I received my taxpayer funded campaign newsletter from Eugene Delgaudio.
The newsletter should have been titled the “Sterling District Newsletter” not “The Delgaudio Report.” Our tax dollars are for educating the community and not for generating political name recognition. Delgaudio should not misappropriate tax dollars for the benefit of his re-election campaign.
The lead story is “Crime drops 30.7% in Sterling area.” The article credits the new Sterling Sheriff Substation. True, crime statistics have steadily declined over the past 10 years in Sterling but the crime rate did not change much after the substation opened.
Delgaudio claims tougher enforcement through the “Delgaudio Ordinance” pressured “drug dealers and illegal aliens“ thereby reducing crime. However during the past decade Sterling has supposedly had a mass influx of illegal migrants. Meanwhile Prince William County has hassled their Hispanic immigrant community through anti-migrant laws causing many Hispanics to move to other communities such as Sterling with much angst in the local Rule Of Law crowd. Interestingly, crime hasn’t decreased in Prince William County like it has in Sterling. Perhaps illegal migrant workers are a criminal scourge only in the fevered minds of right-wing socialists who dislike people who speak Spanish. Note that those who bypassed the lower-cost but older communities of Sterling for the fast-growing transition zone took the crime with them. Crime in the Dulles South area increased 26.9%.
If we want a big increase in foreclosures, an increase in crime, and a big drop in property values we should follow Prince William County’s lead and use policy hazing to social engineer an exodus of our Hispanic community. It is obvious to me that Sterling will be stronger and safer if we oppose Delgaudio’s policy and follow a live-and-let-live policy regarding migrant workers and their work status.
I live in a community with an HOA and our covenants prevent neighborhood deterioration. Sterling Park does not have an HOA. That was the choice of many residents who made fun of neighboring communities with HOAs and the evils of regulating color choices and swing set locations. If Sterling Park residents suddenly see the value of an HOA now that people with a different culture live amongst them, they should have a referendum and see if their neighbors agree to an HOA. Otherwise they should grin and bear it or move. Using Eugene Delgaudio as the spear point person to increase the size and scope of government and raise taxes to impose HOA-type restrictions without the consent of those governed is, well, un-American and certainly not following the smaller-government conservative creed he claims.
Delgaudio includes a Citizen Survey in the newsletter. The survey is a joke because it is not intended to get all feedback, just positive feedback that agrees with his agenda and as a way to solicit money to retire his campaign debt. (Aren’t fiscal conservatives opposed to debt?) Delgaudio warns that we need to “remain vigilant” against “outside negative [political] influences.” Only those who agree with him are the “wonderful, caring people who love [Sterling]” while those who oppose his expensive police-state policies (such as building a Sheriff Substation that is twice as big and twice as expensive as needed or expanding zoning inspections) are pro-gang, pro-criminal, pro-flop house, pro-ghetto liberal scum.
Once again Delgaudio is making our community a laughingstock in the world by falsely claiming that a spot for a nativity scene on the Courthouse lawn has been “abolished ‘forever’”. This is hardly a Sterling issue. We didn’t have a free-speech disaster until Delgaudio manufactured his anti-attack-on-Christmas fundraising scheme. Why does our community tolerate being used by Delgaudio as a stage for his day-job of fear mongering among the uninformed to solicit donations to pay himself and his staff 6-figure salaries? If Delgaudio job were for an actual business, it would be closed for fraud since his only economic output is fundraising appeals.
Why can’t Sterling do better? Are there no moderate independents who can articulate a governing style that represents more of the middle instead of pendulum swings between the political fringes? Previously Delgaudio’s craziness and fear mongering was moderated by a board that was split politically. With an all-Republican Board of Supervisors, what will hold him back now?
279372 903950Today, I went to the beach with my kids. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She put the shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is completely off topic but I had to tell someone! 508678
People do that anyway, elderberry, because I exercise my freedom of speech, and it doesn’t always conform to what the attackers want.
Why David or Jonathan would want to make themselves a further target of your personal attacks on them over this issue, by joining some committee,I can’t imagine. The new BOS is your buddies Barbara why don’t you step forward and then people can potshot at your ideas, your affiliations, your purported quotes, where you stand, who you stand next to, etc.
elderberry, read the entire thread “Ken Reid justifies mob rule”. I’ve posted the comments from there in other discussion with David, but this is the game where if I don’t post it here too, then I’m “lying”, in HIS little world.
