tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-93483022024-03-07T15:12:51.284-05:00Mike's Nether LandThe lunatic ravings of a classical man caught in a humorless, substanceless, politically correct world of commuter-train-taking, working stiffs in Washington D.C.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.comBlogger194125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-73225195630524467062010-02-28T18:56:00.002-05:002010-03-01T00:01:56.762-05:00The Round-UpI hope to hereby start and maintain a chronicle, if you will, of political and cultural events that might otherwise go unnoticed by history. Sunday evenings will therefore find me behind this sadistic keyboard halfway through my second glass of Chianti, racking what's left of my brain to bring you my take on the latest endeavors of God and man.<br /><br />The Tsunami, that wasn't...One couldn't help notice the disappointment in the breathless live coverage of the near-disaster Americans of Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian descent alike faced as the made-for-cable TV event came and went, peacefully. I kept thinking of the coverage of the O. J. Simpson "car-chase." But TV producers were a bit slow, I think, to pick up on the fact that escaping thousands of casualties and property damage in the billions was a good thing. Better luck next time?<br /><br />Dude, where's OUR half of Hawaii? is what some Americans may have been asking if the Tsunami had, in fact, hit the island chain. A bill pending before the U.S. Senate would codify yet another grievance sub-group of Americans, Hawaiians. If you are among those in the eastern 49 still digging out of tsunami-like snow storms, it may come as news that your Democratic Senator(s) are about to consider a bill to let half the Hawaiian population out of state and federal taxes and reduce by 48 percent the available property for your next vacation in paradise. For me, the really funny thing is how we will further subdivide the "Native Americans" among us. Is it fair to lump all the American Indian tribes together (as well as the sub-arctic nations) as Native Americans while the Hawaiians, who feast on pineapple while the ladies walk around in coconuts and grass skirts, all year long, get the further distinction of Special Native Americans? Don't worry, though, the Republicans will save you from this Constitutional travesty, and you'll still get to tut-tut and shake your head ruefully at dinner parties in Georgetown and Berkeley over the grave injustice done the Native Hawaiian Americans by the evil white man.<br /><br />This is a Blue Dog? Incumbent Democratic Congressmen must break into a cold sweat when they hear "It's a reporter from the Annapolis Kapital." Are they afraid the Kapital reporter will bluntly report the facts to hundreds of voters in Congressional District 1? No. What Frank Kratovil fears is that he'll let slip a giggle or a snort at the wrong time. When Kapital reporters are not conducting interviews or writing or running copy to the paste-up department, do they read? Do they confine their reading to back issues of the Kapital? MD-1 voters, I guess, are alone in their ambivalence over federal spending and the legacy of debt we are creating for our children. Spending, according to Kratovil is not an issue for his constituents. Instead, he whispers after that obligatory furtive glance around, it's <em>the economy</em>! If that doesn't say independent, then maybe this will: Kratovil voted against the Pelosi-crats a whopping 12 percent of the time! That's right, he jeopardized is political career by voting NO on raising the debt ceiling. Apostasy! Then he shrewdly cashed his Cap-and-Trade vote for an ObamaCare NO free card from Pelosi, with the understanding that he will vote for the next Stimulus plan and whatever comes out of the Senate's Bride of ObamaCare II. Yes, Kratovil is nobody's fool.<br /><br />And from the Mail-Bag: The gender-benders of Montgomery County and their fellow travellers in the General Assembly are it again, trying to pass a law that makes civilized behavior a crime. <a href="http://www.notmyshower.com/">Ruth Jacobs and the Maryland Citizens for Responsive Government </a>says "The Gender Identity/Bathroom Bill is Back as <strong>HB-1022</strong> and <strong>SB-583</strong> and is essentially unchanged from last year. We need your calls and e-mails TO MARYLAND LEGISLATORS as soon as possible." Now, can we count on the MD Republican caucus in the senate to debate and vote against a bill that makes it a crime to stop or harass a man who suddenly feels pretty or is not sure, today, whether he is a man or a woman, from entering public accommodations reserved for ladies? Well, there's always Hope. Call and write them this week! Copy me and I'll post the best e-mails!Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-43493129488744538832010-02-15T15:29:00.002-05:002010-02-15T16:59:13.134-05:00More Money? For This?To the editor of the Annapolis Kapital,<br />Last Thursday I received an e-mail message asking subscribers to "Rate area's snow removal." The editors assume the rating would be negative or even hostile to the county's efforts in this regard and followed up the request by asking: "Would you be willing to provide more tax money to buy more equipment for snow removal in the future?"<br /><br />After pondering this logically tortured little missive (is "tax money" redundant? is it possible to buy anything in the past?) I decided to resist responding to the survey as I knew it would be used to justify raising taxes to buy more snow removal equipment in the future.<br /><br />This morning, though, facing the prospect of schools opening and knowing that past tax money was used to plow over sidewalks and crosswalks across the street from Severna Park Middle School as well as the brand new sidewalk that leads up to the school itself, I decided to do what I could within the limits of middle-aged human endurance, to clear a path. I spent three hours moving tons of snow and ice thinking about the survey and the prospects of paying more tax money.<br /><br />I decided that if future tax money is to be spent the way past tax money had been spent, the answer is no. If there was a slim chance that more tax money would buy better management and delivery of snow removal services, I might consider supporting a tax increase. The county could save gobs of money by replacing public works managers with boxes of rocks and achieve the same level of service. The money saved could be used to buy more equipment to plow over more crosswalks across from more public schools so that more taxpayers can break their backs moving the snow with shovels.<br /><br />I seriously doubt that more money would lead to better county government services of any kind. If I was the county executive, I would propose that snow removal services be contracted out to private concerns with an interest in customer satisfaction. The contracts would stipulate that snow would be removed in such a manner as to ensure safe passage by vehicular and pedestrian traffic especially around schools. Customer satisfaction and contract law being what they are, this should be a no-brainer.<br /><br />What's that? Union jobs? Public employee unions would object? But the private firms would hire experienced drivers and other workers. Ah, but then they would no longer be public employees, paying dues to, I mean, represented by the public employee union.<br /><br />So no. No more good money after bad, I thought as I shoveled the snow I paid taxes to have deposited in mountains blocking crosswalks and curb-cuts. Thank you.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-45055709093815706432010-02-14T16:03:00.003-05:002010-02-15T09:22:24.361-05:00The PC African AmericanRecently I stopped subscribing to the National Review, sensing that it, like many of its rivals in the modern American political marketplace of ideas, had thrown in the towel and begun to let politically correct references seep onto its pages. Every time I would come across a "businessperson" or a "female" or an "African American" or "the Holiday Season," it was a jarring distraction. Like hitting a speed-bump at highway cruising speed.<br /><br />So I switched to The Weekly Standard whose editors I have admired for a long time. However, after enjoying a few issues I ran into another speed bump. In its Valentine's Day issue, the editors poke fun at Maureen Dowd for trying to equate civil rights and racial segregation with "gay rights," a familiar liberal refrain. In doing so, the editors acknowledge that until 1948 the Army had no "...black officers...; but African Americans have fought bravely..." in all of America's wars. "...180,000 black soldiers served in the Union Army; and even the Confederate Army recruited blacks...there has almost never been a time in our history that African Americans..." didn't serve in the armed forces. Oy.<br /><br />There doesn't seem to be a rule for using (or not) the term "African American." <a href="http://mikenetherland.blogspot.com/2005/02/language-african-american-like-me.html">I have written before</a> on this blog about the seemingly arbitrary usage in print. It is particularly annoying in print because it would seem that a writer has time to think and compose, as it were, his thoughts. A public speaker may be forgiven the occasional rhetorical flourish that allows him to begin or end every clause with "going forward." It's just as nauseating, but more easily forgiven.<br /><br />The writer, however, does not deserve that latitude. Especially in an age of word processors when sentences and paragraphs can be crafted and re-crafted in the blink of an eye, without having to roll in another sheet of paper or get more paper or re-wind the ribbon. The editors are even less forgivable. They are not haunted by a deadline or taken by a beguiling turn of phrase.<br /><br />No, the editor's job is to read and to say, "Why did you say 'black' in this sentence and 'African American' in the next?" I have been trying to get someone to tell me what the difference is or what rule calls for one and not the other. Not having that rule makes the PC reference even more annoying because gives the impression that writer (and editor) is an idiot who cannot make up his mind, or who is so possessed by 'inclusive multicultural diversity celebrations' that he is incapable of being honest with himself let alone you. And you are paying to subscribe to the magazine that produces such pap!<br /><br />But just before I decided to pull the plug on National Review, the editors supplied me with a round-up of sorts illustrating the problem of the arbitrary PC reference in their November 23, 2009 issue.<br /><br />In describing the historic achievement of a black woman winning a gold medal in the bobsled competition in the 2002 Winter Olympics, the NBC Sports correspondent hobbled by political correctness had this to say: "She is the first Africa-American woman <em>from any country</em> to win the Gold Medal."