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

Friday, July 24, 2009

A Non-Response

I brought to your attention yesterday the limp excuse-making that some of the lefty blogs here in Virginia put forth with regard to the tea party over in Charlottesville, including this one, the incident having to do with the police being called to 5th District Congressman Tom Perriello's office to have some of his constituents removed from in front of the building for having the audacity to expect their representative or one of his (their) employees to come out and talk to them. They were being noisy, you see. Darn constituents.

The excuse is this: It wasn't Perriello's office that called the police.

As I wrote yesterday: Why anyone ... else ... would be concerned about protesters being in front of Perriello's office remains a mystery.

But the authorities in Charlottesville tell us that it wasn't Perriello's office that called. Perriello's office.

So who was it that wanted Perriello's constituents removed from in front of Perriello's office?

I made a simple statement of fact:

"This can be easily resolved, by the way. Calls to the police on emergency communications lines (9-1-1) are a matter of public record. Charlottesville police should reveal the name of that individual who called and lodged the complaint."

So how does that lefty blog respond to this?

With this:
Fuhrman heartedly implies Perriello, his staff, and/or those blogging the facts are lying. Despite the mudslinging, which I can handle, this is the important part:

"This can be easily resolved, by the way. Calls to the police on emergency communications lines (9-1-1) are a matter of public record. Charlottesville police should reveal the name of that individual who called and lodged the complaint." (emphasis mine)

Mr. Fuhrman, not a bad idea! As I noted in my two previous posts, the Daily Progress did just this. Again:

(UPDATE: U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello’s office did not contact police about protesters gathered outside his Charlottesville headquarters, according to emergency communi-cation [sic] center records.) [emphasis mine]

Now, I don't know who called the police, but this exonerates Perriello's staff.
Does it?

Does this in any way exonerate Perriello's staff?

The Daily Progress update did no such thing.

Perriello's office phones were exonerated.

But his staff?

Has any one of them a cell phone?

Has any one of them not a cell phone?

Is there any reason to believe that it wasn't someone who had a vested interest in the disappearance of the rabble from in front of Perriello's office who called?

The statement that you cite, genius, advises from where the call DID NOT originate. It didn't give any indication if the call was made by a staffer using a simple device called a cell phone.

Read my statement again:

This can be easily resolved, by the way. Calls to the police on emergency communications lines (9-1-1) are a matter of public record. Charlottesville police should reveal the name of that individual who called and lodged the complaint."

Don't respond with a blog post telling me which phones weren't used. And don't believe for a minute that you resolved anything.

- - -

Oh, by the way, on a separate note, regarding that "mudslinging" thing (see above), I made no such effort. You'll know when I start slinging mud your way. For now just consider my interest in your work to rise to the spanking level.

Boucher's Running Scared

I read this piece in the Dickenson Star and had one reaction:

Rick Boucher knows he's made a huge mistake, has angered his once-most-loyal constituency, and is trying his best to cover his ass. In a most pathetic way.

It's almost painful. If it weren't so devious.

I'm adding comments in [brackets and bold type] where the record needs to be set straight:
Climate change negotiations a necessity
By Rick Boucher Ninth District Representative

As Southwest Virginians consider how the interests of our region will be affected by the passage of legislation controlling greenhouse gas emissions, these points may be of interest:

[Like he gave two thoughts to Southwest Virginians' consideration BEFORE he voted for it]

• The choice is not between doing something and doing nothing. In 2007, the Supreme Court effectively required EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

[The Supreme Court did no such thing. It merely accepted the argument that the EPA was, by law, granted the power to regulate CO2. The word "require" never came into the ruling.]

Therefore, the choice is between EPA regulation and Congress intervening with its own regulatory program. Virtually all interested parties, from industry to the environmental community, would prefer that Congress regulate because, unlike EPA, Congress can consider the economic effects of regulation.

[Does anyone in Southwest Virginia believe that Congress was considering the economic effects - especially those on the workers in the coal fields - of this climate legislation except in providing for more government relief for those who will most certainly be thrown out of work because of it?]

We can simply do a better job. In essence, we have no alternative but to pass legislation through the Congress regulating greenhouse gases and do so in an economically sustainable way.

[No alternative? You might consider being a representative of your people, Representative Boucher. No alternative? Are you a puppy dog? Have you no clout? Does your considerable seniority afford you no influence? Are you there to simply vote the way you're told? Do you not have it in you to fight for those who will be harmed by Al Gore and his ilk?]

• Improperly drafted legislation could have had a major adverse effect on both our region’s coal industry and electricity rates in our area. [I have no doubt that Boucher's biggest concern in this mess was "improperly drafted" legislation. Like that engineer aboard the Titanic who was concerned that the clock in the grand ballroom was five minutes off as water came pouring in]. As a senior member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, ["which served me no purpose since I have no intestinal fortitude to actually use it to the advantage of Southwest Virginians"], I was determined to prevent these outcomes and to assure that the legislation which passed the House enabled growth in our region’s coal industry and kept the overall cost of the program to a negligible level for the typical homeowner. We have achieved these goals.

[A lie. He was determined to satisfy the needs of the powerful environmental lobby in his hometown of Washington D.C.. The damage that will be inflicted on the coalfields by this legislation - sweeping and breathtaking in its potentiality - is, by any expert's standard, going to bring economic devastation to the area like it hasn't seen since the Civil War.]

• To have a role in the legislation, I simply had to be a part of the process.

["Part of the process." An admission of powerlessness that I would be too ashamed to ever have made.]