One reporter gives an ambiguous attribution which David chooses to see as open to the interpretation that Jonathan is an official spokesperson, which is incorrect. So therefore ALL mention in the multiple places where he was identified as a member (which he is, and David too) are ALSO incorrect? Only if you wish to hide the association (thereby LYING about there being one), which is documented quite well through the comments at the ken reid thread.
Where did I say there should be a citizen approval panel? Why, nowhere, but I’m sure it makes for better faux outrage to say I did so you can fume about it. I asked if David and Jonathan would consider volunteering to help craft a better policy? Crickets.
————————————–
David, so when Jewish groups come forward to seek to exercise their free speech, it would be universally inclusive to suggest they do so in the form of ornaments to hang on your tree? Same thing for any other group not in the Christian, pagan, or compromise-atheist groups? Fail. The tree isn’t so universal as you’d like to claim it is.
I’ve told no lies, and the proof of that pudding may be your transferrence to your favorite boogeyman, Eugene.
He really IS what a lot of this is about for you though, isn’t he? Not free speech, or inclusion, or any of the platitudes, but an activist outlet.
If you are the arbiter of all morals, be honest please! lol
Can’t everyone give a little bit of ground so that we can find some in common? What I heard at the public input session is that many atheists celebrate cultural Christmas, and have Christmas trees in their homes. It has religious significance to some, and is a non-religious symbol of a shared cultural celebration to others.
Epluribusunum says, “Not true at all. Christmas is a universally recognized, national holiday that people of many different faiths and no faith celebrate in their own way. It’s not just a religious holiday.”
I’ll agree that for many people Christmas has become a largely cultural rather than religious holiday but that doesn’t make Christmas a secular holiday (like New Year’s or Independence Day) that can be celebrated on the courthouse grounds. As far as I’m concerned a Christmas tree is just as divisive as a nativity. Yes, Christmas is not just a religious holiday but it is still a religious holiday.
The only way I would accept a Christmas tree is if it went up on Christmas Eve and came down the following business day. Afterall, Christmas is only a single day on the calendar. Also, other major beliefs would have to be able to have their displays up during the specific days of there celebrations. I don’t expect any of that would actually be welcomed but I’d be glad to clam April Fool’s for atheists. The religious have already been giving that one to us.
[What you fail to understand is that the Christmas tree solution] “excludes those who are neither Christian nor pagan.”
Not true at all. Christmas is a universally recognized, national holiday that people of many different faiths and no faith celebrate in their own way. It’s not just a religious holiday.
Oddly enough, my credibility with a woman who just told a lie so enormous and brazen that it could have come from Eugene Delgaudio is not of great concern.
EB, I really think the tree could work. People mostly want something joyful to gather around as a community, publicly, whether they celebrate the religious aspect of Christmas or not. I want that too. If this ugly scene results in all holiday celebration being forced into private homes and places of worship, the whole community loses, IMO.
Additionally, I actually think that the people who insist that only Christian symbols should be allowed that place of privilege would prefer an outcome of no displays at all, because that gives them an excuse to keep flogging the issue. In other words, they want the whole community to lose because they feed on angry people.
Wow, Barbara Munsey you are living in a very twisted little world. A journalist makes a mistake and in your view that means Jonathan and David are lying. It’s not their fault that a crazy lady decided to wreck it all for everyone. What is fair to everyone’s freedom of speech IMHO and respectful to everyone’s belief under the current policy is that the sheriff arrest the loony vandal and the CA prosecute her.
As for future policy, since this one didn’t work then no displays is probably the solution of least resistance. I disagree about the tree, candle, or wreath or whatever “holiday symbol”, David. All displays or none.
What exactly do you want to see happen Barbara Munsey. Have an “appropriateness panel” to approve displays. Some version of thought police. And who exactly should be on that panel who could satisfy you, me, David, Jonathan, the crazy vandal lady and everyone else? No. To me it should be free speech or none in the public space. Not an atheist solution at all, just one that follows the law.
Elderberry, I understand perfectly, and am in favor of display, which comes with all the crap that juvenile activists bring to it, for their own stated purpose of banning ONLY religious display–which David has lied about networking on, in his activist persona of Christian elder who supports free speech, but ever so regretfully suggests that the atheist’s “compromise” is best of all–sigh.
