uvAggravator2.0

Their stunt - Undercuts - the fundamental point they might have been trying to make… which is

If you want to pay more than you are currently being taxed… then pony up with user fees instead of volunteering everyone else for higher taxes.

Schilling would’ve been better off using his radio show to continuously re-enforce that message.

** I’m probably drifting into a bit of a rant hear - but I think it’s well articulated **

It’s like the B.S. you hear about how all the Republicans are incensed that “terrorists” are getting the same judicial benefits/rights that citizens get.

Without acknowledging the fact that illegal immigrants who commit crimes in the U.S. are given the same judicial benefits/rights that citizens get.

Or how those same Republicans manage to get their panties in a twist when someone tries to propose hate crime legislation- what do they say - “oh well the person committed murder” why does it matter that the person who was murdered was gay?

But at the same time those asses are proposing death penalty legislation for people who kill cops, fire marshals.. etc. “Well they committed murder” so why does it matter who they murdered as to whether or not they get the death penalty?

Hypocrisy is at the heart of Republicanism.

Fit the argument to the pre-conceived story line that we want to promote.

I’ve got an idea.

Let’s tag “County of Residence” to the library card. And then each time that card gets used have a notation made somewhere regarding cumulative total usage by County/per branch. Then if the usage was more than- lets say 3 to 5 percent- by Residents from a County “other than” where the library is Geographically located… then that County would be obligated to increase funding to the library foundation by that percentage.

Meaning if you found that 50 percent of the users of the Scottsville Library lived in Fluvanna and Buckingham,… then those Counties should increase their funding accordingly.

Just my 2 cents.

Community libraries in Virginia have been half-starved forever, and it just gets worse.

If the present library funding structure were sustainable, Scottsville wouldn’t be under attack, and this thread wouldn’t exist.

Apologies. I expected too much from a blog.

I’ve been careful to use words like “rumor” and/or “alleged”…

If I knew anything that was a “fact” I would most likely send an email direct to you. Or if I was incensed enough to say it was fact on a number of threads. And I think if I knew and said it was fact on the hook thread I would’ve been deleted by Moderator.

But I don’t know that the commentors on the Hook site didn’t do similar things (meaning using words like rumor or alleged- or saying I work for the PD and this is what happened).

As I read through the Hook comments… and almost everything that referenced sexual misconduct was deleted. Only a hand full of comments (both on the Hook site and the NBC29 comment site-also heavily edited/deleted) provided enough information to string the info together to provide the narrative as I did in my first post.

BTW what was last years libel suit? The Buckingham Garrett thing??

Don’t like combining the library with the schools? Come up with something else sustainable.

Well, sure, I’ve got a great idea. There are a handful of buildings around Charlottesville and Albemarle. They’ve been constructed for the purpose of holding books (in fact, they’re lined with bookshelves). Conveniently located relative to the population, they are also designed in such a way as to provide private reading space, some larger public rooms, space for reference desks, a checkout desk, returns, etc. Some of them even have slots built into the walls for returning books after hours and loading docks for receiving shipments of books.

“Libraries,” we call them. They’re really quite ideal!

I think The Hook’s position here is wholly understandable. Reporting verified facts is very different than allowing people to engage in (potential) libel on The Hook’s website. I wouldn’t confuse a rigorous interest in the facts (and a desire to avoid a repeat of last year’s libel suit) with an avoidance of them.

Luckily, the conversation here has been informative without edging into anything close to libel, at least to my eye. Well, it’s not fair to say “luckily”—y’all aren’t lucky, you’re smart. :)

Regardless of my above comments - I think the Schilling/Drake PAC is a dumb idea and pointless exercise.

And that’s exactly what gets me about it. Nobody would actually believe that this is a good idea. It’s a stunt, one that can only exist if covered by local media. The Progress obliged them.

The rates weren’t raised because of consumption. They were raised primarily to set aside funds for future construction (which will allow county residents to become part owners of the new facilities). Currently, there’s $30M in the pot.

The article mentions people at the BoS meeting requesting to keep higher taxes in order to cover the services.

Weren’t those people mainly parents of kids in the County School system? (or so I thought I heard in some news article)

As someone who does not have children I resent those people volunteering everyone else for higher property taxes. If they aren’t happy about the education cuts or any other specific cuts- then they should recommend additional user fees. Perhaps something like 50 to 75 bucks a month for each student attending a county school. With Free Lunch type waivers for people who are financially unable to afford the kids they’ve brought into this world.

Regardless of my above comments - I think the Schilling/Drake PAC is a dumb idea and pointless exercise.

I went to one of the meetings, hosted by Fredricks, a few years ago when they were still tossing around the James River Pipeline (give away to prospective Rt 20 South developers) as one of the options.

At that meeting it was pointed out by Fredricks that the Ragged Mountain Dam would have to be repaired (and money would have to be spent making those repairs) regardless of what other options/solutions were decided upon. Those repairs were “structural safety repairs” which he said were required by the Federal Government, and raising the Ragged Mountain Dam was an option which would kill two birds with one stone (that last bit of phrasing was mine not his).

What’s annoying as hell is the amount of money wasted on these do nothing studies, and the water rate increases which were the result of people conserving water to well during the summer droughts.

No doubt C-Ville and The Hook are willing to take this on, but nobody else is going to touch it.

I seriously doubt it- at least with regards to “The Hook”. The thread on this topic on the Hook’s website contains an unusually high number of “Deleted By Moderator” in the comments section. They also appended this notice at the bottom of the story:

Note: commentors are advised to avoid voicing potentially libelous statements.

And I’ve never ever seen that at the bottom of any of their other story/posts. They’re just as squeamish as the others.

re: prop 90

so .. you're in FAVOR of MOB RULE when they agree with you

but you are opposed to mob rule when they don't?

ha ha ha

I stick with Ray - no matter what.

If a majority of folks want to increase their taxes to pay for compensation then fine.

Such a thing would mean that ALL property owners would be willing to pay higher taxes to fund compensations and if all property owners felt that was in their best interests - then that would be fine.