<br /><br />"In the American media," NR goes on, "Nelson Mandela has been described as the first Africa-American President of South Africa....students have written that Othello was African-American." The National Review then slams The New Republic whose review of a biography on Booker T. Washington began, "Once the most famous and influential African-American in the United States <em>(and probably the world)</em>... [my emphasis]."<br /><br />This is the reason why black intellectuals such as Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell (as far as I have been able to tell) don't use the term "African American." They don't want to legitimize a term coined by the liberal elite and force-fed to a generation of Americans who as a result don't know the difference between Americans of African descent and black citizens of other nations! Now as far as I can tell there are no African-Germans or African-Britons or Africans of any other nationality. Why? Someone, please tell me!<br /><br />"Muslim-American" is a more troubling PC term because it is even more meaningless, if that is possible. The potential clash of the arbitrary and subjective is enormous given that Islam is practiced by people of nearly every ethnic stripe. What do the PC-obsessed do when faced with describing a black American of the Islamic faith? Muslim-African-American? Or African-Muslim-American?<br /><br />If one is trying to make a racial distinction, black would be the appropriate term. "African" is not a race. It refers to a place. There are Africans of both black and white races. If one is describing an ethnicity, I don't believe "African" is specific enough. Being a continent populated by nations of many distinct cultures, lumping them into a single ethnic group would be insulting to members of those different nations. In fact black Americans have little in common culturally with their distant cousins from Africa.<br /><br />So "African" is reduced to meaning "not white" and, specifically, not "white American." If you, dear reader, can help me to understand the correct usage of the term, I will gladly post it for everyone's edification. I have checked AP StyleBook Online, but since I am not (and never will be) a subscriber, I only have access to teaser content. Apparently subscribers can submit questions on usage to the oracle of newspaper writing style.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-13994987856039549302010-02-07T14:15:00.005-05:002010-02-08T06:53:37.416-05:00GOPurityLast month brought a number interesting political developments. One was the adoption by the Republican National Committee of a so-called "purity test," a by-law that essentially removes from the discretion of party pooh-bahs the way RNC backing would be deployed during congressional and national campaigns.<br /><br />The aforementioned pooh-bahs, largely unknown to 99 percent of registered Republicans, are still shocked that a majority of committeemen and women would so vote on a number of such measures proposed during the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/30/gop-leaders-enact-values-litmus-test-backing/">RNC convention in Hawaii</a>. These "purity tests" were dismissed in the months leading up to the convention. Their purveyors scoffed at and ridiculed.<br /><br />Sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it? Sounds a bit like the national and state leaders of a different party in the months leading up to the special election in Massachusetts. The Democrats are still in the anger\denial stage of the grief visited on them last month by the pesky polity.<br /><br />Now I have been thinking about this since first hearing about it a few months ago. I remember thinking about the NY-23 campaign and the countless times the Senate and Congressional incumbent protection committees continued to back the wastrels calling themselves Republicans. I remembered the countless times I wrote to them asking why, in Heaven's name, why would they back Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chaffee.<br /><br />And leading up to the 2008 primaries, I got ahead of the game and tried to convince the national Republicans from, again, backing Wayne Gilchrest. And what did I, and thousands of conservatives in Maryland, and elsewhere, get? About as much as I got in my requests for reasons, explanations of GOP votes in the MD State Senate to elect Mike Miller to anything! In this case it happens to be President of the Senate. Why would our GOP State Senators vote for anything associated with Mike Miller and the Senate Democrats? That's all I wanted to know.<br /><br />So it is little wonder that Republicans around the country are finally having an impact at the national level. The only people who are shocked are those 85 or so "insiders" that the National Journal relies upon, foolishly, to take the pulse of the party. Judging from the results of their last poll, these GOP insiders do not have a clue. They would like to mute Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck? The leading voices of the GOP party base? You would mute these rock stars of conservative politics? Are you nuts? Have you been in coma for the last five years?<br /><br />I don't know that much about the National Journal or the folks who publish it, assuming that it is a publication, but here is a free clue: There is a good reason why for every 1 million people who have heard of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck, only one person has heard of you. It doesn't really matter what that reason is. It just exists. A million to one. It's a rough estimate to be sure, but I'll wager that it is far closer to reality than your "GOP insiders" are ever likely to get.<br /><br />So for ignoring me, and millions like me for 10 years; for making us suffer the Specters, Chafees, Gilchrests and quite nearly the Scozzofavas; and for relying on the National Journal peanut gallery to tell you what we are really thinking, I give you the GOP Purity Test!<br /><br />Now go to your room and play nice and DON'T make me come up there again!Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-4303170822977542382010-01-30T11:57:00.002-05:002010-01-30T12:37:49.061-05:00New Media and MD GOP PoliticsLike the proverbial wall-flower at her first school dance, the typical Maryland Republican politician, it seems, is still struggling to find the nerve to take the hand extended by <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">bloggers</span> (like me) and take that big step out onto the dance floor and cut loose! So it is with MD senate Republicans, three of whom have been singled out by the Annapolis <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Kapital</span> for their "absent" votes when it came time to confirm Mike Miller, yet again, as Senate President.<br /><br />To be fair, it does appear that Sen. Ed Reilly (Dist. 33) has been making some attempts at responding. The magic site meter shows him reading the blog and, it appears, trying to send himself a link or save a link using one of the two e-mail messages I sent out seeking responses. Keep trying Senator! If that link in the e-mail message is giving you trouble, try this one: <a href="mailto:netherman79@gmail.com">netherman79@gmail.com</a>.<br /><br />If you'd rather not e-mail me your response you could, as Chairman <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Pelura</span> did, click the link at the end of this post and type in your comment. Use the Anonymous option, or just type in your name. Retype the security letters if you can make them out (if you can't click the link to get another set of letters). Personally I think e-mail is a lot easier.<br /><br />As for Sen. Harris, I expected a bit more. Not just because I busted my butt for him in '08 either. But I know him to be a principled conservative and one who is not afraid to speak his mind. To be fair, it seems he does have a new campaign manager, Bill <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Lattanzi</span>, who may not know who the, ahem, influential <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">bloggers</span> are in ...ah ... <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Severna</span> Park.<br /><br />Now, the Miller vote came at a bad time for "Republicans" because a couple of days later the influential Senate President became the proud father of a new Anne <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">Arundel</span> County District Court judge! Congratulations to the Millers and to the Senate GOP caucus who rightly share some of the credit for extending that influence by lending the patina of bipartisanship to the Democratic leadership of the General Assembly year after year, decade after decade.<br /><br />As for Sen. Mooney and the staff of the GOP caucus, I have to assume they are still trying to figure out the whole Internet-email-read-and-respond thing. Or maybe they are counting on the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">ol</span>' voters-have-the-attention-span-of-a-housefly thing and are sure the whole issue will fade away. Unless, of course, like with the Miller judgeship, I find another reason to post and remind the voters who responded to what and when.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-80866776685506994772010-01-24T11:46:00.011-05:002010-01-31T16:24:15.518-05:00Bringin' Home the Bacon - UPDATE: Vic Bernson Votes 'No!"According to the Annapolis Kapital editorial board Maryland State Senators must vote in favor of installing Sen. Mike Miller as President of the Senate for yet another term. If they vote No or if they Abstain or vote Absent, their district risks losing whatever largess, commonly referred to as 'the bacon' the State can afford to dole out.<br /><br />I also learned that <a href="http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/votes/senate/0010.htm">all but three (3) Republican Senators</a> voted in favor of not risking their share of 'the bacon.' Andy Harris, Alex Mooney and Ed Reilly all voted 'Absent' and I am in rare complete agreement with the Kapital that this is a 'cop-out.' The Kapital singled out Sen. Reilly for the lack of fortitude displayed in his non-vote because, I assume, he will be facing District 33 GOP voters this summer.<br /><br />All three Senators will be getting a request from me to explain their 'cop-outs' and the Senate GOP Caucus will get a chance to explain why the GOP finds it necessary to vote along with the Democrats on who gets to be the Senate President. I am SURE there is a perfectly honorable, non-bacon-related, reason for doing so. Stay tuned for updates....<br /><br />One of the more interesting tid-bits in this three-paragraph editorial is that the liberals on the Kapital editorial board think the 'cop-out' votes are "... intended to appeal to conservative voters..." Why would the liberals think that cop-outs in Maryland are appealing to conservatives?<br /><br />To those MD GOP senators or those aspiring to keep or ascend to that office: This conservative does NOT find cop-out votes appealing in any way, shape or form. Below are the place-holder responses from the three senator cop-outs and from the GOP senate caucus:<br /><br />1. Andy Harris - chirp....chirp<br />2. Alex Mooney - Zzzzzzzzz...Zzzzzzz<br />3. Ed Reilly - Still Trying...I think<br />4. GOP Caucus - "What's a blog?"