Quote

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

You Don't Want It? We'll Take It.

The Franklin County Planning Commission has voted down a proposal to build and develop a hotel/golf resort complex. It got in the way of the "plan" apparently:

Planners frown on Franklin Co. resort
By Ruth L. Tisdale, The Roanoke Times


In a narrow 4-3 vote, the Franklin County Planning Commission voted Tuesday night to recommend denying the 605-acre LakeWatch Spa and Resort development.

[The developer] proposed changing the 605 acres from A-1 agricultural zoning to a planned commercial development. He also had eight special-use permits for boat storage, residential housing units and a shopping center.

But those permits were never voted on because the commission voted to deny the development.

The proposed Spa and Resort development featured a condominium hotel, a conference center, a golf course and a wakeboard cable park as well as single- and multi-family residential units.

But changing the area to a planned commercial development distinction did not coincide with the comprehensive plan, planning commission member Bob Camicia said.

"This was expected to be residential, not commercial," he said. "This goes against the character of the land." (link)
This farm field has character ...

And the character of the land, though not being disturbed should someone come in and put some more double-wides on it, would suffer mightily if a golf course and hotel were to be built. It would ruin the ambience, apparently.

Message to Developer: Franklin County has a plan for ... well, it's hard to say. But Bland County welcomes growth. And we're not that far away. Bring your 18-hole course and your luxury hotel over here. Both should complement our new Dollar General quite well.

Even better, the conference center should alleviate the overcrowding conditions at Lindy's barber shop.

Maybe It's The $1200 Haircuts

Can the poor in this country relate to a guy who is fabulously wealthy and lives in the lap of luxury but who has his limo driver intentionally detour occasionally through urban areas (with tinted windows up, doors locked, and disinfectant in hand) (oh, and TV cameras in tow) on his way to fundraisers so as to get a feel for the mood of the oppressed and downtrodden in this country?

Apparently not:
Despite Focus on Poverty, Edwards Trails Among the Poor
By Politics, The Washington Post


As Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards ramps up his anti-poverty initiative this weekend, he will be confronting a deep popularity deficit among his party's poorest voters.


In the most recent Washington Post-ABC poll, the former senator from North Carolina was trounced by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents with household incomes below $20,000. Clinton had the support of 55 percent, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) drew 20 percent and Edwards 10 percent. (link)
Tough luck.

Maybe if he went out and bought Mogen David, the company that makes Mad Dog, that should show the poor some kinship, right? Or maybe if he started allowing his field hands to come up to the Big House for water once a day, that might ...

A Force To Be Reckoned With?

The Libertarian Party, long a bastion of kooks, anarchists, and dope smokers, may be coming of age:

Libertarian Party ranks up 18% in '07
By Elizabeth Miller, The Washington Times


Polls show that fewer Americans are calling themselves Republicans or Democrats and the number of Americans unaffiliated with either party has reached an all-time high — good news for Libertarians, say officials of the nation's third-largest party.

The Libertarian Party has had an 18 percent increase in membership since January, said Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee.

More Americans are joining the Libertarian Party because they are "disillusioned with typical party politics and are looking for a change," Mr. Cory said. (link)


This trend is understandable, considering the fact that there is no conservative party in this country today.

As for libertarianism, as long as people don't get too caught up in party orthodoxy, it can be quite alluring. Even I, in my weaker moments, believe that government is the root of all evil.

That, to me (I'm lucid again), is the difference between conservatives and liberals: We believe in limited government. They believe in the absence of government.

After enough dope, that probably begins to make sense.

Why Not

They can't get anything else done.

Besides, Al Qaeda is in need of their help:
Senate eyes Iraq pullout once again
By Sean Lengell, The Washington Times


Senate Democrats yesterday called for withdrawing most U.S. troops from Iraq by April 30 — less than two months after a similar measure was soundly defeated — as the White House ... (link)
Meanwhile in Iraq, where the war is being fought and won ...

A Debate? Or Choir Practice?

This should bring us a healthy and contentious disputation of opposing ...

Oh, what am I saying. Does anyone think there's going to be anything coming out of a Democrat "debate" of gay issues except pandering to the point of embarrassment?

But they'll call it a debate just the same:
Gay Focus In Dems' Debate
By Charles Hurt, New York Post Wire Services


July 11, 2007 -- Washington - Democratic White House front-runners have agreed to a debate next month devoted to the issues affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, according to two leading activist groups.

"From the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' to the recent signing of a civil-unions bill in New Hampshire, there is no doubt that voters will demand answers to important questions affecting our community," Solmonese said. (link)
I can just picture the rousing arguments going back and forth ...

Hillary: "I'm very supportive of gay rights."

Obama: "I'm even more supportive."

Dodd: "I kissed one once."