If, on the other hand, those same property owners did not like the idea - that would be fine also.

and that's because

I support the precepts - the premise of our Democracy and the will of all property owners in matters of property rights.

"The power of repelling invasions, and making laws necessary for carrying that power into execution seems to include that of occupying those sites which are necessary to repel an enemy, observing only the amendment to the Constitution which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation... "


Thomas Jefferson.



Now consider that we are engaged in repelling an invasion of pollution or any other evil. We may take such proerty asnecessary to repel that invasion, provided it is paid for according to the constitution.

RH

However, you cannot cause harm to others by your activities on your property.

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

But you think it is OK to stand on your property and cause damage to others in defense of you rproperty.

Even if the damage to others far exceeds the damage defended against on your own property.

That is an activity on your proerty that damages others. The damage is every bit as real as whatever imagined damage you are defending against.

If you cannot cause harm to others by an activity on your proerty,then this is an activity that should be included in that proscription.

RH

How things are done now can change tomorrow, just like they changed from what was done yesterday.

What school libraries are today does not dictate or even suggest what they would be if government expanded their approach, added to their function, size, inter-library tools, staff, access.

That calls for imagination, not “It’s impossible because we aren’t set up for that.”

I was lucky to have an alternative education, one that urged me to think about creative problem solving. That’s a different path from being unable to envision change.

Don’t like combining the library with the schools? Come up with something else sustainable.

Your "rights" end at your property boundary and that's also what our founding fathers intended.

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

That is not what they said.
You are maing up things the founding fathers never said; indeed had Jefferson had his way therw would be no eminent domain.

What they said was that when proerty is taken for public use, it must be compensated.
That is what it actually says without you paraphrasing for them. It is the ONLY think they have to say about public proerty. Except that inventors and authors may have exclusive use of their ideas and writings (property) for a limited time.

In addition the Supreme Court in several cases has increasingly interpreted public use to mean public benefit, culminating in the Kelo case.

Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly forbids bill of attainder and expost facto laws. It is illegal to make a law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

By not compensating persons who were innocent at the time the law was passed, we are effectively punishing them for an innocent activity.

It is also illegal to create a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group.

The inexorable direction this is going is that government will someday have to compensate property loss caused in order to create a public benefit for others.

You have never responded as to why you would NOT want to pay compensation when one person loses much and many people gain a little.

What possible reason does the public have to bill public benefit to an individual or small group?

RH

It seems to me that it’s 3 to 3 for or against restoring the $159k. Too bad they didn’t approve a Home Depot when they had the chance.

Thankfully Council did what it should have done several years ago. The city owns the dam, not RSWA, and it is the city’s responsiblity to rebuild or modify Ragged Mountain, not RSWA’s. RSWA rents the dam and it is responsible for maintenance. We really need to dismantle RSWA and sell the water to the county as sewer treatment services as we do with UVA.

"Should the California Constitution be amended to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules, and limit government authority to take ownership of private property?"


Proposition 90, California initiative, conctitutional Amendment.


Failed to pass 47.7 to 53.3


Larry says my ideas are bizarre, but 47% of those who voted on this issue agree with me.

Sooner or later, this will pass, and then we will see what larry has to say about majority rule.

RH

As for the walking-distance to England Parking Lot:

What you were unable to see was the entrance's deceptive curve making the distance longer that it would seem (the road curls back on itself and there's no way to cross the "median" - although it looks like you can when viewed on Google Maps, you really can't). This entrance is also the Employee Entrance which is how I'm very familiar with it.

" The right to private property is one of the founding principles of our nation. "

I totally agree. However, you cannot cause harm to others by your activities on your property.

Your "rights" end at your property boundary and that's also what our founding fathers intended.

The right to private property is one of the founding principles of our nation. More importantly, it's crucial to the generation of wealth. The poor are able to build wealth through ownership of access and property. The average person develops more wealth through homeownership than through the stock market. The principle of private property does not simply mean a home or land. It means every man owns the fruit of his labor, owns his ideas, his conscience. He owns himself. At the heart of the master-slave relationship is the notion that some have the right to confiscate the property of others and give it to whomever they choose. And once government begins to infringe on our private property rights, you can be sure the rights to free speech and liberty are next.


Gordon Phillips

Editorial on NPR.

RH

Henry, this is correct: WAT's website is incorrect (unless they changed it)

The Grey Line (Route 1*) serves Busch Gardens England Charter Bus Pickup/Drop-off in both directions, and even has an official WAT bus stop sign. They even have time built in to the schedule to allow for this, which is why your Grey Line was already waiting on Elmhurst when your 116 arrived - it didn't need the Busch Gardens time. Think about it from a tourist point of view: why would you want to ride back to WAT Center via Newport News?

WAT only enters the park when open for the public. The bus stop signs you saw on U.S. 60 are for park employees (for which the park is open 24/7/365 mainly for the mechanics, gardeners, animal trainers, and administration staff) which was added, according to one of my then BG-coworkers, when there were complaints from workers needing to enter the park before season started.

Now, as for the Route 1 moniker: When I went to a William & Mary information session, I paid $1.50 for a ride + transfer (there were no day passes then) and the Grey Line that picked me up Elmhurst St, the transfer was marked Route 1. I transferred to the Blue Line at WAT Center (the Grey Line was a bit early so I got to see everyone) - the Blue Line had a passenger load that could give the 71 a run for its money - and my transfer was marked Route 2

" EVERYONE HAS POLLUTION THAT LEAVES THEIR PROPERTY. EVEN THE COUNTY DUMP. THEY CAN NO MORE PREVENT IT THAN PREVENT THE SUN FROM SHINING."

Let's say you own 1000 acres and you only poop right smack in the middle of it a couple times a week.

Now, let's suppose you invite 1000 of your friends to come live on that property and each one of them does their thing twice a week.

Do you see the difference Ray?

In the first example, chances are that you could put the most sophisticated monitoring system known to man and probably not be able to detect even one billionth of a part of pollution running off from that property.

But the 1000 would create literally a festering open sewer

so what's the difference?

Well, the difference is the impact.

