE AND TAKE OUR GUNS AND IMPRISON "DISSIDENTS"

TO ALL PATRIOTS - NOW IS THE TIME TO RISE UP AGAINST THE LIBERALS AND MUSLIMS

RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL

COOCH FOR PRESIDENT!

RON PAUL FOR VP!

GERRY CONNOLLY FOR SECRETARY OF STATE!!

Cool dog. Son&Heir's 17-year-old (~50#--medium size) Heinz 57 has a coat a lot like that. Man! This time of year is really hairy.

with all the concern about the budget cuts the 5% tax hike on all public employees who participate in the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) has gone un-noticed.

while not officially a tax hike (we know the flat earthers don't do tax increases, just fees, charges, enhancements, add-ons, tariffs, allowances, etc like the 100 million in this year's budget) HB 1189 allows local government to pull the 5% they now contribute to retirement of public servants (those who work for 15-20% less then they could get in the private sector but have opted for job satisfaction, and public service - and a pension) as an exercise in balancing the local budgets due to state underfunding.

now i can understand if the R's wanted to ping these groups that don't support them in elections, BUT HB 1189 was co sponsored by Bob Brink. the companion senate bill passed 39-1 with on D-Edwards voting against. and in the house the list of people normally thought of supporting working families took a huge dive. 19 voted against


NAYS--Abbott, Armstrong, Bulova, Carr, Carrico, Ebbin, Englin, Herring, Hope, James, Johnson, Keam, Kory, Plum, Sickles, Surovell, Torian, Tyler, Ward--19.

notice any names missing from this list?????

the dem response to our state fire fighters was won't it be wonderful to get several million more in your local budgets? total BS. where will the money come from? the pockets of the public servants.

this is disappointing to say the least. one thing's for sure, the people who voted for this can take me off their call lists.

b

NLS, I think you are becoming more shrill by the minute. Clearly Ken is not a "birther". The video effectively shows he was answering a question about how this might play out legally.

Type-o.

I should’ve put some sort of break between my quote and Dirt Worshippers quote which followed my quote.

Oh well.

Dirt Worshipper wrote:

Just Bob, that’s obviously crazy talk.

Just Bob Wrote:

We’ll agree to disagree.

I can’t tell you how many of the kids I grew up with in Albemarle County schools were members of Farmington and other country clubs, and yet many of them were the biggest screw-ups I’ve ever known. Breeding doesn’t make you a good parent either…

And isn’t amazing how having loads of money will allow you to buy your kids, or yourself (to the point of hiring someone else to do your parenting for you- Nannies, tutors etc), out of any number of problems.

I also think that if we had a first class mental health and substance abuse treatment system in the United States that it would do wonders for allowing the educational system to do it’s job with less distraction.

That would require Health Care Reform. Or as the Republicans (wrongly in my opinion) put it- Socialized Medicine. As it is- the mental health aspect of any insurance policy is inadequate for anyone that seriously needs it. It’s there only as a profit point- because so many people in this culture will fight to deny that they need any thing that even suggests mental health.

Cecil wrote:

We’re never going to require people to get a breeder’s license before having children, so therefore we’re always going to have SOME lousy parents and poorly parented children.

Money wouldn’t fix that either- since rich people are always able to (generally speaking) buy themselves out of whatever problem they’re having.

Cooch is out of step with the folks in Fairfax. He knows it! In fact,there's a rumor that he's moving to Prince William county. Sadly, his radical ideas may be too radical for PW too.

http://yankeephil.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-know-he-loves-me-rielle-hunter.html

Great catch!

With my 2 older grandbabies I always played the part of Swiper! And if I allow them to make it into their teens, then they will say, "No enquiring!"

Wait, so are you saying I shouldn't be stockpiling canned goods and ammo?

"They not only don’t say what they mean, but even in the face of objective evidence, they will deny having said what they said and will never admit they made a mistake. What’s more, they will condemn conservatives for having done and said what they, themselves, said and did."

This is astounding! This is a perfect description of my mother, who is clinically depressed, suffers from anxiety attacks and is frankly not sane.

Appalling, frightening and extremely sad.

Paging Keith Olbermann, paging Keith Olbermann

" But, people like the author of this missive and change...you really have to wonder if they were dropped on their heads at birth."

More likely just amoral cretins!