<br /><br />1-27-2010 -- District 33 senate hopeful Vic Bernson e-mailed me last night to express his frustration with the GOP caucus vote on Miller:<br /><blockquote><span style="color:#cc0000;">"Mike, like most of your readers, I am very disappointed in Ed Reilly's vote regarding Mike Miller. The vote was not a hard call. A true leader committed to conservative principles wouldn't have blinked twice before voting a resounding "No." And while I do not understand why the majority of the GOP caucus voted 'Yes,' I hope it is not, as the <em>Capital</em> editorial implies, merely to ensure their districts are not punished legislatively.</span></blockquote>Mr. Bernson, currently serving on the Anne Arundel County School Board, is challenging Ed Reilly for the District 33 seat he was appointed to hold for the remainder of retiring Janet Greenip's term. Mr. Reilly has not responded yet to questions about his vote. (Full disclosure: I am advising the Bernson campaign on matters related to web and social media).<br /><br />Mr. Bernson concluded his statement with a call for a little more spine out of Sen. Reilly and the rest the senate GOP:<br /><blockquote><span style="color:#cc0000;">The people of District 33 deserve a leader who is ready and willing to oppose the out-of-control, arrogant Maryland government and its constant, irresponsible spending and job-killing taxes. Voting to abstain from such a simple vote speaks volumes about the conviction and political courage of the man refusing to participate. Maybe such a tactic worked well in recent years for Mr. Obama, but I sure hope it's not a model Mr. Reilly is seeking to emulate now. We need real leadership - someone prepared to take a stand for what he truly believes. Regrettably, that is not what we received from Mr. Reilly. Truly disappointing."</span> </blockquote>Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-45029246256855187322010-01-23T10:19:00.009-05:002010-01-26T06:55:31.093-05:00Political LanguageAh, election season is upon us once again. That means the air will be filled with "grow the economy," "foe-wards," "choice," "living in the shadows, " "green-house gases," hyphenated Americans and fifty different ways of referring to sexual deviants.<br /><br />I have posted here before on what I have called the liberal lexicon. This is the language of liberals (now called "progressives" elsewhere) mainly in academia, the popular culture, the media and, yes, politics. It's a lexicon that encompasses virtually every aspect of modern human activity that previously were described with other, perfectly good words and phrases.<br /><br />The lexicon was a code, at first, used by liberals to distinguish themselves as members of the club who really cared about the "issues." Once they were able to identify each other, they could form groups, go to the right parties, read the right papers and magazines, learn to laugh or gasp at the right time. In short, the new language allowed them to develop a sub-class or pseudo-society.<br /><br />This new language started with the feminist "movement" when practically everything that had passed before was suddenly anti-woman. English words such as "man" quickly became unacceptable and marked anyone who used them as unenlightened or provocative political opponents. Those who considered themselves a part of this liberal sub-class dominated Western society's academic and cultural sectors and thus were able to perpetuate their lexicon in the language of subsequent generations of school children, voters and politicians.<br /><br />The only distinction between the sexes permissible in the English language were biological or clinical. Out were the once ubiquitous references such as spokesman and businessman. Actress and stewardess are now verboten. Mrs. and Miss, honorifics that were used to distinguish a married woman from one who was single and presumably available, were replaced with "Ms" which means nothing.<br /><br />The funny thing is that language in the European culture, against which all aspects of American culture is measured by the liberals, continue to make the distinction between married and unmarried women in the use of honorifics. Most of the surviving Romance languages in fact, separate certain nouns and articles by gender! The brand of feminism practiced here would be a complete failure in Europe.<br /><br />One of the sadder side effects of trying to socially re-engineer languages is illustrated in one of the more famous political scuffles of the Obama administration. The President's nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court uttered this redundancy: "A wise Latina woman..." at one point in her career. I think only one Senator noticed that "Latina" is the feminine form of the noun referring to person of Latin or Hispanic ethnicity. So a Latina is a woman and a Latino is a man. A Latina woman is an ignoramus or a political opportunist trying to score points with the liberal cultural elite.<br /><br />And so liberals replace perfectly good words that have been used in thousands of years of human history with meaningless gibberish. Soon the great works of literature will be as alien to future generations as Cuneiform tablets and Egyptian hieroglyphics are today. Or they'll have been re-written to conform with whatever code is deemed acceptable by modern day liberals leaving scholars to bicker about what was the actual motto of the greatest democracy mankind is likely ever to have known.<br /><br />Conservatives can only hope, in this election season, to hear their candidates reviving the classical language of our heritage in open defiance of the liberals who control most of what we see and read each day and all of what our children are taught.<br /><br />No, I am NOT advocating that we return to common use words and phrases that are nothing more than crude disparagement of ethnic and racial minorities. Continual use of such vile references should constitute an embarrassing ignorance of our nation's history of slavery and repression of blacks and other racial minorities. There are good reasons why certain words leave and enter the language, political expediency real or imagined is not one of them.<br /><br />And I do not, as the liberals do, presume to hold myself up as the arbiter of correct versus politically correct speech. I think you all know the difference and, I hope, you do not presume in your political correctness, to believe that you are exercising your free will and are speaking the way you want to speak. You are speaking the way THEY want you to speak. Who are they? They are your political, social, and moral opposites (or so you would have us believe). Do you hear them emulating YOUR way of doing things? No. Then why, I ask you, why do you insist on doing and saying the politically correct things? Check all that apply:<br /><br />1. You think it makes you more appealing to liberal voters<br />2. You think it makes you appear more enlightened<br />3. You think it sounds more sophisticated and intelligent<br />4. You actually think there is nothing politically correct about your choice of wordsMike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-29323456659517042712009-12-13T17:45:00.004-05:002009-12-13T23:46:42.339-05:00Global Warming & Population ExplosionA match made in Hell. Surely there's a link between Global Warming and Alar-poisoned apples or DDT. Hmmmm? Well, I am sure the devotees of the mass murderess Rachel Carson are feverishly trying to establish this connection.<br /><br />Until then, Paul Ehrlich, call your agent. I smell a lucrative lecture circuit in your future. The Stanford University biologist, you see, published his theories that by the end of the 1970's we would all be starving or fighting for food (not oil) or suffering a depletion in the world's supply of....oxygen (not oil). In the <span style="color:#000099;"><a href="http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/2008082108.html">Population Bomb,</a></span> Prof. Ehrlich argued that the world's population of people would outstrip the world's supply of food to eat, places to live, air to breath, etc.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it turns out that the world's population is suffering from obesity, diabetes and, yes, longevity all resulting from the supply of too much food in those parts of the world where people are generally free to pursue happiness. Well a Canadian paper has picked up the 40-year-old trail, conveniently leaving out the 40-year-old history of over-population predictions and has ginned-up a new theory on which to base the now-dubious "science" of man-made global warming. There are too many people, you see. And do you know what people do? Breath! They breath in oxygen and exhale.....pollution!<br /><br />But wait, there's more! All is not lost because the Chinese have hit upon a solution. The one-child policy. That's right. Chi-Com families are punished in ways that would make Kim jong-Il blush for being over-reproductive, and our Canadian brethren are just amazed that the civilized world has been slow to adopt this policy. To make matters worse, this issue has "crossed the radar screen" of <a href="http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/11/mandatory-population-control-to-fight-global-warming/">CNN's Jack Cafferty</a> who brought it to the Situation Room late last week.<br /><br />Do we look like fools or what? Here we sit with egg-foo-yung on our faces while the Chinese population in 40 years drops by two-thirds! They will voluntarily kill off two-thirds of their population just save the polar bears! Here all this time we thought they were monsters just for running their own people down with tanks and infantry. And all we do is complain that they are not stopping the use of oil and coal and not spending billions to grow ethanol, erect wind-turbines. Oh, wait, only the conservative Republicans are complaining. For the rest of the world, it is enough that the Chi-Coms are conducting forced-sterilization and infanticide to enforce the one-child policy and ...save the polar bears!<br /><br />But I think the one-child policy will have drastic consequences for the U.S. of A. If the Chinese population drops by two-thirds, who will buy our Treasuries? Where will we get all of our cheap electronics and Happy Meal toys?Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-18531695602236846582009-12-13T15:38:00.002-05:002009-12-13T17:25:29.678-05:00Sarah Palin; Why Not?I've been wanting to write about Sarah Palin for a long time. Why? Well because there are many in the conservative yak-o-sphere who seem to be clinging to one issue as a rock-solid reason for opposing her further adventures in politics: stepping down as Governor of Alaska.<br /><br />Now there is a template being employed here if one listens or reads carefully and it defines why this is a rock-solid reason for her disqualification. Since I have not been convinced by this template I am compelled to debunk it.<br /><br /><strong>1. The reason for her stepping down is "still unexplained."</strong> This is the premise that should embarrass anyone employing this template. The only thing "still unexplained" about this issue is who developed the template. Less puzzling though still entertaining is why otherwise intelligent conservatives continue to employ it.