If what you do on your 1000 acres does not impact others, then they leave you alone.

but if what you do on your 1000 acres causes your neighbors to come visiting for your scalp then they'll figure out how to fix your wagon pronto.

Yet in both cases.. we know that pollution is a "necessary" - .... "right"....

so both guys have the "right" to pollute?

now... let's suppose one of them is a little light in the loafers.... oh no.. forget that.

just concentrate on the first example.

The Log Cabin Republican Club of Virginia today applauded Gov. Bob McDonnell’s just-issued Executive Directive No. 1, which lays out in specific language his stated policy of employment nondiscrimination for executive branch employees. The Governor did not include sexual orientation in his previous Executive Order regarding employment discrimination for all state employees, basing that decision on his belief that he lacks the constitutional power to include sexual orientation in the order.

“This is certainly a step in the right direction,” said David Lampo, vice president of Log Cabin Republicans,” and certainly puts some meat on the bones of his stated policy of employment nondiscrimination.” Lampo stated that such clarification was absolutely essential in light of the recent letter issued by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, which not only ordered state colleges and universities to rescind their nondiscrimination policies but also called into question the Governor’s own nondiscrimination policy.

“While we applaud this development,” Lampo continued, “we continue to urge the Governor to support a bill like SB66 that would extend such employment protections to all state employees, not just those in the executive branch. That is the only fair and just outcome to this controversy, and it would end once and for all the Attorney General’s disgraceful attempts to intimidate state colleges and universities into dropping their entirely justified employment nondiscrimination policies.”

The club also thanked Lt. Governor Bill Bolling for his support of the Directive.

You were only allowed to pollute YOUR property and you can .. unless and until that pollution leaves your property and harms other properties.


=================================
That is what you think now. What happens when we discover new evidence? You would hold them responsible retroactively for damage no one new about.


EVERYONE HAS POLLUTION THAT LEAVES THEIR PROPERTY. EVEN THE COUNTY DUMP. THEY CAN NO MORE PREVENT IT THAN PREVENT THE SUN FROM SHINING.

Then of course, there is a slight problem with people who own no property.

Get real.

RH

Anonymous, pests that post anonymous comments, using copycat crap like, "You libs," are not given much sway at SLANTblog.

I would not treat the gays any different than we'd treat others.

The laws would apply equally to all.

Gays would be entitled to the same benefits that non-Gays get, health insurance, retirement benefits, living wills, etc for their partners.

The same would go for all other property rights.

and no one would be allowed to pee on other folks properties - without permission of course.

Some day, we'll be past this phobia about folks with different sexual preferences I hope and move on to the real problems that we need to address.

Lucky for us - the Va Constitution requires a balanced budget no matter how many legislators we have grabbing each other's butts - male or female or indeterminate.

I'm glad Mr. Cuccinelli did what he did... I won't have a problem at all deciding how to vote if/when he runs for Gov in the future. Problem solved on that deal.

I will pass it on....

Thanks for the Ghost Riders piece by the harpists who also happen to be twins. It was fantastic. My younger sisters are identical twins so that was neat to see.

Corey:

I think that the "poll" likely reflects what they see in their children's text books, what they observe regarding what they're being taught, and a general knowledge that what's being emphasized now is different than what they think should be emphasized.

Being so close to the subject, and being immersed in it on a daily basis, do you think there's a possibility that you've become desensitized to what is happening?

Another LGBT civil-rights leader just e-mailed us to point out that the directive covers only the executive branch, not all state workers, but then also called the move by McDonnell “a step in the right direction.”

We’re still trying to digest this news.

Thank your mom for that.

Equality Virginia CEO Jon Blair issued the following statement in response to the Governor’s issuance of Executive Directive #1 today:

“Equality Virginia is gratified that the Governor has responded positively to our call for action. The Governor took a major positive step forward today toward assuring that gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender workers will not be subject to discrimination in state employment. Equality Virginia applauds his implementation of a ’standard of conduct’ that recognizes that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional and establishes a strict prohibition against such discrimination in the state workforce. At the same time, however, the directive is silent regarding discrimination based on gender identity, and does not afford any protection to students at our state colleges and universities, so it is clear that there is much work still to be done.

“Accordingly, Equality Virginia will continue to urge the Governor and the legislature to work together with us to codify workplace protections for all gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender state employees and to support future legislation that protects Virginians from all discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations.

“Equality Virginia sincerely hopes that the Attorney General agrees that the Governor’s action today is within his authority and that he will defend the Governor’s enforcement of Executive Directive #1.”

Democrats aren't the hypocrites about the issue. Republicans want to persecute gays, Democrats just want to let them alone to have a life.

My understanding is that NBC29 broke the story. My supposition was that they may have broken the story knowing exactly who was involved and who they were married to. Indeed, I had thought that bad blood between NBC29 and their former anchor may have been the reason why this story came out in the news media in first place.

They did, after all, file a FOIA request of the ACPD to get the names of the officers involved. I doubt highly that they did not know that this officer was involved before they filed the request, but that doubt is based on pure conjecture and supposition.

Wonder why so many gays are Democrats then?

Wow. If that’s true (and I have no way of knowing), then that goes a long way towards explaining the awkwardness here.

The shame of this is that local media outlets are in the best position to research this kind of thing, and establish what’s rumor and what’s fact…but we can see some potential reasons why they won’t touch it. No doubt C-Ville and The Hook are willing to take this on, but nobody else is going to touch it.

Michael,

If you're right about the Inbound Gray Line, then WAT's website is wrong. See their listing of bus stops.

Even were that the case, you're arguing about maybe 50 yards.

As for the 121, the last of the two leaves NNTC at 6:45 A.M., too early unless you're on that very first 961 out of Cedar Grove. However, Monday I did come home on the Inbound 121 that left WTC at 5 P.M.

As an educator I think it would be interesting if this pole could have somehow looked at what the people think in inaccurate and what is being taught as "PC".

Sorry, Mike, but science has investigated the matter.

Looks great!

When will HR get a real transit system, with busses running until 11-12 p.m?