James-

Oh really? I seem to remember a cute little story about Morton Blackwell and an intern which caused him to have to leave his position as White House staff assistant during the Reagan admin...hmmm?

Now, back to the Coooch...

I just read his back handed attempt to appear sane, and it would hold a lot more value if he would speak out against and denounce the whole birther movement.

HIs recording was about pandering as well as not so clever tap dancing to appear sympathetic to the loons...for votes...what a hoe!

Okay, James. I read it. He is back peddling from what he said. That is what every single Republican politician who has played this game does. It doesn't erase his earlier remarks.

This is very familiar ground:

Politician makes remarks to pander to birthers by indicating their bizarre conspiacy theories may be plausible.

Politician gets called out on it by sane people.

Politician claims remarks were either misinterpreted or taken out of context. And gee whiz, the politician doesn't think Obama was born in Kenya.

And the birthers "know" he is one of them and are therefore more likely to support him in the next election.

Mission accomplished.

This is hardly the first time we have seen this.

Hey, Spock, you're confusing Willie with a Liberal. We Conservatives don't require our interns ... er, adherents to assume that position with regard to leaders.

As for this "controversy," y'all might want to read the AG's response here: http://nbc12.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/cuccinelli-responds-to-birther-conversation/.

That is, if you care.

Gov. Linda Lingle of Hawaii gave Sarah Palin a glowing introduction at the Republican National Convention. If there was any reasonable doubt that O wasn't born in Hawaii, Lingle would have brought it to light

I haven’t really followed this issue but if it’s true that they won’t release a “birth certificate” it is a bit hard to understand. Seems to me that KC was just giving a response on the manner in which a legal challenge might proceed and not advocating one.

Seems like a non issue to me so I think for laughs I’ll go back and listen to Bolling’s “the size of your endowment” video.

Nice job today...

http://chesterfieldtaxpayer.blogspot.com/

Virginia is for "SPITERS". Northrup Grumman are you paying attention?

Proof positive folks, from yesterday's Op-Ed of AG Cuccinelli's in the RTD:

"My now well-publicized letter simply stated the current state of Virginia law; it did not advocate for any particular legislative position. Should the General Assembly change the law, my advice will be consistent with it. "

AND

"Nothing I have said or written authorizes unconstitutional discrimination against any person. My letter in no way addresses the legislative issue of including sexual orientation in non-discrimination policies. I believe that our colleges and universities do not illegally discriminate against any class of persons. Likewise, I do not believe they can or will after my restatement of Virginia law.

The people of the commonwealth, through their elected representatives, determine Virginia's laws. I cannot bend the law to fit a particular outcome, no matter what a person or group might wish, myself included. I have simply stated what is and is not currently permissible under the laws of Virginia. That is my job as attorney general."

'NUFF SAID

Thomas Barnett has had some interesting ideas on exactly this, most of which I agree with.

Take a look:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html

I voted for Ken, but I have to admit that I am so disappointed thus far.

At best, he has not been able to perform his duties as an AG because he is contastly appaering on tv or correcting his gaffes.

At worst, despite his campaign cry, he really doesn't understand the role of the AG. Maybe he owes Shannon and apology.

Unlike any AG before him, he has made the office overtly political
and has embarassed the lawyers who work in the office.

I am ashamed to say I know him.
:(

Aah, anon, I long for the day when I find out who you are....and I will find out. Your cowardice will prevail for only so long, The odds are stacked against you. Ironically I'll use your Big Brother technology to find you, it's just a matter of time, then we can sit down and chat. OK?

Uh, Brian, it is readily apparent to me that you are possessed only of political deviancies. That having been said, yes, it is entirely legal for an employer to discriminate against you on those grounds.

I think the substance of this matter has been argued incessently. I am disappointed with the Governor's letter. If he believes that "sexual orientation" is a status that has been shown to suffer from significant discrimination and requires legal protection, he should be lobbying for it in the legislature.

I believe AG Cuccinelli made this decision only based on the legal question asked and in order to protect the State from potential legal vulnerabilities should law suits be brought. Like his views or not, as a Senator, AG Cuccinelli showed a devotion to the law and Constitution above his own personal views. Remember his position in expanding the death penalty last year? That position was in disagreement with most of the Republican legislature and yet he stood on the principle.