<br /><br />Unless I saw a different press conference where she announced her decision and, get this, explained why she was stepping down, it seems to me that she explained her compelling reasons for her decision: <blockquote>a) It was costing the taxpayers of Alaska way too much money to answer the endless parade of nuisance queries, requests for information, legal motions, etc., that she as duly elected Governor was required to answer;<br />b) These nuisances were distracting her and her administration from performing the job that Alaskans elected her to do and that she was compelled to do under the state's constitution.<br />c) Finally these distractions were not serving the interests of Alaska or its citizens but were a hold-over from a twisted Republican presidential campaign that continues to define the liberal-conservative animus.</blockquote><strong>2. She is a quitter.</strong> If the reasons (written in plain English above) make Sarah Palin a "quitter" then I suppose that George Washington was also a quitter for resigning his commission after the Revolution when, at a point in America's infancy, an iconic personality and leader of the only legitimate armed forces, Washington could very well have assumed power and ruled as a dictator. Instead, Washington acted in what he rightly saw as America's best interests, placing the future of the new Republic above that of his own career.<br /><br /><strong>3. She quit just so she could make a gazillion bucks on the lecture circuit.</strong> This from "conservatives"! Why any so-called conservative would begrudge someone, even a liberal, the chance to make a better life for themselves and their family, without hurting anyone or breaking any laws, is beyond me. Perhaps one of you "conservatives" out there can 'splain it to me, real slow and using small words.<br /><br />And this is the template used by the still-hinged, the reasonable thinkers and writers. This week the <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20091212_3112.php">National Journal published its latest "Insider"</a> polls in which the staff ask a gaggle of supposed insiders of each party a handful of "If-you-could-be-any-animal..." type questions and come up with...something to publish. One of the questions was who in your party would you most like to see muted.<br /><br />Two of the four top vote-getters were Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Others these insiders would mute include Rep. Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck! Of the 85 people named as the Republican "political insiders" I have heard of maybe five. By comparison, I have heard of more of the Democratic political insiders. And I think I have found the source of the still-unexplained- reason-for-Sarah-Palin's-resignation-as-Governor talking points.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-81501153530401352552009-11-26T10:33:00.003-05:002009-11-26T19:32:50.360-05:00Apologies to the FCRCCI have never been happier to announce to the world that I was wrong. My sources now tell me that the Frederick County Republican Central Committee has not indicated that it was favoring one candidate over another to complete the term of Delegate Weldon who is expected to retire.<br /><br />The cellphone connection, noise on the MARC train and quite possibly my readiness to believe the worst of the GOP following the NY-23 debacle, led me to the conclusion I posted last weekend.<br /><br />And while I don't live in either New York's 23rd district nor Maryland's 3b, the activities of the local GOP in both places concern me and should concern all Republicans. Local politics is becoming less and less local anymore as elected officials are considering more legislation that affects an ever broadening constituency.<br /><br />It is indeed unfortunate that we cannot sit by and let local politics play out. We all have a stake in MD-3b, now, as we do in all state legislative and congressional districts. So I hope that the Frederick County GOP selects the conservative candidate to represent Frederick County and all of Maryland in the General Assembly.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-70296234076216678852009-11-21T10:05:00.004-05:002009-11-22T06:29:06.283-05:00Have We Learned Nothing?Recently I have become aware of certain activities of Republicans in Maryland who seem to have been in a coma for the past six months or so and are blissfully ignorant of the events leading up to and the conclusion of recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey and New York.<br /><br />Let's start with MD's state District 3b currently represented by Del. Richard Weldon, who after being abandoned by the GOP (a la Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe) changed his party affiliation and is now an Independent. Del. Weldon is rumored to be retiring before the end of his term presenting the Frederick County Republican Central Committee with the opportunity to replace him with someone who doesn't feel abandoned by the GOP.<br /><br />(Why does the GOP get to fill the looming vacancy when the seat was held by an Independent? Perhaps one my MD GOP political savants can comment.)<br /><br />And who do the Frederick County Republican party pooh-bahs seem to be favoring? The Liberal, of course. Now, liberal and conservative are relative terms. That's what we were told by Dede Scozzafava's Stupid Party supporters this Fall during the campaign in New York's 23rd Congressional District. We shouldn't judge her unfit just because she was less conservative than Barry Goldwater, we were told. When we found out that she was actually less liberal than Maureen Dowd, it was too late.<br /><br />The "liberal" being favored by the GOP in Frederick County, according to my sources, is Katherine Nash. She has been involved in GOP politics since 2006, as near as as I can tell. There's not much I can find on her that is a matter of recent public record, but she was according, to her posts on <a href="http://thetentacle.com/author.cfm?myauthor=48">theTentacle blog </a> an early critic of Gov. O'Malley and his tax-hiking Democrats. In her blog posts she comes across as more of a political operative than a passionate ideologue. But she is still young ("20-something" according to her <a href="http://thetentacle.com/author.cfm?myauthor=48">theTentacle</a> bio) and may therefore be a member of "the generation that gets it," as Margaret Hoover would describe those young Republicans for whom same-sex marriage is not only inevitable but a natural and inalienable right protected by the Constitution.<br /><br />The "conservative" candidate, apparently not being considered by the FCRCC is <a href="http://www.houghfordelegate.com/">Michael Hough </a>(huff), also a member of the FCRCC and previous candidate for the District 3b seat. Hough, as you can see on his website, has taken clearly conservative positions on a number of issues and has the backing of many conservative Republicans in Maryland.<br /><br />While I don't want to unfairly associate someone with Margaret Hoover or Mrs. Scozzafava, I do want to implore the Frederick County GOP not to make the same mistake that the NY-23 GOP made. I don't know whether Nash is a liberal. I assume that the FCRCC and local GOP leaders do know, however, and if they, with eyes wide open, pick a liberal over the conservative then that would be a real tragedy.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-46904379665136665732009-11-12T07:10:00.003-05:002009-11-14T19:20:01.763-05:00Who Will We Blame?On Sunday, the day after the House passed legislation that will bankrupt the United States of America and lead to the demise of our constitutional form of government, I was discussing the matter with my parents. It was my mother, in response to my need to reduce seemingly incomprehensibly complex entanglements down to a single point of causation, the better to craft a solution, who asked: "Why would they DO that?" referring to US citizens and educated voters who willingly vote to impoverish and enslave us all.<br /><br />Of course, the 'Why' part was not crucial to my single-point-of-causation quest, but it was and is something to think about. As I asked last week, who do they think they are fooling? Again these are educated people to whom history is known and knowable, for whom logical progressions should be easy to apply.<br /><br />And of course the answer is obvious: Lust for wealth and political power. To apply this theory let us turn to one of the most underestimated and most misunderstood of American institutions, the Chamber of Commerce. Local, state and national versions of this institution made up of member businesses together represent the very fabric of life in America. Chamber of Commerce members are our employers, major taxpayers, and a voting bloc. In politics the Chamber is an influential fundraiser and contributor. Its leaders, having attained their positions by dint of knowing more members than their rivals for such positions in most cases (rather like some obsessive-compulsive Twitter or Facebook fiend's pursuit of followers and "friends") are held up as credible sources of wisdom on this matter and that.<br /><br />However, as capitalists members of "evil profit-driven" corporations, they are also oppressors and exploiters of poor Latin and South American farmers, sweat-shop operators and slumlords the world over. And above all, they are....REPUBLICANS!! This means, of course, that they are racist and bigoted white men, most of the time, when it suits the Liberal Democrats.<br /><br />In reality the Chambers of Commerce across the land are made up of people who are just one thing, all the time: businessmen and businesswomen. They are business leaders first, American citizens second, and they prove it with every political stand they take.<br /><br />And that would be fine with me. I know where they stand and it is on whichever side stands to make the most money the soonest. But not everyone has this clear understanding of the Chamber of Commerce, and that suits them just fine. Most people, if you took a poll, would say they trust the COC in matters of finance and fiscal and monetary policy. Some of the biggest corporations in world, now owned by the American taxpayer and controlled by the Obama administration, are major members of state and national chambers of commerce. They used their power and influence on what would make the biggest and fastest buck and didn't give the American way of life a second thought.<br /><br />So it is up to people like you and me, to make sure that the rest of our community is aware of what the local, state, and national chambers represent. We must demand that our civic leaders reject their counsel and stop holding them up as keepers of financial wisdom. I will stop short of demanding that the chambers of commerce stay out of politics and just do what they do the best, make money. Because they have every right to political free speech as anyone.<br /><br />Next month they will oppose Cap and Trade legislation in the Senate. Good for us. The month after that they will support legislation granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Good for them, bad for us.