You guys are always tuned to FOX anyway so what's your problem. Besides, you must know that a colonoscopy is used to look at the inside of the colon and there will be no images anyone's hairy butt on television. Meanwhile you guys do come off as a bunch of assholes.

@Anon: if you're taking the 13, the last one is 5:20, not 4:20. Still, I see your point (I'm over by TCC Va Beach and have the same problem)

@FlyingRoadstar, Oh the drama over a 5% cut.
Personally, I think this community can up with the extra $244k (I think it is the amount) by gifts to the JMRL’s Firends. It really doesn’t take that much in gifts from people. A couple just gave Greene County $50k to help with budget shortfalls.

So this is in lieu of raising taxes? We’ll support our public servies through donations?

ok. I think it’s time to look for the passport.

Well, the topic is back to the dark ages.

Without defensible property rights, that is where we will be.

Gays, and Evangelicals, and Wing Nuts have the right to believe anything they want, and they have the right to be left alone with their thoughts and deeds.

They do not have the right to enforce their views or rub their activities in other peoples faces, unless they expect and allow the same treatment in return.

I doubt anyone wants to be treated the way the sign suggests, but when I read Larry's crazy communistic ideas about property rights, I feel pretty much like he is holding that sign, hateful as it is. his vies ar just as radical, just as dangerous, and just as wrong.

I think we are probably a lot closer to having a dealth penalty for people who steal than we are for people who sleep different from us.

Imagine tht we get new evidence tomorrow that gays really are a danger to all of the rest of us, and suppose that evidence is as strong as the evidence against tobacco.

Would we be justified in taking property away form them so that they cannot pollute us with their cohabitation?

Larry would say yes and I would say no. I believe that property rights are fundamental to all other rights, including who we choose to sleep with.

RH

There are a lot more than this! It is just a matter of time before Cuccinelli is caught.

Too bad this would never work for me because the last bus to TCC-Chesapeake on the 13 leaves Norfolk at 420.

"....you can pee until the cows come home (and they can also) as long as it does not pollute the creeks running onto others properties."

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

Nonsense, you would not say that about radioactive materials. Can I keep all the radioisotopes on my proerty I want, as long as it does not leave the property?

That is patently crazy.


If have the right to live, I have the right to pee. No one can prevent it unless they put me to death.

Pollution is going to happen and it is going to go somewhere, for a while, then it is going someplace else, and so on.

Eventually it is going to leave the property.

Everyone has the same right to not be damaged and the same obligation not to damage.

But the right not to be damaged is not unlimited. It is not unlimited because, hard as you try, you must release some pollution in order to live. Anything you do has some effect on others. You can no more prevent it than you can prevent breathing or peeing.

Therefore your right not to be damaged is equal to your right to do damage. You cannot demand that someone else limit their damage more than you limit yours.

At the most basic, face to face level that is the limiting factor.

Imagine everyone on the planet lived on one square yard. Each of us would be shoveling pollution off on our neighbors as vast as we could, and they would be shoveling it on their neighbors. No one could say no, because they all have equal rights, both to give and to get.

According to you, the masses cold gang up on one guy, saying that they have new knowledge that his pollution is worse than anyone elses, so they can make him stop without any compensation.

He is no longer allowed to shovel as fast as everyone else, so everyone else is better off, and he alone is worse off.

Eventually he either dies or goes someplace else. all of his immediate neighbors are mcuh better off, because they have a place to shovel to that isn't shoveling back. In turn, that maked THEIR next nearest nighbors a little better off.

Why, because they have effectively stolen this guys property.

It is just as if your county supervisor said to you that his plan for your property is to have someone wealthy buy it. In his opinion that will make everyone better off, because rich people can better afford conservation.


He is telling you that he is going to choke your opportunities to death. He is going to run you off so that your nearest neighbors can benefit, and by extension their neighbors as well.

At the same time, he is going to give other people more opportunities, in order to keep the economic engine from stalling out, to make up for the opportunities you lost. He has no choice in the matter because those people have to live - and they will pollute while doing it.

He is moving the boundaries, and the value of property just as sure as he was re-drawing a map. he is not doing his jo of protecting your property - equally with all others.

He is taking money out of your pocket and putting it in someone elses, and it is stealing.

But, if he simply agrees to compensate you, then he can still achieve his goals without stealing from you.

RH

Just stumbled on to this blog while fuming over the new proposed food tax.
I am a little concerned that the two first posts I have read, are so WEAK.
First, there is no spell check on the blog that I have seen and secondly,
If you are going to slam the gentleman, on his character or the ethics of his business - throw it out there so we can check the facts. Do not just sit back and sling mud.

And for anyone wishing to travel to Water Country, make a transfer to the Yellow Line at the BG England Parking Lot or WAT Center

HRT travelers in Newport News: the 121 takes you between NNTC and WAT Center twice in the morning and twice in the evening Monday - Friday excluding holidays. Due to internal squabbling, and WAT's mistrust of HRT (who can blame them?), this route hardly runs at all. The 121 stops at:
* NNTC
* Patrick Henry Mall
* WAT Center

Southside Riders outside of Norfolk (excluding 20 and 45 riders): getting back from BG, you better have a ride waiting for you because your cities don't feel people have anything to do in the evenings! Also, be reminded that the last 961 leaves NNTC at 9:15 PM arriving at Shitty Grove at 10:10 PM (the park closes at either 10 or 11 PM depending on what day it is during peak Summer season)

CORRECTION: Get off the #1 at the BG England Parking Lot

It seems like it’s an awkward rumor not only for the Police Dept to be dealing with, but also for the news media.

One of the officers disciplined, sergeant (now corporal) Scott Cox is married to newsplex (and former NBC29) anchor Beth Duffy, so no wonder mainstream media got squeamish all of a sudden. I figure they knew they had to report the story, so they got it out there early when there wasn’t a lot of information available and then let it drop, hoping it would go away.