Bottom line, until the legislature approves this particular protected status, many of you will continue to have a concern. I for one do not as I don't believe there is any significant employment discrimination against homosexuals that would warrant such protection. However, were it to be passed, knowing AG Cuccinelli to be the man of principle that he is, he would defend that statute vigorously.

As for assuming that taking this position as the legislature has so far being tantamount to "Hatred" or "bigotry", you have to then assume that to oppose non-discrimination protection automatically means bigotry. Do all of you support adding "body mass" to a protected status? How about eye color? How about beauty? How about left-handedness, right-handedness, or ambidexterity? If you oppose adding these or any other defined class, you MUST therefore be bigoted against or hate those types of people right????

All this aside from the fact that AG Cuccinelli was giving a legal opinion that was requested. He was responding as his job requires. This was not in my opinion an agenda he pushed.

Finally, Peter, you need to brush up on your Mel Brooks. It was "dimes" not "quarters". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU

Og course, leave it to a liberal to multiply a fee by 2.5 times the real truth in order to take more from the taxpayer... ;-)

This man also tried to remove language that protects against discrimination in public universities. MAKE THE CRAZY STOP.

More coverage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqsMBPhVUsU

" Resolution 511 adopted by the House stating McCain was a Natural Born Citizen."

I did not know that a congressional resolution could trump the constitution 0r statute!

Seriously, I want to advance so high in the military that I can lose hundreds of thousands of sensitive items and no one will even blink an eye...

It's now up at the WASHINGTON MONTHLY blog:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

I'll be honest, I really hate seeing Virginia portrayed this way. I knew it was going to happen (KC had been my state senator, after all), and I tried my best to keep it from happening (he did not win my precinct), but it's clear that we're in for a long four years.

I know what it is, Haywood. Some pandering I can understand. Pandering that gives credence to an argument that is both false and adversely impacts the fundamental legitimacy of our government goes too far.

I LOVE Fishbone. Great video.

Re 3:49pm: What's your point?

Rightwing Watch is having a field day!

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/video-virginia-ag-ken-cuccinelli-worried-about-government-tracking-his-son-–-told-crowd-he-m

The President doesn't need to apply for a security clearance, so no investigation would have been needed nor done.

Look, it's real simple. No birth certificate or anything else will make him a white Anglo-Saxon protestant with a white Anglo-Saxon name. That's the real issue the birthers have.

James Kilpatrick was quite the advocate of "interposition" and we see how his effort turned out. Don't forget Calhoun's "interposition" against tariffs. Boy that worked out well. Sanford did such a good job asserting "state's rights" in the stimulus funding fiasco.

I'm sure that Virginia will defy an order of the U.S. Supreme Court

Brian, it's called P A N D E R I N G.

I agree that we should definitely expand this rule to include residential property in Arlington.

Further, I don't understand the Chamber's response on this.

“The vast majority of Arlington business and commercial property owners performed exceptionally well,” the letter to Fisette said.

If the businesses cleared their snow, what is the problem with this resolution. They won't get fined. It is only those businesses that were delinquent that will get fined.

It is sad that a county that prides itself on being walker friendly can only get 3 of 5 Board Members to support a resolution like this.

The AG's explanation of the law is correct. His claim that it is plausible that the President is from Kenya is not correct. It's not plausible at all.

I can give him the benefit of the doubt when he answers the legal question, but treating these birthers like they've got a legitimate policy issue here is just absurd.

The thing is, he ALMOST did this -- sticking to the hypothetical legal response. If he just could have stopped himself from adding line after line about possibilities and plausibilities, he'd have "possible" deniability.

But he doesn't. He dives right into la-la land.

Here's another question for the birthers. Our president has access to extremely sensitive highly classified information. Therefore, he would require pretty high level security clearance. Now, don't you think that the people tasked with doing his security clearance would have uncovered problems with his citizenship, if anything actually existed. And, as much as the GOP wants to destroy Obama, don't you think they would have played that card a long time ago, if there was actually anything to it? You birthers really need to get over it and move on. Your assertions are not even logical. Normal people in this country just aren't buying it.

Sen. Petersen,

I absolutely have citations for my statistics.