<br /><br />And it has been exactly one year since the Maryland state Chamber of Commerce promised us that we would all be swimming in money if only we would approve an amendment to the state Constitution allowing casino operators to install 5,000 slot machines in various places.<br /><br />They have proven that their advice is worse than worthless, it is dangerous. The question is, what will you do about it? Who will you have to blame the next time you buy this or that political plum the chamber of commerce tries to sell you?Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-17125888534942900182009-11-08T13:56:00.006-05:002009-11-08T17:50:36.771-05:00Who Do They Think They Are Fooling?I am talking about the 39 Democrats who voted NOE last night, one of whom was our own Frank Kratovil. Do they really expect their constituents to believe that they voted against Speaker Peolsi because they considered the bill to be an affront to our Constitutional form of government and a threat to what is without a doubt the best healthcare system in the known universe?<br /><br />By the way for excellent coverage of the vote and other recent political matters you could do worse than checking with the <a href="http://www.tcotreport.com/">TCOT Report</a>.<br /><br />Do they really think their constituents are that stupid? I can't wait to hear how these same liberal Democrats who regularly nod their heads when Michael Moore and Al Gore tell us how good the Cuban people have it healthcare-wise and how badly the United States is polluting the Earth, explain how they suddenly had reservations about all the bad affects on their constituents' this bill, a bill they could never have read, would have.<br /><br />I can't wait to read how the hard-hitting newshounds at the Annapolis Kapital ask Kratovil to explain why, really, he decided to vote against Pelosi-care. Here's how I think that interview would go:<br /><br /><blockquote><strong>Kapital News Hound:</strong> Congressman, what exactly in the bill led you to vote against it last night when the vast majority of the Democratic caucus voted to approve it?<br /><strong>Kratovil:</strong> Well, the concept of the federal government micromanaging the health care decisions of the voters in my district just turns my stomach. I believe it was my duty to vote against this bill and protect my constituents from such an expansion of the federal government's intrusion into their lives.<br /><strong>KNH:</strong> But Congressman, with all due respect, we never really heard much in the way of your opposition to the bill until just a few days before the vote.<br /><strong>Kratovil:</strong> Well maybe that's because you never asked...<br /><strong>KNH:</strong> How do you answer your critics who could be forgiven for thinking that you voted against the Bill for purely political reasons?<br /><strong>Kratovil:</strong> I would say this, that it was my duty to represent the interests of the voters of my district who have made it clear that they did not favor this bill.<br /><strong>KNH:</strong> So we can assume, then Congressman, that District 1 voters did approve of the $800 billion stimulus law and the Cap and Trade legislation, both of which will adversely impact the federal deficit and the economy?<br /><strong>Kratovil:</strong> Yes.<br /><strong>KNH:</strong> What did you do, other than cast a vote you knew would not cause the defeat of the bill, to oppose the effort by the rest of the Democrats to expand the scope of government to an unprecendented degree in a free society?<br /><strong>Kratovil:</strong> Ummmmm....<br /><strong>KNH:</strong> Did you read the bill?<br /><strong>Kratovil:</strong> .....ummmm....</blockquote>Well, you get the idea. Perhaps one of those enlightened "Rockfish Republicans" out there would care to explain how they feel about their man in Washington's playing them for the saps that they are.<br /><br />And we can all thank the District 1 Libertarians who could have sent Andy Harris to Congress last year instead of Kratovil. Harris would have voted NOE for principled reasons in a vote that actually would have made a difference. But no, 8,000 Libertarians thought their candidate had a snowball's chance in Hell, when, time after time, election after election has proven otherwise. Gee, maybe the 2010 election will be different! What is the definition of insanity?Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-33812844517196631982009-10-25T06:39:00.004-04:002009-10-25T07:25:03.978-04:00To Snowe and MaineAfter the Republican Party left Sen. Olympia Snowe (R?-Maine) but before she voted FOR the ObamaCare bill, I wrote to beg her not to allow the Democrats to claim "bipartisan support" for the abomination by voting aye:<br /><br /><blockquote>Senator Snowe,<br />I write to you as an American citizen whose future and the future of whose children and grandchildren your eventual vote in the Finance Committee will greatly affect.<br /><br />I beg you to vote AGAINST the Health Reform bill regardless of the promises now being whispered in your ear by an increasingly desperate majority. I assure you they have no intention of honoring any commitments. They will take your vote and forget everything else.<br /><br />Now, I have to beg you because I cannot vote against you should you seek yet another term. I am a resident of Maryland and thus have to deal with real Democrats representing me in Congress. I beg you to oppose your colleagues' misguided attempt to control an overwhelmingly complex enterprise; that which Congress and the Executive branch has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is incapable of doing.<br /><br />I have sat up with you and your colleagues on the Finance Committee an observed how little control you have over the crafting of this massive folly. You are entirely dependent on an army of staffers, personal and committee staff, paperclips and post-it notes and an impressive command of jargon-filled nonsense. I have less than zero confidence in the quality of their work.<br /><br />Do us all a favor and do yourself a favor. Save your energy and your breath, politely listen to the grinding goofiness of your colleagues, put down your glasses and your pen and your amendments and just vote NO when the time comes. Your questions and attempts to influence the number of inches east or west, north or south this comet will strike the Earth will be of little comfort to us Americans. We'll be just as dead if this thing hits.<br /><br />We would applaud your efforts if we knew we could count on you to vote NO no matter what, but we fear this is not possible. We fear that it is entirely possible that you could vote yes. And Senator, if you think the GOP has left you as you declared in a recent interview, wait until you vote to approve this bag of garbage.<br /><br />So I beg you again to use your vote to prevent this toxic sludge from leeching out of Committee and onto the Senate Floor.</blockquote>After she voted to allow the Democrats to claim "bipartisan" support for the ObamanationCare bill I submitted the following letter to the editor of the <a href="http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/opinion.html">Portland Press-Herald</a>:<br /><blockquote>Dear citizens of Maine,<br />Is there anything else we here in Maryland (and the rest of America) can do for you? Now that your Senator has and will no doubt continue to vote to allow my family to subsidize the exorbitant health insurance premiums in your state, I was just wondering what other poor policy decisions made in Maine can we expect to be forced to help support with our federal taxes. You know, so we can begin putting away a little extra money to help you out when your state laws become just too expensive for you.<br /><br />I know what you are thinking, other states' senators voted for the health reform bill, too. Why single out Maine? Well, call me crazy but since Olympia Snowe is a Republican, I just figured she would vote to not burden the rest of the states with Maine's problems. It's that pesky individual responsibility and small government claptrap the GOP is supposed to be about. I expected the Democrats to sell me and my family for generations to come down the river.<br /><br />And I take no comfort in knowing that Maryland's Democrats will also vote to take your money, too. But I am voting against them every election. I am doing what I can to help. What are you doing? What are the "Republicans" in Maine doing to help?<br /></blockquote>Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-60489674253177400732009-10-17T20:25:00.002-04:002009-10-17T21:33:26.850-04:00Flash: Dems in Pocket of Big LaborJust in case there was any doubt that the Democratic Party was but the political arm of the various labor unions in Maryland and the rest of the republic, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) decided yesterday to remove it. The union of public employees not otherwise represented in collective bargaining against their friends and neighbors (otherwise known as taxpayers) has issued orders to its employees in the General Assembly and in the Governor's Mansion to raise taxes so that the government may continue to pay its members' bloated salaries.<br /><br />What's even more interesting is that the union has dropped all the pretenses normally used to cloak such moves as "investments in our future." The Kapital paper quotes union boss Patrick Moran as saying that Democrats need "to show that their true priority is to make the tough decisions necessary to keep our state running." Apparently the union bosses don't like the tough decisions pretty much made for them by the state's projected $2 billion FY 2011 budget deficit. A series of rolling furloughs has been keeping the state and county governments from being forced to make the even tougher decisions on the budget.<br /><br />"We cannot cut our way out of this" budget crisis said Moran. Well, we can't tax our way out of it, either. We've tried that. But that's exactly what the union wants its politicians to do. They came right out and said it, too. Raise fees and taxes on everything, even income taxes (on the rich of course). And create new taxes where none yet exist. Curiously missing is any mention of property taxes. Do you think that's because property taxes are dedicated to local schools, the employees of which are represented by another union? Hmmmm. Yeah, let the teachers unions fight for their own tax increases!<br /><br />But Kapital ace reporter Liam Farrell is nobody's fool. He hits the unions with the ol quid pro quo questions, too. The governor will keep taking the union's calls despite the easy decisions made to furlough the rank and file. And of course Boss Moran "would not speculate" on how the budget cuts will affect the union's political support during the next election cycle. I guess it could go either way. There may be some Republicans that the unionistas would consider financing...and there may even be Republicans out there who will take blood money, that is unless the money comes from fellow Republicans who put "Hitler" and "Obama" in the same e-mail message. I'm sure it would be OK taking money with long strings attached that Boss Moran can use to jerk you around.