If I had announced my intention to vote no, [here comes the whimpering] I would have had no ability to negotiate the dozens of changes in the original draft of the bill which were ultimately accepted and which earned for the legislation the support of a broad swath of American industry, including electric utilities and American Electric Power Co., which serves our region. Simply stepping aside and voting no would have been the politically easier course; however, it would have been irresponsible because I then would have had no opportunity to modify the legislation to prevent it doing serious economic harm.

[Pathetic. In the end, he caved and voted YES. He here brags that he was able to put off the destruction for a few years. But the destruction remains in the bill he not only signed on to but now works to get passed.]

Unless I was going to be helpful in moving the legislation through the House, the Chairman of the Committee would have refused to enter into the extensive negotiations with me which resulted in major modifications of the bill.

[We'll remember how "helpful" you were come election day, pal.]

• Over two months of intensive negotiations, I was able to modify the original bill to assure that emission allowances are provided for free to electric utilities.

[The part left out: For only a period of time. Then the electric utilities will be saddled with cap-and-trade taxes that will send our electric bills into the stratosphere.]

By receiving free allowances and avoiding the cost of acquiring allowances at an auction, electric utilities can keep electricity rates affordable and can continue to use coal instead of having to shift to a fuel that has a lower CO2 content.

[The clock, however, ticks down.]

Another of my changes provided the offsets which will enable electric utilities to achieve their required reductions in CO2 emissions by planting trees or investing in agriculture while continuing to use coal at the generating plant.

[A testament to the fact that Boucher's lived up in the Magic Kingdom too long. This is absolutely silly and misguided.]

The offsets enable CO2 emitters to meet their greenhouse gas reduction obligations while continuing to burn increasing amounts of coal. My amendments lowered the CO2 reduction targets and also facilitated the early introduction of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration technologies [Another silly notion.], which will assure the long-term life of the coal industry across our nation.

[Another lie. All experts agree, his legislation will destroy - is intended to destroy - the coal industry.]

• The official projection of the Environmental Protection Agency is that because of the amendments I was able to add to the bill, coal use will grow by 2020 as compared to 2005 production figures, [Bullshit. Why use the rabidly partisan EPA as a source on commercial/industrial growth, something it has no expertise in? I think we know why.] and the total cost of the program for the typical American home will be no more than 20 to 30 cents per day per family. That number is well less than the cost of a postage stamp daily.

["The cost of a postage stamp." An absolute lie. He extrapolates that comparison from a Congressional Budget Office report on the bill. But the CBO, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, "only includes the cost of implementing and maintaining the system. It doesn’t count the cost increases of energy not just on the homes themselves, but on every step of the distribution chain for goods and services, which will create a significant jump in prices, which is also a sharply regressive burden as it will hit hardest those with less disposable income." Every study of this legislation pegs the costs of implementation at levels that will bring widespread harm to the United States, and most particularly to Ground Zero in the climate fight - the coalfields.] [link requires paid subscription]
Bottom line: This letter to the editor of the Dickenson Star* is an effort on the part of our congressman to slither out of that which he's done to us. He, in fact, tries to tell us that blue is actually green. That we should trust him rather than all the experts. That he couldn't help it. He was powerless to stop it.

He's begging for your forgiveness.

How utterly humiliating.

For this we need representation?

For this we need Boucher?

* Thanks go to the Dickenson Star for putting Boucher's letter of deception on the Opinion page rather than on the front page.

On That 'Racial' Incident In Cambridge

I related a story yesterday about my having been pulled over and given a citation by a police officer for having failed to renew my county sticker. I wrote:
Paula will tell you that I - and let it be stipulated that I'm not black, as far as I know - might just as easily have been arrested by the police in the same circumstance. The last time I was pulled over and was given a ticket - for driving with an expired county sticker (!) - I shouted something at the cop, wadded up the citation, threw it at the windshield, and raged. With poor Paula trying to calm me down the whole time. Why I wasn't hauled off to jail is uncertain.

The point: There is no monopoly on assholism in the black community.
A commenter made a valid criticism, one that deserves a response. He submitted the following:
Your disclaimer at the bottom shows your lack of understanding. You didn't get arrested because you are white... plain and simple.

Just imagine if any black person were to do the same thing that you did, they would be jerked out of the car, thrown to the ground and cuffed, and I'd be willing to bet that their wife in the passenger seat would get the same treatment.
Hmm. Perhaps.

But let's keep the analogy together.

I didn't get out of my car. I didn't pursue the officer. I didn't challenge him. I didn't scream at him (My screaming was more directed at the windshield).

Had I gotten out of my car and gotten into the officer's face and screamed at him, I'd have been arrested for sure. And I'd have reacted the way that black professor did when he pursued the police officer out of his house (the officer had made no effort to arrest him at that point and was exiting the scene) and started ranting in the guy's face.

That's the difference.

I held my rage at least somewhat in check; the aggrieved (black) dude asked for what he got.

On ObamaCare

This is worth reading:

Why Obama might have just killed Obamacare

Personally, I think it was already "circling the drain." But I agree with the analysis.

On Obama On The Cambridge Incident

The Wall Street Journal:

Enter Mr. Obama, who was asked what he thought about the incident at his press conference Wednesday night. Mr. Obama said Mr. Gates is a personal friend, and then scored the local police for “acting stupidly for arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.” The President also went on to see in the incident echoes of “a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

Mr. Obama has a point about history, but we’re not sure that an episode in an upscale neighborhood involving one of America’s most privileged individuals illustrates anything except a misunderstanding. Mr. Gates lives in a city with a black mayor, a state with a black governor and a country with a black President. The dispute was arguably about town-gown relations rather than race. If this is a teaching moment, one lesson is that it’s usually better to cooperate during encounters with law enforcement so that matters don’t escalate needlessly.
"The Police And The President," July 23, 2009