For 50-75 percent who keep driving, the citation is:
Peck, R.C., Wilson, R. J., and Sutton, L. 1995. “Driver license strategies for controlling the persistent DUI offender, Strategies for Dealing with the intent Drinking Driver.” Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular No. 437. Washington, D.C. National Research Council: 48-49.

For having driven drunk 87 times before being caught:
Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore. (1997) “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.

I don't agree with your argument that an interlock "ruins" someones life. Why is it a bad thing to require a drunk driver to blow into a device for 6 months instead of losing his or her license? An interlock certainly gives a second chance.

In terms of saving money, drunk driving cost the nation $130 billion each year so I have considered the costs of what this legislation means. I urge you to also consider the cost to the families of the 271 people (2008 NHTSA FARS) who died on Virginia roads because of a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher.

States like New Mexico and Arizona have reduced deaths from .08 BAC drivers by over 30 percent. The proposed law you voted against would most likely have had similar results, thereby reducing 271 deaths by 30 percent.

I hope you reconsider as we will be back next year! Again, interlocks wouldn't ruin the lives of DUI offenders, but they might save the life of one of our family members.

Thanks again,
J.T. Griffin

Sen. Petersen,

I absolutely have citations for my statistics.

For 50-75 percent who keep driving, the citation is:
Peck, R.C., Wilson, R. J., and Sutton, L. 1995. “Driver license strategies for controlling the persistent DUI offender, Strategies for Dealing with the intent Drinking Driver.” Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular No. 437. Washington, D.C. National Research Council: 48-49.

For having driven drunk 87 times before being caught:
Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore. (1997) “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.

I don't agree with your argument that an interlock "ruins" someones life. Why is it a bad thing to require a drunk driver to blow into a device for 6 months instead of losing his or her license? An interlock certainly gives a second chance.

In terms of saving money, drunk driving cost the nation $130 billion each year so I have considered the costs of what this legislation means. I urge you to also consider the cost to the families of the 271 people (2008 NHTSA FARS) who died on Virginia roads because of a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher.

States like New Mexico and Arizona have reduced deaths from .08 BAC drivers by over 30 percent. The proposed law you voted against would most likely have had similar results, thereby reducing 271 deaths by 30 percent.

I hope you reconsider as we will be back next year! Again, interlocks wouldn't ruin the lives of DUI offenders, but they might save the life of one of our family members.

Thanks again,
J.T. Griffin

Sen. Petersen,

I absolutely have citations for my statistics.

For 50-75 percent who keep driving, the citation is:
Peck, R.C., Wilson, R. J., and Sutton, L. 1995. “Driver license strategies for controlling the persistent DUI offender, Strategies for Dealing with the intent Drinking Driver.” Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular No. 437. Washington, D.C. National Research Council: 48-49.

For having driven drunk 87 times before being caught:
Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore. (1997) “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.

I don't agree with your argument that an interlock "ruins" someones life. Why is it a bad thing to require a drunk driver to blow into a device for 6 months instead of losing his or her license? An interlock certainly gives a second chance.

In terms of saving money, drunk driving cost the nation $130 billion each year so I have considered the costs of what this legislation means. I urge you to also consider the cost to the families of the 271 people (2008 NHTSA FARS) who died on Virginia roads because of a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher.

States like New Mexico and Arizona have reduced deaths from .08 BAC drivers by over 30 percent. The proposed law you voted against would most likely have had similar results, thereby reducing 271 deaths by 30 percent.

I hope you reconsider as we will be back next year! Again, interlocks wouldn't ruin the lives of DUI offenders, but they might save the life of one of our family members.

Thanks again,
J.T. Griffin

Sen. Petersen,

I absolutely have citations for my statistics.

For 50-75 percent who keep driving, the citation is:
Peck, R.C., Wilson, R. J., and Sutton, L. 1995. “Driver license strategies for controlling the persistent DUI offender, Strategies for Dealing with the intent Drinking Driver.” Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular No. 437. Washington, D.C. National Research Council: 48-49.

For having driven drunk 87 times before being caught:
Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore. (1997) “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.

I don't agree with your argument that an interlock "ruins" someones life. Why is it a bad thing to require a drunk driver to blow into a device for 6 months instead of losing his or her license? An interlock certainly gives a second chance.

In terms of saving money, drunk driving cost the nation $130 billion each year so I have considered the costs of what this legislation means. I urge you to also consider the cost to the families of the 271 people (2008 NHTSA FARS) who died on Virginia roads because of a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher.