I would urge the city residents to think long and hard about new taxes. As mentioned in previous comments, Mr. Rosen's suggestions will most likey not be repealed in two years. There is no doubt those taxes will be wasted in other areas. Much like our federal government, our local government should realize raising taxes in a poor economic environment WILL NOT INCREASE revenues, but slow growth. Mr. Rosen touts in his blogs to be a concerned "small business owner". His tax and spend ideology more closely resembles his time spent within the Washington BELTWAY. As a multi unit, multi concept restaurant owner, with locations across Virginia as well as other states, Roanoke City Meals tax is already one of the highest. WHY?

OK, now Peter is right: Boys, lets got back on the topic or do your own blog.

This property rights debate is based on a failure to embrace a shared meaning for words and, as Farmer John F. pointed out, a dangerous phobia grounded in a simplistic answer to complex questions that support a preconceived conclusion.

Of note on the original topic:

The right wingnuts were so anxious to paint the Donkey Clan as a bunch of bullies that they got into a Mess over Messa.

Then the Atty Gen hisself gets in trouble with the Governor and the Lt. Governor over his college letter.

Did someone say get religion the hell out of politics? As Groveton would say, it is a clown show.

Anyone want to bet there will not be a balanced budget by Saturday?

Observer

[...] Morale issues at shrinking VDOT | Augusta Free Press [...]

because that's not what we have.

We have tremendous and unparalleled opportunities in this country but they are not without some restrictions.

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

Now youa re just making stuff up at random.

If I was allowe to drive my tank onthe streets, and that right was subsequently taken away, my tank might be worth less money, and I should be compensated.

Presumably, everyone else on the road is safer and faster without that lumbering tank in the way, so even after a few million of them chip in a penny or so to compensate for my loss, they are still better off.

What exactly is the problem?

Why would you NOT want to compensate?

Unless you just like to steal.

RH

If you are well informed of with the term as favourably as benefits of Microsoft [url=http://microsoftexchangemail.skydx.com/2010/03/08/are-you-looking-for-hosting-microsoft-exchange/]Exchange Despatch [/url]
and you are thinking to deploy this sapid messaging & collaboration policy to disentangle your [url=http://microsoftexchangemail.skydx.com/2010/03/08/are-you-looking-for-hosting-microsoft-exchange/]email[/url] needs,
you should walk off charge of the following things.

The alleged rumor has been common knowledge is some circles for quite some time. In fact, I am amazed that it has taken this long for this to become public.

Cuccinelli gave correct legal advice to his client. Yeah, he should be burned at the stake.

Give me a break. You libs really sound like idiots going after the AG on this one. Go after the General Assembly, not the AG. He has no real power on this issue.

Unfortunately this isnt news to the RWSA board. Like the Bush administration with WMDs, they cherry picked data to suggest that we needed this $200 million boondoggle based on faulty population projections (see: biscuit run) and per capita water use projections, while lambasting dredging as a physical and economic impossibility. All in an effort to gain shared ownership of our water resources by Albemarle County.

Oh yeah, I know what’s coming…VDOT will respond with the answer that their superintendents will handle day-to-day operations at local offices. HAHAHAHAHA!!! Augusta Free Press needs to anonymously talk to several supers about how they feel about taking over office duties. I bet most will tell you that they have NO CLUE how to even begin handling the office and other duties that will come their way. Also, VDOT is supposed to have a main office somewhere that will handle all payroll and worker support. I hear it will be a skeleton crew handling the paperwork and the road worker (employee) is going to have to be a lot more responsible for paper work. That’s just great, when it snows “Jimmy” will be arguing with “Betty” in the main office about his time card instead of plowing. Or the super will be trying to figure out this mess instead of directing snow removal operations.
Like I said before, kudos to the people who sold state equipment (like, umm…extra heavy equip that could have been used this winter during the devastating snow storms), laid off necessary workers and continue to keep others in layoff limbo…you are doing a great job, I just hope your jobs are next!

This is why we brought this up, to see if there was more to this story than we were hearing officially. Thanks for the comments. It seems that more digging is in order.

I lost my recent post due to a computer glitch so this is the condensed version.

The main focus of the comment was — VDOT is NOT telling the laid off workers anything. Emails from VDOT to the laid off workers…NOT happening. My husband is one of those workers and we have NO CLUE what the heck is going on. He is suffering from severe depression and mood swings, they just don’t care.

One recent rumor suggests that VDOT is rethinking the third round of layoffs after the large snow totals recently. Ask them where that rumor came from and how that affects moral?!

FYI — Also, next year your local VDOT office phones will NOT be answered by local people. You will be lucky to get out of voice mail hell. Your call will go to Richmond, I believe and I wish you luck getting your complaint heard or resolved. Virginia we are in trouble!!!

Call Richmond or whoever will listen about VDOT taking away your ability to call your local office!!! VDOT will simply say, “Gee it’s been like this for almost a year and we’ve had no problems”. Yeah, easy to say when you implement this in April, and it snows in November, 8 months later. Getting rid of the workers who answer the phones and run the offices is super smart VDOT…good work!

Augusta Free Press needs to sniff around about the above comments and issues, I want answers to the questions and VDOT doesn’t share them with the workforce like they say they do!!!

I like that dredging is being considered but still think that the 100 year old dam will have to be replaced. I’m not yet convinced it can simply be repaired.

That said I’ll wait and see what the experts will say about it.

President Obama signed Justice Keenan’s commission on Tuesday, March 9, and she is scheduled to be sworn in today, March 10, according to the office of the 4th Circuit executive.

It's doubtful Connolly has done any polling yet. He's not being primaried and the Republicans are pretty divided over Herrity and Fimian. However, the impressions I've heard from Dems is that Connolly will have to run a good race but is in a decently safe position. Republicans I know tend to think they have a good shot but it all depends on the economy and the national political winds.

Basically, everything needs to go perfectly for Republicans to win this seat. Connolly, by contrast, has quite a bit of leeway and unless everything gets a lot worse for Dems in general - like the economy dumping again - he'll at least squeak by.

Right now, I'll predict Connolly 53% - Herrity 47%. Connolly 57% - Fimian 43%.