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-88998745578241566372009-10-17T13:32:00.004-04:002009-10-17T20:24:06.683-04:00Political Notes: Limbaugh, GingrichWell it has been a rip-snorting week for political geeks, hasn't it? Let's start with Friday's barn-burner: Juan Williams, standing in for Bill O on Fox News last night took the opportunity to fire back at his black critic, a radio talkshow host, who accused him of not being a "real black" by defending Rush Limbaugh against his recent attackers. Williams' professional journalistic instincts led him to question the motivations of Limbaugh's opponents to his attempts at buying into an NFL franchise since they were using quotations knowingly and falsely attributed to Limbaugh. The quotations were of a racial tone and have not been proven to be written or uttered by Limbaugh leading CNN and other "news" networks (as well as certain blogs) to grudgingly issue retractions.<br /><br />This was just too much for black activists and advocates such as Warren Ballentine who, when confronted with the truth by <a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101609/content/01125107.guest.html">Williams and Bill O'Reilly Thursday night</a>, questioned Williams' blackness and then told Williams to "...go back to the porch."<br /><br />For me, this was just another example of an idealistic liberal (Juan Williams) being rudely awaken with a sharp stick in the eye, to the realities of what it means to be a true liberal in American politics today. Neither your professional credentials nor your ethnicity will protect you when you dare to challenge the orthodoxy of the Liberal Agenda. The big question will be how Williams will react. Will he start asking the hard questions of the liberal elite? Judging from his <a href="http://tammybruce.com/2009/10/on-the-oreilly-factor-tonight-4.html">performance last night,</a> I think we can look forward to a time when we hear him say, as did his guest and radio talkshow host Tammy Bruce last night, "When I was on the left... ."<br /><br />And Newt Gingrich. What more can I say about our erstwhile defender of the Constitution, liberty and The Bay? Heee's Baaack! That's right the former Speaker of the House is campaigning for "Republican" candidate Dede Scozzafava in a special election this fall to fill New York's 23rd District congressional seat vacated by the "Republican" who accepted an appoint to the Obama administration.<br /><br />Scozzafava's liberal bonafides make Wayne Gilchrest look like Barry Goldwater. So she is a natural favorite of the former Speaker. Also backing the recent <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/16/calling-them-out-nrcc-rnc-gingrich-back-margaret-sanger-award-winner/">proud recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award </a>by New York's eugenics advocates, Michael Steele and the RNC, the National Republican Campaign Committee, Minority Leader John Boehner, etc. So before you respond to the NRCC's or the RNC's latest attempt to win your money, please read the three or four posts on this travesty of Republican politics at Michelle Malkin's site. <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/16/an-acorn-friendly-big-labor-backing-tax-and-spend-radical-in-gop-clothing/">Start here</a>.<br /><br />After you get your fill, please make your way the Doug Hoffman's site and contribute to his Conservative Party campaign. Or use the links on my blog to contribute to The Club for Growth and or the House and Senate Conservatives Funds.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-77977276689999211352009-10-11T15:08:00.004-04:002009-10-17T07:59:55.804-04:00The Liberal Agenda: Hijackers and Wannabes<p>After witnessing the melee of martyrdom seize the sycophants of politically correct Annapolis following the Zina Pierre affair, I find I am able to express a few thoughts on the matter without becoming violently sick to my stomach.</p><p>The irony in this case, (and all cases involving the liberal agenda and its purported champions and constituency) that Annapolis society goes out of its way to avoid confronting, is that Pierre is just like any other political opportunist. What makes her different from other liberal Democratic political opportunists is her race.</p><p>Leaving aside, for the moment, the Annapolis Kapital's deviated septum when it comes to asking the hard questions, the paper's editorial news staff are sensory deprived. Unless it comes with a large flag, fireworks, or literally roaring through the newsroom the chances are pretty good that the newshounds at the Kapital will miss the story.</p><p>And if Zina Pierre was a white liberal Democrat, the chances are equally good that Greg Stiverson, Republican candidate for Ward 6 Alderman wouldn't have been overcome with the anguished "heartache" he felt compelled to share with Kapital readers following her final withdrawal from the race. If Pierre was a run-of-the-mill white liberal Democrat who does not know for sure where she lives or how much money her campaign collected and disbursed and to whom, I seriously doubt that Stiverson would have been blubbering with grief over the affair.</p><p>But Stiverson fought to be the first to drive a nail into the political coffin of Joyce Thomann, a white conservative member of his own Republican party. He made sure liberal bloggers were aware that he had returned Thomann's personal contributions to his campaign, only to be snubbed later in a Kapital editorial rounding up the Thomann affair.</p><p>So it's not the first time a Republican throws his own supposed ideology over in favor of the liberal theology of 'victim-ism.' Stiverson joins the long and growing line of Republican politicians who fall all over themselves trying to out 'empathize' his perceived rivals for the title of being the most unRepublican Republican. Even after watching his fellows go down one by one in flaming political death spirals while we conservatives watch with morbid curiosity and wonder why. Why don't they bail out and hit the silk, salvage some scrap of self-respect?</p><p>What is it about the liberal agenda that attracts the political suicides in the GOP? Do they see some electoral advantage in being a liberal Republican? Democrats, as a rule, will not vote for a Republican. So who do they think they are attracting? What cause do they think they are supporting when they vote against the conservative agenda and with the Democrats?</p><p>One of the eight Republican congressmen who voted for the Cap and Trade bill actually admitted that he voted for it in order to serve the narrow interests of his district. Otherwise he is totally against the concept embodied by the legislation! It's just too bad that the rest of America will have to suffer. He said this with a straight face as though there was no shame in saying he believes one way and voting to support the exact opposite of what he says he believes.</p><p>Democrats can do this because, for the most part, they are shameless vote mongers. Their positions are consistent and predictable and so give the appearance of having a principled base. Because they can be counted upon to do and say whatever it takes to get elected, the Democrats have developed over the generations a constituency that presents itself as victimized, deprived and exploited and in desperate need of this favor and that, laws that benefit those whose livelihoods depend on there being more and more victimized, deprived and exploited voters. This is a political ponzi scheme, opportunism if not outright corruption.</p><p>Hey, and that's OK by me if there are politicians without a shred of decency willing to propagate this scam. It's just a shame that their constituency is, in the words of ACORN's Bertha Lewis, "too stupid" to see they are being exploited by their own leaders. And it's a shame that the rest of us have to pay for their stupidity. But at least the Democratic politicians and their liberal task masters know full well they are running a scam.</p><p>That's more than I can say for Greg Stiverson (and Scott Bowling running in Ward 3, and Wayne Gilchrest, Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich, etc.). At least Arlen Specter knew he was just pandering for votes. What was Lindsay Graham of South Carolina thinking when he voted to confirm the "wise Latina woman," for a seat on the Supreme Court? You see, as a Republican supporting a liberal agenda item you can be regarded in only one of two ways:</p><p>1. As a cold and calculating political opportunist, or<br />2. As a mindless buffoon.</p><p>Arlen Specter fits neatly into Category #1. Into Category #2 fall the likes of Stiverson, Sens. Snowe and Collins of Maine, former Sen. Lincoln Chaffee, Soon-to-be-former Senator from Ohio George Voinovich, the "Cap and Trade 8" and, of course, Former Congressman Wayne Gilchrest.</p><p>So the next time, you Republicans out there, you get the urge to do or say something favorable to the liberal agenda, ask yourself how you will be regarded by Democrats and Republicans alike: As Number One or as Number Two. </p>Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-67752104182306424082009-09-25T17:46:00.005-04:002009-09-27T17:28:07.514-04:00MD GOP and Andy HarrisState Senator Andrew Harris kicked off his 2010 campaign for the District 1 Congressional seat last Thursday night with an interesting, no, intriguing fundraiser at the Rockfish Restaurant in Eastport. In attendance were the usual crowd of Anne Arundel County GOP acolytes; current and former members of the General Assembly and primary challengers for those seats.<br /><br />Also in attendance were the President and at least one member of the board of directors of the Republican Women of Anne Arundel County (RWACC). Joyce Thomann is still President of RWACC despite the efforts of others in attendance to throw her under the proverbial bus.<br /><br />Just as intriguing was the attendance of certain vigorous supporters of E.J. Pipkin and his 2008 primary campaign against Sen. Harris for the District 1 seat. And lurking just beneath the surface were elements of the Citizens for Better Government political action committee. The PAC was the brainchild of Del. James King (co-owner of the Rockfish venue) whose own relatively recent experience in Maryland GOP politics left him with a bad taste in his mouth and revealed to him a need to somehow make things a little easier for Republican hopefuls in this state, within their own party. There was concern in the room that the PAC, the management of which had been criticized for its lack of accountability two years ago (see <a href="http://annapolispolitics.blogspot.com/search/label/lawrence%20scott">Annapolis Politics</a>), may seek to benefit from this election cycle's GOP campaigns beginning with Andy Harris.<br /><br />So the event was typical of GOP politics in Anne Arundel County. Even former MD First Lady Kendel Ehrlich who was on-hand to rally the troops, sensed that the troops were not quite unified in their purpose. "We need to see a greater commitment," in order to win this time around, she said. And, taking a cue from party wags hoping that former Gov. Ehrlich will challenge Martin O'Malley in 2010 she urged Republicans work at the grassroots to get more involved. She said she and her husband would need to see a GOP with broad support before committing the time and resources of their family for another gubernatorial campaign.