States like New Mexico and Arizona have reduced deaths from .08 BAC drivers by over 30 percent. The proposed law you voted against would most likely have had similar results, thereby reducing 271 deaths by 30 percent.

I hope you reconsider as we will be back next year! Again, interlocks wouldn't ruin the lives of DUI offenders, but they might save the life of one of our family members.

Thanks again,
J.T. Griffin

Sen. Petersen,

I absolutely have citations for my statistics.

For 50-75 percent who keep driving, the citation is:
Peck, R.C., Wilson, R. J., and Sutton, L. 1995. “Driver license strategies for controlling the persistent DUI offender, Strategies for Dealing with the intent Drinking Driver.” Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular No. 437. Washington, D.C. National Research Council: 48-49.

For having driven drunk 87 times before being caught:
Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore. (1997) “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.

I don't agree with your argument that an interlock "ruins" someones life. Why is it a bad thing to require a drunk driver to blow into a device for 6 months instead of losing his or her license? An interlock certainly gives a second chance.

In terms of saving money, drunk driving cost the nation $130 billion each year so I have considered the costs of what this legislation means. I urge you to also consider the cost to the families of the 271 people (2008 NHTSA FARS) who died on Virginia roads because of a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher.

States like New Mexico and Arizona have reduced deaths from .08 BAC drivers by over 30 percent. The proposed law you voted against would most likely have had similar results, thereby reducing 271 deaths by 30 percent.

I hope you reconsider as we will be back next year! Again, interlocks wouldn't ruin the lives of DUI offenders, but they might save the life of one of our family members.

Thanks again,
J.T. Griffin

Sen. Petersen,

I absolutely have citations for my statistics.

For 50-75 percent who keep driving, the citation is:
Peck, R.C., Wilson, R. J., and Sutton, L. 1995. “Driver license strategies for controlling the persistent DUI offender, Strategies for Dealing with the intent Drinking Driver.” Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular No. 437. Washington, D.C. National Research Council: 48-49.

For having driven drunk 87 times before being caught:
Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore. (1997) “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.

I don't agree with your argument that an interlock "ruins" someones life. Why is it a bad thing to require a drunk driver to blow into a device for 6 months instead of losing his or her license? An interlock certainly gives a second chance.

In terms of saving money, drunk driving cost the nation $130 billion each year so I have considered the costs of what this legislation means. I urge you to also consider the cost to the families of the 271 people (2008 NHTSA FARS) who died on Virginia roads because of a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher.

States like New Mexico and Arizona have reduced deaths from .08 BAC drivers by over 30 percent. The proposed law you voted against would most likely have had similar results, thereby reducing 271 deaths by 30 percent.

I hope you reconsider as we will be back next year! Again, interlocks wouldn't ruin the lives of DUI offenders, but they might save the life of one of our family members.

Thanks again,
J.T. Griffin

Sen. Petersen,

I absolutely have citations for my statistics.

For 50-75 percent who keep driving, the citation is:
Peck, R.C., Wilson, R. J., and Sutton, L. 1995. “Driver license strategies for controlling the persistent DUI offender, Strategies for Dealing with the intent Drinking Driver.” Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular No. 437. Washington, D.C. National Research Council: 48-49.

For having driven drunk 87 times before being caught:
Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore. (1997) “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.

I don't agree with your argument that an interlock "ruins" someones life. Why is it a bad thing to require a drunk driver to blow into a device for 6 months instead of losing his or her license? An interlock certainly gives a second chance.

In terms of saving money, drunk driving cost the nation $130 billion each year so I have considered the costs of what this legislation means. I urge you to also consider the cost to the families of the 271 people (2008 NHTSA FARS) who died on Virginia roads because of a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher.

States like New Mexico and Arizona have reduced deaths from .08 BAC drivers by over 30 percent. The proposed law you voted against would most likely have had similar results, thereby reducing 271 deaths by 30 percent.

I hope you reconsider as we will be back next year! Again, interlocks wouldn't ruin the lives of DUI offenders, but they might save the life of one of our family members.

Thanks again,
J.T. Griffin

Sen. Petersen,

I absolutely have citations for my statistics.