Jack,

I never gave a thought to eating them, frankly, as they're just too small for that purpose. Never once felt bad about killing them as they are the absolute pests of the avian world and aggressive as hell against other birds. They ran off all of my cavity nesters in short order, which lead to the grand campaign to rid them in the first place. BTW, the males are pretty easy to identify once you practice a little. Of course, they happen to be the least likely to stay still long enough for a good shot, but there you have it.

The only birds able to resist the sparrows so far are my pair of mourning doves. No one messes with the doves; they're like Fat Albert for birds.

Best of luck, and do tell us what they taste like when and if.

BTW, if you're curious, the way that I got the 3 was to use a pellet pistol over baited ground. I would sit absolutely still with the pistol loaded and resting in shooting position on my knee until one settled in to eat. They're worse than turkeys for being flighty, so only small, small movements were possible without sending them all whooshing away. I usually was successful if I could remain still for about 40 minutes to an hour. It was good training for squirrel hunting, actually.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but can the General Assembly elect Mims to fill Keenan’s seat before she official resigns from the Court? Although she has been confirmed by the US Senate, the President must still issue her commission and then she has to official submit her letter stating her intent to resign or retire effective on a given date. Neither of these things has occurred yet.

BWS - put it another way, the government just paid itself (USPS) to significantly increase the numbers of people that will fill out the census form. So, not really a steep price at all.

If the case is appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, I think it will be reversed in a heartbeat. This is about as clear a textbook case of misnomer as I’ve ever seen.

The Rockingham County School Board has no spine. Most of them are Republican anyway so they're not going to criticize their very own boys.
These are the same folks who gave a wink and nod approval to pay Delicate Lohr to "motivate" the teachers. I guess that bribe didn't work, huh.

It’s fascinating to see people suggesting public libraries are a bad idea and a waste of taxpayer money. Do you really think that? Really? Public libraries are a very tangible result of taxes.

For those suggesting they just go away … have you been to one recently? They aren’t exactly posh. They scrape by. Perhaps justifiably so, but it’s hard to imagine anyone could back up an argument that they waste the money they are given.

Free books. To anyone. Anytime. Just bring them back and get more. How can you be against that?

Plenty of people don’t want to feed or house the homeless. They should buy their own food like me! They should pay rent like me!

But you won’t let them borrow free books on your dime? It’s not like giving a guy $5 on the street and you assume he buys beer. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. With the library, you’re just giving the guy books.

For Pete’s sake, give them a book! And put those books in a library they have a reasonable chance of physically getting to.

You can also sell the sediment as a very good topsoil. You can also do the dredging over and over again. Whereas forcibly taking land away from people is forever. Someone needs to smack down the RWSA board and remind them this is not about creating a legacy for them.

You know what I love about all of your "Male Beauty" posts? All of the men are truly beautiful. You have great taste.
And what I also love is that you feature these beauties in states of undress, but you don't show any completely naked, with everything their mama gave them exposed. No need to do that. Give me a beautiful face and torso any day. Thanks what I always look at first.
Thanks for keeping your blog tasteful and "beautiful."

Couldn't agree with you more on this one. Generally, I like my men hairy chested, but this young man looks fine, if you know what I mean. He can't sing worth you-know-what, but he sure does have a body I could look at for a long, long time.
Thanks for sharing.
And, BTW, thanks for titling these posts "Male Beauty." So many men aren't just handsome, they are absolutely beautiful. There's no other word for it.

And it is interesting that they did a general election survey three months before a Republican primary. They also did not release how Herrity did against Connolly which means that this poll must show a huge lead by Herrity. Is that believable?

The key to this poll is how they define a "likely voter". There is no comparable model of a contested 11th CD race with no other statewide contest on the ballot. So I assume they screened the most regular voter and have a skewed older sample. We have no idea who is going to show up. It could be over 50% turnout. Does this sample reflect that?

Gerry was quick to release Celinda Lake's polls in 2008 in both the primary and general election. If what Fimian is reporting is way off, we should see something from Connolly countering it. If not, this might be closer to reality that it looks at first blush.

" But according to you, any opportunity that I legally buy or earn can be taken away from me at any time without compensation. All it takes is somebody else to decide."

You cannot buy what is not for sale and no one is going to sell you the absolute right to pollute no matter what.

do you think just because you can afford to buy a tank that you can drive it on the streets?

Money won't buy you the right to drive a tank on the streets.

You think that if you have the money for the tank - then you can of course drive it - ...
anywhere you want or you are being "denied" your "rights".

Lesson:

Government says "We need to raise taxes (sorry "fees") or else Virginia will cease to exist."

People who don't pay taxes ask "How high?"

Not really news.

" If yuu think about it, those are both the same problem, because if I pollute, no matter how small an amount, someday we migh conclude that it is stealing, damaging others proerty, increasing an unpaid for externality."

Ray - you can pee until the cows come home (and they can also) as long as it does not pollute the creeks running onto others properties.

You keep saying "no pollution" and that's not true.

You can do one heck of a lot of "polluting" of your own property than will naturally convert back to harmless byproducts before it leaves your property.

but at which point, pollution does start to leave your property then others get to become involved in restrictions.

Because Ray.. you never had the right to pollute THEIR properties to start with.

You were only allowed to pollute YOUR property and you can .. unless and until that pollution leaves your property and harms other properties.

There is no late changing rule here nor a "regulatory "taking"".

No one is taking anything from you when they tell you to stop polluting other people's properties because you never had the right to pollute them to start with.

Anytime pollution leaves your property - you do not decide what is okay or what is not, what you must pollute, what you cannot help, what you must "live to do".. NADA

once the effluent leaves your property - others decide - and you listen.

because that's not what we have.

We have tremendous and unparalleled opportunities in this country but they are not without some restrictions.

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

But according to you, any opportunity that I legally buy or earn can be taken away from me at any time without compensation. All it takes is somebody else to decide.

What we have is not communism, yet. The supreme court at least recognizes some level of regulatory taking.

What you advocate is pretty much equal to full blown communism in which the people have prior claim to anything they want to take.

RH

Cluster weapons, like mines, are the gift that keeps giving. They tend to remain long after the situation where they were used is history.