<br /><br />She was justifiably skeptical. Ehrlich won the election because not enough Democrats wanted Townsend to occupy the governor's mansion. O'Malley may face these same Democrats and independents next Fall, with or without a grassroots GOP opposition.<br /><br />So the fundraiser attracted true supporters as well as those who saw other opportunities beyond the defeat of the Democratic incumbent. I think that the new Harris campaign manager should be mindful of this.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-30915371024772027912009-09-07T22:20:00.005-04:002009-09-08T07:45:09.117-04:00What's Wrong With This Picture?I have been observing over the last month the phenomenon of the American voting public, who, after getting what it wanted (weak GOP candidate, Obama in the White House, etc.) turning out in droves to protest their very success. How dare members of Congress act in a manner to which they and their constituents have grown accustomed and have given their approval, term after term after term!<br /><br />How dare they pass laws that require vast sums of tax revenue, then have the gall to raise taxes to keep us from turning into a gigantic Third World economy? Just because we re-elect them and send them back to Washington the fools seem to think they have some sort of mandate to continue operating our government for their own personal gain. And they think just because they throw us a slab of bacon now and then that we would be ever so grateful and gleefully work to get them re-elected once again. Now where could they have gotten such a ridiculous notion?<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. Nothing cheers my soul more than to see the likes of Arlen Specter being harangued by his constituents, by the thousands. But I can't help thinking when I watch the townhall spectacles whether the protesters and the angry constituents voted for this congressman or that senator and for Obama. Were they among the cheering, drooling, panting, sweating, fans who turned out on the campaign trail for Obama and for him again in the voting booth? I have to say that the chances are better than even that they were.<br /><br />Let me be clear on this. I do not want Obamacare to pass in ANY way, shape or form. Nor do I want the energy and collective bargaining measures to pass. But I am confident that they will be passed, unfortunately. That outcome is pretty much a done deal. What will be interesting to predict is how many of the congressmen and senators who voted to pass these laws will keep their jobs in 2010.<br /><br />I predict that the same adoring voters who are now foaming-at-the-mouth astro-turf townhall mobsters will blindly vote them all back into office. I pray that I am wrong.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-15650427334479272762009-07-19T18:09:00.006-04:002009-07-23T21:56:55.771-04:00MDGOP Executive FortitudeAnd so another misguided attempt by a cabal of political opportunists to pull off a GOP palace coup crashes into a smoldering and fetid heap on West Street yesterday. The fetid heaps are beginning to pile up, too. The latest episode marks the third attempt over the last two years to discredit conservative leaders in the MD GOP <a href="http://mikenetherland.blogspot.com/2007/05/party-rift.html">(once</a> in the <a href="http://mikenetherland.blogspot.com/2007/05/in-praise-of-zealots.html">Spring </a>and again in the <a href="http://mikenetherland.blogspot.com/2007/12/anatomy-of-smear.html">Fall </a>of <a href="http://mikenetherland.blogspot.com/2007/12/great-coup.html">2007</a>) and the smell leads straight to those named in the e-mail message I received describing the whole sordid affair.<br /><blockquote>"On Saturday the Republican Executive Committee passed a resolution of no confidence in Chairman Pelura by a vote of 20-10. However there is not any immediate impact of the resolution. Pelura told the meeting he had no intention in resigning.<br /><br />"Under the by-laws, <strong>only a full vote of the entire state Central Committee at a convention </strong>can remove the Chairman, and a two-thirds vote is required. Counties representing <strong>a potential</strong> weighted vote of about 50% at a convention <strong>opposed the resolution,</strong> including Anne Arundel, Caroline, Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Montgomery, Prince George's, St. Mary's, Wicomico and Worcester. The other counties and all the officers voted except Pelura for the resolution. Pelura did not vote.<br /><br />"The Committee rebuked candidate for Governor Mike Pappas on several occasions. First Pappas attempted to prevent Pelura from presiding at the meeting as Chairman. This effort was defeated. Later Pappas attempted to close off discussion, although Charles County Chairman Charles Lollar was attempting to be recognized. The Committee voted down the Pappas resolution and Lollar was given a chance to speak.<br /><br />"Repeated criticism was also directed at <strong>First Vice Chairman Chris Cavey for his press comments criticizing Pelura</strong>. Some members called on him to resign if Pelura remained as Chairman." </blockquote>In addition to Pappas and Cavey, I would add Sens. Nancy Jacobs and Allan Kittleman. How miserable they must be now that they have been turned out by the grown-ups of the MDGOP and sent to their room to cry. I guess we'll need a new candidate for Governor, assuming that Pappas isn't entirely shameless and does the honorable thing.<br /><br />Here's a suggestion: instead of working for another six months on making yourselves look like utter buffoons (not hard work, granted) why don't all you self-promoting, disloyal, counter-productive, self-important panderers to the politically correct, just go away? Hmmm? Take a vacation. You must be exhausted. Climb a mountain. Better yet, move your operations to Chicago. You could learn a few things about how to run a real morally corrupt political show there.<br /><br />For those who are not as familiar with the big picture, or for those for whom the smell test isn't quite enough, I suggest the following excellent essay on <a href="http://monoblogue.us/2009/07/12/the-anti-pelura-push/">power politics in the MD GOP by Michael Swartz.</a>Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-53659842569963473442009-07-12T12:16:00.005-04:002009-07-13T11:13:09.020-04:00Red Maryland Politics Watch?It is uncanny how closely the positions that two local blogs, one leftwing and one Rightwing have begun to resemble each other lately, at least when it comes to describing the MD GOP's current leadership. Oh, of course, Red Maryland bloggers will plead that they are only trying to 'save' the party, while MPW only wants to ridicule and discredit Maryland's top Republican.<br /><br />Take a look at these two passages from recent posts and you tell me which is from what blog:<br /><blockquote><span style="color:#ff0000;">Pelura and some Republican elected officials may disagree on the state party’s role in setting policy. But few people would disagree on the central role of any political party apparatus: helping its candidates win elections. That means training activists, registering voters, communicating with the press, criticizing the other party’s candidates, getting out the vote and channeling activity towards critical, and winnable, races. All of the above takes money.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color:#663333;">The Maryland Republican Party is in bad shape. ... that means there is no spending on core party functions, like voter registration...., raising money, messaging, and candidate recruitment and training. Given Pelura’s strategy rather than furthering MDGOP’s mission, money raised goes toward debt service.</span></blockquote>Red Maryland has also jumped on every opportunity to whip the party into a feeding frenzy by publicizing and whooping up every communique from the anti-Pelura mob and refuting those from the Pelura loyalists. On Wednesday, for instance, Red Maryland published a call for Pelura's head from those GOP stalwarts Kittleman and Jacobs. No commentary, just the letter.<br /><br />The next day, Del. Don Dwyer writes to address in a mature manner the rumors being giddily discussed on RedMD. Dwyer is categorically refuted on every point in a rambling commentary.<br /><br />You tell me. Are the RedMD bloggers out to save the party, or are they just out for themselves? By the way, below is the letter I recent sent to Sens. Kittleman and Jacobs: <blockquote><span style="color:#ff0000;">Dear Sens Jacobs and Kittleman,<br />I am writing in response to a recent letter you signed calling for the resignation of Chairman Pelura. Leaving aside for the moment the personal high regard in which I and many Republicans I know hold Dr. and Mrs. Pelura, your letter, which I believe was posted on the Brian Griffiths-for-MDGOP-Chair website (aka Red Maryland) was disappointing on several fronts.<br /><br />First, I don't think Ronald Reagan himself could do any more to snap Maryland Republican voters and institutions out of their political comas and infuse them with the fanatic sense of purpose that seems to animate the Democrats (the last MD Republican who showed such spirit and enthusiasm has been publicly shunned and humiliated by fine folks just like you two).<br /><br />Short of raising the dead, though, I see Jim Pelura as having the personality and temperament, as well as the Right frame of mind, to keep the Party apparatus progressing, albeit slowly, through these hard times.<br /><br />Second, Jim has a unique quality among party leaders here and across the country: He cannot remove his spine and collapse of his own weight into a quivering mass political correctness. For too many, this is an easy and well-practiced maneuver. You two may consider this a liability or a handicap in modern-day politics.<br /><br />While it may be asking too much, I think you can redeem yourselves and reclaim a shred of decency and honor by publicly retracting this letter.</span></blockquote>Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-63519510361283130822009-07-10T16:39:00.002-04:002009-07-10T18:52:23.729-04:00Liberals and the BluesIt's so touching when liberals give <a href="http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2009/07/democrats-for-pelura.html">advice to the Republican Party</a>. But I have to hand it to one of the loons writing for Maryland Politics Watch. He really does sound sincere in presenting the bad financial situation the state GOP finds itself in these days and in pointing out what the party really needs to do. Jim Pelura ought to hire him and all our problems would be solved!<br /><br />Here is what the loon says we need: Money. Wow! If only we had thought about that sooner! What a shrewd political genius. Yep... it's always the simple solutions that elude man. Doesn't this idiot realize that by giving us (for free!) this secret to perpetual political power, that his party, the Loons, will instantly begin losing elections and with it the power and influence they have over nearly every major institution of government in Maryland?