Monthly Archives: March 2011

Well done

Posted on by |

I am taking a page from Supervisor Miller’s blog, and finding something nice to say about Mr. Delgaudio: He is good at what he does, which is orchestrating political stunts and getting people to act contrary to their own interests.

Published in the Blue Ridge Leader on March 10, 2011.

Dear Editor,

Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio and the so-called Loudoun “Environmental” Council really turned out the troops on March 1. Let’s see who they were, and what they have in common:

Residents of Raspberry Falls were there. Their homes were built over porous limestone, and their wells are contaminated. Their signs read “Halt building permits until we have a water solution.” Mr. Delgaudio aggressively opposed the limestone overlay district that would have prevented this catastrophic development over limestone.
Continue reading →

Stunned

Posted on by |

Thinking of those caught in the earthquake and tsunami.

Irony alert – can I get a witness?

Posted on by |

Back in 2005, a new program designed to remove impediments to cooperation between local Arab, Muslim and Sikh communities and law enforcement agencies was presented to the FBI. The Partnership for Prevention and Community Safety (PfP), “developed with considerable input from law enforcement and local communities, quickly gained the support it needed within the agency and was green-lighted for funding.”

But then a powerful member of Congress stepped in and, with one blow, killed the initiative. According to those with knowledge of the program, the congressman acted at the behest of an influential and strident anti-Muslim propagandist. This week, in an ironic twist, that same congressman is slated to speak at a congressional hearing looking into the allegation that American Muslims are insufficiently cooperative with law enforcement.

The “powerful member of Congress” was Frank Wolf. Continue reading →

More on Commenting

Posted on by |

I just tested posting an anonymous comment, and it went into the Spam folder.

I will be checking the Spam and Moderation folders a few times each day, so please have patience if your post doesn’t show up right away.

 

 

A better idea for a Homeland Security hearing

Posted on by |

Sadly, it appears we have attracted a commenter who would like to have a tiny (in so many respects) Loudoun version of Rep. Peter King’s execrable hearings, hearings that further target a minority community already in the crosshairs of a profoundly ignorant hate movement. The small-minded individual in question has been placed on moderation for using exactly the kind of slurs that are the premise of those hearings, scheduled to begin on Thursday.

Eugene Robinson calls this exactly what it is:

Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is about to convene hearings whose premise offends our nation’s founding ideals and whose targets are law-abiding members of a religious minority. King has decided to investigate Islam.

Continue reading →

Splitting Leesburg Defined

Posted on by |

Over on Without Supervision, Supervisor Stevens Miller’s blog, there has been great discussion of the various plans, requirements and interests behind the Redistricting issue currently before the Board of Supervisors. One of the flashpoints that has come up is the issue of “Splitting Leesburg.” In many of these discussions, parties are talking past each other because there is confusion over what it means to split Leesburg. For example:

I heard repeatedly yesterday at the hearing that Leesburg shouldn’t be split and frankly it was driving my crazy–Leesburg is ALREADY split into two districts. –Matt L.

Matt is correct, as currently configured there are residents of the Town who do not vote in the Leesburg Magisterial (Supervisor) District, but rather vote in Catoctin. This is an artifact of the lines drawn in the year 2000 that were not able to account for later growth and annexation, which changed the Town’s borders without a concurrent change in the Supervisor District. Continue reading →

Workers have rights

Posted on by |

Originally published in the Purcellville Gazette, March 4, 2011
By John P. Flannery

Con Ed Union Workers - "Dig we must for a growing New York."

My grandfather, Charles Flannery, worked for Con Edison in New York, and was a member of a union; his union negotiated for working conditions, for pay, sick and retirement benefits.

My paternal grandmother had her children at home in her walk up apartment in the Bronx.

My grandfather told me, “we’d never have been able to raise your father and his brother and his sisters if it wasn’t for the union at Con Ed; we couldn’t have bargained for these wages and benefits individually.”

Ultimately, my father and his brother worked for Con Ed, and so did my younger brother Charles for a time.

Edward Bennet Williams, a great criminal defense lawyer, used to say to his clients, “We all hang together, or we all hang separately.” Continue reading →

Hello to our new readers and commenters!

Posted on by |

We’re glad to have you here, and we’re glad to have you join in on discussions.

Commenting is open to all with the following caveats, which will be available for viewing at all times on our Comment Policy page:

  • Anonymity is allowed, but we prefer signed comments.
  • Anonymous comments and comments with links may go into moderation. Please be patient if you don’t see your comment right away.
  • No spam.
  • No ad hominem attacks.
  • Don’t get offended if we call you out for using belittling  (racist, sexist, homophobic, disablist) language. It’s not censorship; it’s basic decency.

I’m Liz Miller, also known as The Doorbell Queen. You can read my Disclaimer and Disclosures on my other site. They all apply to this site too.

 

Frank Wolf, wrong side of history

Posted on by |

Correction below: The New Republic is most definitely not The National Review. I was thinking of an entirely different article. My mistake.

Crossposted at Equality Loudoun.

Frank Wolf thinks that the Justice Department should still be defending Section 3 of DOMA in court:

“Congress has a reason to be concerned” over the Justice Department’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) said Tuesday.

Wolf told Attorney General Eric Holder at an appropriations subcommittee hearing that the Obama administration had abandoned its duty.

“It almost looks like a political decision,” Wolf said. “I think it’s inappropriate and it’s a bad decision.”

I can understand why he’s concerned. It means that if anyone is going to argue in defense of DOMA, it will have to be Congress. That will be an uncomfortable position to be in.

First, let’s clear up any lingering misconceptions resulting from uninformed statements by people who should know better. First, the Obama administration has not stopped enforcing DOMA, nor has DOMA been ruled unconstitutional; second, the decision to no longer defend it only concerns Section 3 of DOMA (the provision that denies federal benefits to same sex couples legally married under state law), not the entire act; third, an executive branch decision to no longer defend a law is not unprecedented; and fourth, the decision does not represent a change in the president’s views (he has always opposed DOMA), only a change in circumstance with regard to the cases under court review.

That change in circumstance is this: in previous cases in which the Justice Department has defended DOMA, the level of scrutiny had already been established by precedent in those courts. In these new cases, it has not. Therefore, anyone in the position of defending the law in these cases must first establish that the lowest level of scrutiny – rational basis review, which basically means that the government doesn’t have to come up with a reason for the discrimination in question – is the appropriate one. What the Justice Department is saying is that they don’t think that can be done anymore, given the changes in the legal landscape since the passage of DOMA in 1996 – but that Congress is welcome to try to do so if that is what they want to do.
Continue reading →