For 50-75 percent who keep driving, the citation is:
Peck, R.C., Wilson, R. J., and Sutton, L. 1995. “Driver license strategies for controlling the persistent DUI offender, Strategies for Dealing with the intent Drinking Driver.” Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular No. 437. Washington, D.C. National Research Council: 48-49.

For having driven drunk 87 times before being caught:
Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore. (1997) “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.

I don't agree with your argument that an interlock "ruins" someones life. Why is it a bad thing to require a drunk driver to blow into a device for 6 months instead of losing his or her license? An interlock certainly gives a second chance.

In terms of saving money, drunk driving cost the nation $130 billion each year so I have considered the costs of what this legislation means. I urge you to also consider the cost to the families of the 271 people (2008 NHTSA FARS) who died on Virginia roads because of a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher.

States like New Mexico and Arizona have reduced deaths from .08 BAC drivers by over 30 percent. The proposed law you voted against would most likely have had similar results, thereby reducing 271 deaths by 30 percent.

I hope you reconsider as we will be back next year! Again, interlocks wouldn't ruin the lives of DUI offenders, but they might save the life of one of our family members.

Thanks again,
J.T. Griffin

Sen. Petersen,

I absolutely have citations for my statistics.

For 50-75 percent who keep driving, the citation is:
Peck, R.C., Wilson, R. J., and Sutton, L. 1995. “Driver license strategies for controlling the persistent DUI offender, Strategies for Dealing with the intent Drinking Driver.” Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular No. 437. Washington, D.C. National Research Council: 48-49.

For having driven drunk 87 times before being caught:
Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore. (1997) “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.

I don't agree with your argument that an interlock "ruins" someones life. Why is it a bad thing to require a drunk driver to blow into a device for 6 months instead of losing his or her license? An interlock certainly gives a second chance.

In terms of saving money, drunk driving cost the nation $130 billion each year so I have considered the costs of what this legislation means. I urge you to also consider the cost to the families of the 271 people (2008 NHTSA FARS) who died on Virginia roads because of a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher.

States like New Mexico and Arizona have reduced deaths from .08 BAC drivers by over 30 percent. The proposed law you voted against would most likely have had similar results, thereby reducing 271 deaths by 30 percent.

I hope you reconsider as we will be back next year! Again, interlocks wouldn't ruin the lives of DUI offenders, but they might save the life of one of our family members.

Thanks again,
J.T. Griffin

It was a lot of fun...though I don't think Doc has anything to worry about.

Yet.

I thought that Cooch never gave any answers to hypothetical questions, let alone hypothetical answers.

Perhaps not working to create functional human settlement patterns?

Oserver

I DO!

When costs are fairly allocated the price difference between dwelling Units of the same size and amenity and the same proximity to Jobs, Services, Recreation and Amenity disappear.

===============================

Isn't that the case now? Similar houses in similar locations tend to sell for similar prices.





I think what you really mean is that prices should be controlled by charging costs differently.


RH

"Get out an air photo Larry. There are large areas of vacant and underutilized land that are INSIDE the logical location of the Clear Edge around Fredericksburg and the other Urban agglomerations in the Greater Fredericksburg SubRegion."

=================================
I remember taking some Chinese customers on a tour from DC to F'burg, years ago.

They did not make any comment about the first part of the trip, but once we passed Springfield they were astonished by the amount of undeveloped land.

RH

Try not to sound so bitter, Dan. Leave the whining and bedwetting to Ben.

...and one is sitting right here typing this message into her computer.

Sorry for the double post.

RH

Sorry for the double post.

RH

"If there is ever a need for that much space in the Washington MSA it will be closer to jobs and services. "

===============================

The jobs and services will be closer to Loudoun because that is where the wealthiest population is.


Arlington and Alexandria and Fairfax would have taken your bet (above) 20 years ago, but now we have the facts in hand, and the fact is that Loudoun is the richest county in the nation, on a per family basis.

Those three counties AND Howard County are all high on the list, but Loudon is still first. and in Maryland, howard ranks higher than Montgomery.

Fauquier County, with its slow growth policies now ranks 65 on the list, behind even Goochland County, but ahead of Washington DC itself.(Year 2000 data, it is probably worse by now.)

Goochland didn't make the top 20 in 2006 but by 2009 it ranked #16.