<br /><br />See, the Loon Party has Money. Plenty of it. I wonder where they get it all? It reminds me of the TV evangelists. Where do they get it all? Well, according to the lampooned image of the televangelist made popular by the liberal media, they get their riches from gullible and feeble-minded followers who donate their family fortunes to help the church bring a little hope and change to the suffering. In return they hope for a little redemption and salvation for themselves.<br /><br />So, Mike, are you insinuating that the Democ...the Loon Party is made up of the gullible and feeble minded? Just because they continue to give time and money to keep the Loons in power generation after generation? Just because that after generations of controlling the levers of power in Maryland, they continue to believe it when the Loon party pooh bahs tell them that it is the Republicans' fault for whatever problems plague us at the moment?<br /><br />Well, if the Loons are gullible, then certainly the Republicans have their own special disadvantages. Money is the least of these. Republicans are, after all, the rich, the oppressors, the exploiters of the people and the planet. We are the ones who finance social welfare programs and who cave in to union demands. What we need is to realize that there is no union or government institution that will represent us; that we cannot win the advantage from the Loons by making sacrifices to the gods of political correctness; that there is no one to whom we must bring the bacon home.<br /><br />This is what the Republicans need. To wake up and smell the coffee. When this happens, when we forcefully reject the politically correct in favor of principle, when we reject the politically expedient in favor of good public policy; when we are not afraid of admitting that we are Republicans and damned proud of it and can articulate with excruciating specificity why, then the money will flow like honey.<br /><br />Jim Pelura is the best Chairman we have had in a long time and are likely to have in the near future. But he is, as will be his successor, merely the caretaker of a political party whose adherents just don't get it, ... yet.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-43547795893045879062009-07-04T19:45:00.004-04:002009-10-11T15:47:11.991-04:00The GOP on the Fourth in Anne Arundel!I was pleasantly surprised by what I heard while marching with the Andy Harris contingent in Severna Park's Fourth of July Parade. Frankly I didn't know what to expect when I arrived at the staging area behind St Martin's in the Field Church on Benfield Road. After the Thomann affair seemed to divide Republicans last week and this, I wasn't sure what I would find there.<br /><br />But nearly everyone I talked to made a point of saying how they supported Joyce Thomann and what a raw deal she was getting from both the liberals and from a few Republicans. We can look forward to seeing more supportive letters in the Kapital. In fact I'll go so far as to say that the only people who don't support Joyce are:<br /><br />1. Liberals<br />2. Democrats<br />3. Brian Griffiths<br />4. Greg Kline<br />5. Scott Bowling<br />6. Greg Stiverson<br /><br />Wonderful company, eh gentlemen?<br /><br />I have it on good authority that the Republican Women of Anne Arundel County (RWAAC) did not pull out of the Annapolis Fourth of July Parade, and are joining Marianne Pelura, RWAAC past president and now, occasional Guest Blogger, in that celebration. And that the RWAAC Board of Directors over-reacted in posting their rebuke on their web site.<br /><br />No one scolded me for daring to defend Joyce and for trashing those Republicans who caved in and professed their phony outrage. It was quite the opposite!<br /><br />I don't even know why I was worried. It turns out that I expressed the feelings of a majority of Republicans in Anne Arundel County while a measly handful of pols were found to be outraged and held up by the Kapital as representing the majority of AACo Republicans. I didn't have to take a poll, or read the Liberal slime blogs or watch the news to figure out how to react. I just went with my gut instinct. I suggest you four gentlemen learn to do the same the next time. And there will be a next time.<br /><br />Until then I am proud to be a Republican in this county and I am sorry I ever doubted you fine folks. Thanks for restoring my faith!<br /><br />Mike Netherland<br />Severna Park<br /><br />UPDATE: Chuck Thomann marched proudly in uniform in the Annapolis parade alongside the RWACC and had this to say: <blockquote><span style="color:#ff0000;">I marched, in uniform, in the Annapolis Parade and there were only two adverse comments that I know about. One guy came up to me after the parade was over and said “Nazi”. I told him that it was an American uniform and he disappeared. Someone else said something negative to another member of RWACC, but the overall parade was one of cheering, saluting, smiles and waving of flags.</span></blockquote>Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-17341495388077953112009-07-02T06:56:00.005-04:002009-07-02T08:56:48.104-04:00Non-Partisan Politics in AnnapolisForget bi-partisanship, the new politics of Annapolis, it seems, is non-partisanship! The slogan is: "There is no place in municipal government for partisan politics." Chris Fox, whom I'll credit with devising or least first promoting this novel approach to politics, is running as an Independent candidate for Mayor of Annapolis.<br /><br />In an article for the <a href="http://www.eyeonannapolis.net/">Eye On Annapolis </a>blog, Fox assured us that we had "valid and respectable" reasons for being Democrats and Republicans. But that our positions regarding taxes and spending, size and role of government and healthcare policies, Fox says, <a href="http://www.eyeonannapolis.net/2009/05/29/partisanship-in-politics/">"are state and federal issues and have NO PLACE in our local municipality!"<br /></a><br />Intrigued as I am by novel approaches to politics, I decided to try and draw Mr. Fox out on a few points. Politics is, after all, a base or instinctual trait exhibited by most species of primate in the way they socialize and behave in groups. The human species, overwhelmed as it is by its cavernous cranium, stuffed with grey matter, has turned politics into an art and even a science. How are we to deny our natural instincts in this regard? <blockquote>"<a href="http://www.eyeonannapolis.net/2009/05/29/partisanship-in-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-525">So partisanship has a place in state and national affairs, but when we serve on the City Council or as Mayor, we must shed our party affiliation.... What do we use as a guide? If not ideology, then what? Perhaps an eye for the bottom line? Moral values? Whose morals? Personal interests and patronage are probably the only true bipartisan approaches to governance."</a></blockquote>Fox demurred when I asked him, for the record, where he stood on state and national issues, you know, where partisanship is allowed. I didn't think much more about it until the Thomann affair caused me to do some research on a few partisans. Well it turns out the <strong>Greg Stiverson</strong>, Ward 6 candidate for City Council, is squarely in the Fox camp when it comes to partisan politics in Annapolis:<br /><blockquote><a href="http://stiversonforward6.com/2009/06/24/obama-is-no-hitler">"Fundamentally, I believe Annapolis needs nonpartisan elections. Every other city in Maryland, with the exception of Frederick and Baltimore, has nonpartisan municipal elections. <strong>State and national politics have virtually nothing to do with issues of local concern.</strong>"</a></blockquote>There is something about being labeled with an 'R' or a 'D' that Stiverson finds objectionable, though he'll tell you he has been a proud Republican for 41 years. But if elected, his number one priority will be to get the Council to approve nonpartisan city elections. I am not sure what that is. Can someone tell me what a nonpartisan city election is?<br /><br />What is the real goal? I think it is to remove <strong>ideology </strong>from municipal governance, not party affiliation. But I don't think you can separate humans from their ideology merely by banning the 'R's and the 'D's from election ballots. And I don't think Fox and Stiverson are naive enough to think such a thing is possible. So what would "nonpartisan elections" give us? The next best thing, of course: an excuse for not taking a stand, cover for bending to the prevailing winds of political pressure and influence, without having to answer to this party or that.<br /><br />So they can have "pride" in their party's ideology, privately, within backslapping range, you know, when raising money and getting key endorsements is important. I guess the only things that count in nonpartisan elections is money and power. At least in regular elections, no one is trying to hide behind some false front of purity in governance, selfless public servitude. In partisan elections, everyone knows what they are getting themselves into when they vote and they have a right to hold elected leaders to account when they buck the party line.Mike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9348302.post-43511709701055421502009-06-29T20:37:00.003-04:002009-06-29T20:45:56.871-04:00Stiverson Snubbed by Kapital EditorialDear Mr. Stiverson,<br />I couldn't help notice that the <a href="http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/opn/2009/06/29-25/Editors-notebook.html">Kapital's editorial </a>this evening didn't mention the fact that you found Joyce Thomann's opinions so abhorrent that you were compelled to return her generous contribution. It mentioned Messrs Cordle and Bowling, but not a jot about you. Maybe you weren't offended enough? I am sure you called the Kapital "news" room immediately after you were snubbed by the editorial board. How dare they over look the fact that you were offended and outraged!<br /><br />I'm telling you, if you really want to do something meaningful, hold a press conference and announce you are changing parties! It worked out well for Arlen Specter, didn't it? Don't you worry, though, Mr. Stiverson. I'll make sure Ward 6 voters know just how loyal you are to your own political career. The First Amendment be damned! Annapolis will soon learn that what really matters around here is the amount of attention Greg Stiverson gets from the press!<br /><br />Hmmmm. I am trying to think of other ways to curry favor with the liberals and the press. Hey, I know! Why don't you get one of those clever "<span style="color:#cc0000;">Tecleo para el Web site en espanol</span>" buttons like Scott Bowling has on his website homepage? I'm sure that's why they picked him over you to feature in their editorial.<br /><br />Yours Truly,<br />Mike NetherlandMike Netherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01277682258432084047noreply@blogger.com0