Biden: "I want my next child to marry one."

Kucinich: "I have latent tendencies ..."

Yeah, it should be a lively "debate."

James Webb Should Take Heed

He won't of course. Being anti-war (and, at the last hour, a liberal) is what got our junior senator where he got, so he'll stick to his newfound script.

But I wonder if the man ever looks down the road to see what his proposals involving the war on terror will bring.

Ralph Peters has. And the prospects are frightening:

The 'Quit Iraq' Caucus
By Ralph Peters, The New York Post

July 11, 2007 -- Pelosi & Reid: Pushing for a pullout that's sure to yield vast carnage.

Even as our troops make serious progress against al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and other extremists, Congress - including Republican members - is sending the terrorists a message: "Don't lose heart, we'll save you!"

... if Republicans are rushing to desert our troops and spit on the graves of heroes, the Democratic Party at least has been consistent - they've supported our enemies from the start, undercutting our troops and refusing to explain in detail what happens if we flee Iraq.

So I'll tell you what happens: massacres.

Given that Senate Majority Misleader Harry Reid and Commissar of the House Nancy Pelosi won't tell us what they foresee after we quit, let me lay it out:

* After suffering a strategic defeat, al-Qaeda-in-Iraq comes back from the dead ... and gets to declare a strategic victory over the Great Satan.

* Iran establishes hegemony over Iraq's southern oil fields and menaces the other Persian Gulf producers.

* Our troops will have died in vain. Of course, that doesn't really matter to much of anyone in Washington, Democrat or Republican.

* A slaughter of the innocents - so many dead, the bodies will never be counted. (link)
Peters might have added the fact that al Qaeda would quickly begin moving closer to our shores its operations that are intended to bring about the slaughter American men, women, and children.

But all this is lost on those, like Webb, who simply want out of Iraq. What happens after that occurs is George Bush's problem. And will be his fault ...

***
Read also "The Fantasy Of Retreat"

***

Real also "The Senate: Chamber of Shame"

***

Read also "Moving Forward In Iraq"

Global Warming Problem Solved!

Great news. Congress has negotiated a compromise that will head off the scourge of global warming:
Compromise Measure Aims to Limit Global Warming
By John M. Broder, The New York Times


Washington, July 10 — Influential senators from both parties, backed by unions and some large electrical utilities, will unveil a new global warming proposal on Wednesday that could form the basis of a climate change compromise that has so far eluded Congress.

The complex measure, sponsored by Senators Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, would put in place a firm limit on emissions of heat-trapping gases that most scientists say are causing the warming of the planet. Like other so-called cap-and-trade schemes, it would allow companies to buy and sell the right to emit carbon dioxide, which is seen as the chief culprit in global warming. (link)
The fact that the rabidly liberal Times had to use the phrase "most scientists say ..." should give these politicians reason to pause before they put more restrictions on an already hard-pressed American economy. But then they're politicians, not intellectuals.

But this is not a bad development. If you recall, this same bunch solved - overnight - the global problem with acid rain by hammering out a compromise on legislation. One law was passed and the rain - across the seven seas - was acidic no more.

The same will happen with global warming. Democrats will pass a law, high five one another, a few hundred companies will go out of business, and global warming will be no more. And they'll move on to the next global crisis. Like chicken flu.

So embrace the moment. Your Congress is about to make the world a better place. What would we do without them?

As His Ship Slowly Slips Beneath The Waves ...

It looks like McCain's days as a contender are numbered:

McCain Campaign Drops Top Aides; New Doubts Rise
By Adam Nagourney and David D. Kirkpatrick, The New York Times


Washington, July 10 — After months of mounting problems in his presidential campaign, Senator John McCain sat down with his two top political aides on Monday for what turned out to be a loud and acrimonious discussion in his Senate office.

On Tuesday morning, as Mr. McCain stood on the Senate floor opposing a withdrawal from Iraq, his campaign announced that the two men were departing, a development that left his team gutted, transfixed both parties and raised new doubts about his ability to continue in the race.

The departure of the aides — John Weaver, Mr. McCain’s senior adviser and a longtime friend, and Terry Nelson, who had been recruited to be campaign manager after playing a central role in President Bush’s re-election — was the culmination of months of internal feuding, and was quickly followed by word that other staff members would leave as well. (link)


It was said not long ago by the really smart people who do politics for a living that John McCain was to be the Republicans' nominee for president for two reasons - he was a war hero and he was a man of "conviction."

John Kerry's attempt at being George Patton incarnate in 2004 (remember his "swift boat" ride in Boston Harbor?) proved how effective the former principle was to getting elected and McCain, though full of convictions, proved over time to be convicted by ideas and ideals that were anathema to the base of the Republican Party.

So he goes down in flames. It's not like he wasn't warned.