Go look at Lebanon for a textbook example.

the vast majority of people

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

It is not OK to steal just because the majority want it done.

It still violates the spirit of the constitution and what it says about property, and the spirit of the rulings on regulatory taking.

Regulatory stealing does exist an governemtns have been punished for it. That much you cannot deny.

The only thing you have left to argue about is how small an amount will we allow to be stolen before we agree it isn't worth the trouble to worry about.

While we are at it, we can agree on how small an amount of pollution we will allow, before it is too small to worry about.

If yuu think about it, those are both the same problem, because if I pollute, no matter how small an amount, someday we migh conclude that it is stealing, damaging others proerty, increasing an unpaid for externality.

Whatever the value of that small amount is, it is equal to the smallest value of proerty you should be willing to protect.

RH

" Why not just come out and admit that what you propose is a communist state"

because that's not what we have.

We have tremendous and unparalleled opportunities in this country but they are not without some restrictions.

Mr. Griffin:

Thank you for your comment. Do you have a citation for these statistics? I am skeptical of #'s that are thrown around, especially in criminal issues like this one. (have you considered the cost when every single defendant elects to try a case rather than except a plea deal? it's very high)

Let me respectfully raise the issue of proportionality which is often overlooked. As you are likely aware, DUI is a misdemeanor. That means we assume the person that commits the crime -- assuming they are not a repeat offender -- is given a second chance. We don't ruin their life for a single incident.

However, you assume in your analysis that a "first-time offender" for DUI is a repeat criminal. We don't do that anywhere else in our State Code and I reject that concept.

If the focus is all about safety, we could make DUI a felony (perhaps a death penalty offense) and have long-term mandatory sentences for a first offense. That would certainly "save lives." Except that it wouldn't. Nor would it save the state money.

To summarize, we disagree but I thank you again for commenting.

Mr. Griffin:

Thank you for your comment. Do you have a citation for these statistics? I am skeptical of #'s that are thrown around, especially in criminal issues like this one. (have you considered the cost when every single defendant elects to try a case rather than except a plea deal? it's very high)

Let me respectfully raise the issue of proportionality which is often overlooked. As you are likely aware, DUI is a misdemeanor. That means we assume the person that commits the crime -- assuming they are not a repeat offender -- is given a second chance. We don't ruin their life for a single incident.

However, you assume in your analysis that a "first-time offender" for DUI is a repeat criminal. We don't do that anywhere else in our State Code and I reject that concept.

If the focus is all about safety, we could make DUI a felony (perhaps a death penalty offense) and have long-term mandatory sentences for a first offense. That would certainly "save lives." Except that it wouldn't. Nor would it save the state money.

To summarize, we disagree but I thank you again for commenting.

Mr. Griffin:

Thank you for your comment. Do you have a citation for these statistics? I am skeptical of #'s that are thrown around, especially in criminal issues like this one. (have you considered the cost when every single defendant elects to try a case rather than except a plea deal? it's very high)

Let me respectfully raise the issue of proportionality which is often overlooked. As you are likely aware, DUI is a misdemeanor. That means we assume the person that commits the crime -- assuming they are not a repeat offender -- is given a second chance. We don't ruin their life for a single incident.

However, you assume in your analysis that a "first-time offender" for DUI is a repeat criminal. We don't do that anywhere else in our State Code and I reject that concept.

If the focus is all about safety, we could make DUI a felony (perhaps a death penalty offense) and have long-term mandatory sentences for a first offense. That would certainly "save lives." Except that it wouldn't. Nor would it save the state money.

To summarize, we disagree but I thank you again for commenting.

Mr. Griffin:

Thank you for your comment. Do you have a citation for these statistics? I am skeptical of #'s that are thrown around, especially in criminal issues like this one. (have you considered the cost when every single defendant elects to try a case rather than except a plea deal? it's very high)

Let me respectfully raise the issue of proportionality which is often overlooked. As you are likely aware, DUI is a misdemeanor. That means we assume the person that commits the crime -- assuming they are not a repeat offender -- is given a second chance. We don't ruin their life for a single incident.

However, you assume in your analysis that a "first-time offender" for DUI is a repeat criminal. We don't do that anywhere else in our State Code and I reject that concept.

If the focus is all about safety, we could make DUI a felony (perhaps a death penalty offense) and have long-term mandatory sentences for a first offense. That would certainly "save lives." Except that it wouldn't. Nor would it save the state money.

To summarize, we disagree but I thank you again for commenting.

Mr. Griffin:

Thank you for your comment. Do you have a citation for these statistics? I am skeptical of #'s that are thrown around, especially in criminal issues like this one. (have you considered the cost when every single defendant elects to try a case rather than except a plea deal? it's very high)

Let me respectfully raise the issue of proportionality which is often overlooked. As you are likely aware, DUI is a misdemeanor. That means we assume the person that commits the crime -- assuming they are not a repeat offender -- is given a second chance. We don't ruin their life for a single incident.

However, you assume in your analysis that a "first-time offender" for DUI is a repeat criminal. We don't do that anywhere else in our State Code and I reject that concept.

If the focus is all about safety, we could make DUI a felony (perhaps a death penalty offense) and have long-term mandatory sentences for a first offense. That would certainly "save lives." Except that it wouldn't. Nor would it save the state money.

To summarize, we disagree but I thank you again for commenting.

Mr. Griffin:

Thank you for your comment. Do you have a citation for these statistics? I am skeptical of #'s that are thrown around, especially in criminal issues like this one. (have you considered the cost when every single defendant elects to try a case rather than except a plea deal? it's very high)

Let me respectfully raise the issue of proportionality which is often overlooked. As you are likely aware, DUI is a misdemeanor. That means we assume the person that commits the crime -- assuming they are not a repeat offender -- is given a second chance. We don't ruin their life for a single incident.

However, you assume in your analysis that a "first-time offender" for DUI is a repeat criminal. We don't do that anywhere else in our State Code and I reject that concept.