Montgomery county was #8 in 2006 but dropped to #10 in 2010.

Charles County wasn't on the list in 2006 but limbed to Number 21 by 2009.

=================================

Those are the published facts, and you cannot blame RH for them.

The casual observation would have to be that more developed areas (at least around here) have not fared as well as more rural areas, and areas thet on;t actively impede growth fare better than those that do.

RH

"If there is ever a need for that much space in the Washington MSA it will be closer to jobs and services. "

===============================

The jobs and services will be closer to Loudoun because that is where the wealthiest population is.


Arlington and Alexandria and Fairfax would have taken your bet (above) 20 years ago, but now we have the facts in hand, and the fact is that Loudoun is the richest county in the nation, on a per family basis.

Those three counties AND Howard County are all high on the list, but Loudon is still first. and in Maryland, howard ranks higher than Montgomery.

Fauquier County, with its slow growth policies now ranks 65 on the list, behind even Goochland County, but ahead of Washington DC itself.(Year 2000 data, it is probably worse by now.)

Goochland didn't make the top 20 in 2006 but by 2009 it ranked #16.

Montgomery county was #8 in 2006 but dropped to #10 in 2010.

Charles County wasn't on the list in 2006 but limbed to Number 21 by 2009.

=================================

Those are the published facts, and you cannot blame RH for them.

The casual observation would have to be that more developed areas (at least around here) have not fared as well as more rural areas, and areas thet on;t actively impede growth fare better than those that do.

RH

Gretchen:

Your post will be featured on Glenn Beck's show tonight; Cooch will be investigating your Muslim connections soon!

It's cheap, but funny! Laughing and shaking my head at the same time.

Well said, Pat.

Annabel has a right to be uninspired by one approach and inspired by another. I sense she wouldn't want anyone turning her honest statement into an attack on friends of hers who are working very hard to realize the President's agenda through OFA.

I have a foot in both organizations and, though I see them both moving people in the right direction, they're apples and oranges in many respects.

OFA offers me the opportunity to work with the best in the organizing business, people with tremendous talents and resources. I know I'll be working on what the President thinks is most important right now and my work will be leveraged by a proven organizational system.

With the Coffee Party, I have a chance to participate in the creation of something that has sprung from people's hearts in response to a real problem with our political process. Right now, it feels more grassroots than OFA, but very few are in the inner decision-making circle - only a handful can be - and growing pains are sure to come.

I have faith in the Coffee Party as an exercise in process that may lead to real effectiveness. I have faith in OFA to keep me in the loop and give me really good work.

PLEASE let's work together! If a bungler like me can straddle the two groups, surely they can't be that far apart.

Pat

Hmmm, while folks in York County and James City County may value Pogge’s opinion, I’m not sure anybody in Danville or Charlottesville does.

well, let's cut to the chase. What is Obama not doing that he ought to be doing?

I always thought the hit on Hoover was that he did not act and because of that things went to heck. no?

well what he did was more damaging than saying foolish stuff. He basically invited those who would do such a thing to go do it while the AG would pretend otherwise.

we went through a similar thing back in the 60's with massive resistance where those with responsibilities for all citizens chose to look away.

well what he did was more damaging than saying foolish stuff. He basically invited those who would do such a thing to go do it while the AG would pretend otherwise.

we went through a similar thing back in the 60's with massive resistance where those with responsibilities for all citizens chose to look away.

well what he did was more damaging than saying foolish stuff. He basically invited those who would do such a thing to go do it while the AG would pretend otherwise.

we went through a similar thing back in the 60's with massive resistance where those with responsibilities for all citizens chose to look away.

well what he did was more damaging than saying foolish stuff. He basically invited those who would do such a thing to go do it while the AG would pretend otherwise.

we went through a similar thing back in the 60's with massive resistance where those with responsibilities for all citizens chose to look away.

well what he did was more damaging than saying foolish stuff. He basically invited those who would do such a thing to go do it while the AG would pretend otherwise.

we went through a similar thing back in the 60's with massive resistance where those with responsibilities for all citizens chose to look away.

well what he did was more damaging than saying foolish stuff. He basically invited those who would do such a thing to go do it while the AG would pretend otherwise.

we went through a similar thing back in the 60's with massive resistance where those with responsibilities for all citizens chose to look away.