If the focus is all about safety, we could make DUI a felony (perhaps a death penalty offense) and have long-term mandatory sentences for a first offense. That would certainly "save lives." Except that it wouldn't. Nor would it save the state money.

To summarize, we disagree but I thank you again for commenting.

Mr. Griffin:

Thank you for your comment. Do you have a citation for these statistics? I am skeptical of #'s that are thrown around, especially in criminal issues like this one. (have you considered the cost when every single defendant elects to try a case rather than except a plea deal? it's very high)

Let me respectfully raise the issue of proportionality which is often overlooked. As you are likely aware, DUI is a misdemeanor. That means we assume the person that commits the crime -- assuming they are not a repeat offender -- is given a second chance. We don't ruin their life for a single incident.

However, you assume in your analysis that a "first-time offender" for DUI is a repeat criminal. We don't do that anywhere else in our State Code and I reject that concept.

If the focus is all about safety, we could make DUI a felony (perhaps a death penalty offense) and have long-term mandatory sentences for a first offense. That would certainly "save lives." Except that it wouldn't. Nor would it save the state money.

To summarize, we disagree but I thank you again for commenting.

Mr. Griffin:

Thank you for your comment. Do you have a citation for these statistics? I am skeptical of #'s that are thrown around, especially in criminal issues like this one. (have you considered the cost when every single defendant elects to try a case rather than except a plea deal? it's very high)

Let me respectfully raise the issue of proportionality which is often overlooked. As you are likely aware, DUI is a misdemeanor. That means we assume the person that commits the crime -- assuming they are not a repeat offender -- is given a second chance. We don't ruin their life for a single incident.

However, you assume in your analysis that a "first-time offender" for DUI is a repeat criminal. We don't do that anywhere else in our State Code and I reject that concept.

If the focus is all about safety, we could make DUI a felony (perhaps a death penalty offense) and have long-term mandatory sentences for a first offense. That would certainly "save lives." Except that it wouldn't. Nor would it save the state money.

To summarize, we disagree but I thank you again for commenting.

Mr. Griffin:

Thank you for your comment. Do you have a citation for these statistics? I am skeptical of #'s that are thrown around, especially in criminal issues like this one. (have you considered the cost when every single defendant elects to try a case rather than except a plea deal? it's very high)

Let me respectfully raise the issue of proportionality which is often overlooked. As you are likely aware, DUI is a misdemeanor. That means we assume the person that commits the crime -- assuming they are not a repeat offender -- is given a second chance. We don't ruin their life for a single incident.

However, you assume in your analysis that a "first-time offender" for DUI is a repeat criminal. We don't do that anywhere else in our State Code and I reject that concept.

If the focus is all about safety, we could make DUI a felony (perhaps a death penalty offense) and have long-term mandatory sentences for a first offense. That would certainly "save lives." Except that it wouldn't. Nor would it save the state money.

To summarize, we disagree but I thank you again for commenting.

not me Ray - The Supreme Court, the Congress and our State Legislators

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

You are wrong.

1) The Supreme court has already upheld cases of regulatory taking and demanded that government make restitution.

2) Even after the Supreme Court upheld KELO, (where compensation was paid) the situation was so egregious that many state legislatures enacted new laws to make sure it did not happen again.


The only thing you have left to argue about is how big a taking constitutes a taking. So far, the Supreme court set a high bar, and many (but not all) jurisdictions have elected to skate under the bar, as if the concept doesn't exist if you don;t look for it.

But some jurisdictions have the moral turpitude to do what is right, in spite of what the rules might let them get away with.

It is right in the preamble to the constitution: you have a right to live and make a living - equal to anybody else.

If our state and county representatives have managed to circumvent that, so far,, then they misunderstand what their pricipal duties are: to protect people and their property, equally, without malice or pejudice.

RH

I am the last person who'd you expect to see defending Sarah Palin, BUT, I agree with the commenters that said this really isn't relevant. If she had taken HER family over the border for health care, I'd understand the outcry and outrage, but she was taken over the border by her parents as a child. It in NO way makes her a hypocrite, but it is ironic.

Again, let's stop with the knee-jerk finger pointing, and instead, look at facts so that we can remain leve-headed so that civil discourse can be had.

Why not just come out and admit that what you propose is a communist state in which property ownership is a meaningless and valueless pretense? One where the state can relieve you of your property at any time for any reason.

RH

" You are not claiming that the county has the right to re-arrange property lines without compensation, are you? "

not me Ray - The Supreme Court, the Congress and our State Legislators

this has been argued before and you lost.

the vast majority of people - also property owners - many of them owners of undeveloped property support this.

if they did not support it, we would elect people who would change the law.

we were all told - from the get go - you would not be paid for land-use re-designations unless you had an approval in hand.

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

That is not true.

My wife's property was owned and paid for long before zoning evfer existed existed, before building permits existed, and before land use was ever thought of or worried about. Every one of those rules was imposed upon the owner after the fact.

Besides that, it does not matter what any owner was told or when they were told. The fact remains that property had one value before, and the relative value of all properties was re-arranged by virtue of those rules, just as if the property lines themselves had been re-arranged.

You are not claiming that the county has the right to re-arrange property lines without compensation, are you? But what youare supporting amounts to exactly the same thing.

we are not arguing about whether you have a building approval in hand. That is another event entirely. The fact remains that with or without that approval, the value of the proerty has been reduced. that was done in order to provide benefits to people who do not own the proep[rty.

It is stealing.

We have seen examples here where the building permit was issued and THEN the zoning was changed.

This is stealing twice. Once because the value of the proerty is reduced and once because the value of the building permit is reduced.

Once upon a time, murder was not against the law. Whenwe got smart enough we made laws and we made laws against murder. But we did not go back and punish someone for murder comitted before we made the law. But that is what you think is OK when it comes to land use.

There is no logical or moral valid claim for prior or superior rights if all property rights are equal.



Listento what you are saying "[It is all right to steal] because
we were all told - from the get go - you would not be paid [if and when the county decides to steal for us for any reason at any time.]


I'm sorry, telling me that you are going to steal from me at your whim does not mean that you are not stealing.


RH