Umm, I disagree, I think David and Jonathan made a huge mistake for their feet of clay moral credibility while lying, and I think the policy needs to be tightened up a bit. Maybe the two of them could reestablish some cred on the issue by volunteering to help craft one that is fair to everyone’s freedom of speech, and not just those they have no political vendetta against.
Unfortunately David, what you seem to deliberately fail to understand is that your chosen solution for everyone else excludes those who are neither Christian nor pagan. But don’t miss any opportunity to speak as a condescending omniscient authority on everything, I get that fine! lol
No, David, I’m not threatening a tree, nor is anyone I know. Just as Jonathan wasn’t threatening me when he told me to call my lawyer. 😀
Exactly! The Christmas tree can represent different beliefs to different people! Now you are beginning to understand.
Thank you very, very much for admitting that a few people will remain unsatisfied unless they can exclude everyone but themselves. How did Ken Reid and Scott York respond when you told them their solution was unsatisfactory?
I hope by saying “I don’t know how long it would last” you aren’t predicting that the Christmas tree would be vandalized too. Has someone you’re affiliated with threatened that? How sad.
Barbara, how many times how many ways do they have to say it to your fevered conspiratorial imagination. The BOS has just the choice of accepting all applicants for spaces or accepting none. Whatever plotting is carried out. By whomever or by no one. All displays or none. You still haven’t got it yet, let me repeat it again, all displays or none. All displays or none. All displays or none. Crucified Santas, letters, creches, spaghetti monsters. All displays or none.
No room for discrimination, all displays or none.
All displays or none.
No way to “get religious displays banned.” All displays or none.
Networking or lack thereof notwithstanding, all displays or none.
You want a creche, you accept the spaghetti monster, the letter, and the santa on the cross. Or some version of all of the above next year.
Or none.
Yes, I know that you network all over the place.
Actually, some of the other members of the various atheist groups have stated they ARE working to get religious displays banned–with the process to acheive that primary end being to get all displays banned. That would include the religious ones, which is the main motivation for some to be as provocative as possible.
The predetermined “compromise” of the tree is a symbol which has roots in both Christian and pagan traditions, so I don’t know how long it would last as the official David-and-atheist-approved compromise.
I network with all kinds of people; again, why would that be an issue? No one is working to have only religious displays banned. As you know, that wouldn’t be any more lawful than allowing only religious displays.
Yes, the people you are networking with to have all religious display banned.
I know.
Ok, fair enough. I can see why you would put vandalism in quotes in that case. All the media attention seems to be focused on the Santa, so it’s not that surprising that you wouldn’t have heard about this. I have the advantage of hearing these things directly from the people involved.
David, when I wrote that comment, the only thing that had been publicized was the fact that the letter had been moved in front of the skeleSanta. That does not sound like total destruction, etc, so much like “calling for mob rule!” was eventually judged by you (correctly, IMO) to be “needlessly hyperbolic”, moving something does not necessarily equate to total destruction except in dramaland.
If it has in fact been destroyed, then yes, I agree that’s vanadalism.
I think that EB is quite correct in the belief that if someone had vandalized the creche we would be seeing a very different discourse. You seem to be offended by the Letter from Jesus, although its creator has done nothing other than what clergy and “religious authorities” do every day, interpret the word of God. I’m not sure how you get “ridiculing the Pope” from that. Isn’t it the Pope’s job to tell Catholics “what God means,” to be God’s representative on earth? Please clarify it from your own understanding if I’m expressing that clumsily. It’s not an intentional slight.
Anyway, your expression of being offended does read as at least excusing the vandalism, certainly in the absence of saying otherwise. If you actually do not think it was justified and you’re clarifying that, then I withdraw the statement. That claim does seem inconsistent with your choice to put the word vandalism in scare quotes, though. The fact is that someone damaged the display so badly that its owner had to take it home, and from what I understand she’s not going to try to repair it. Vandalism is both the legal and common sense word for that behavior.
David, where did I “justify” the “vandalism” of the letter from the person who writes for God (much like some animal activist groups have sued to seek the granting of civil rights for animals–who they have deputized themselves to “represent”)?
I stated my opinion that I find it presumptuous to speak for God.
You finding that funny, and ridiculing the Pope in the process, sounds quite hysterical when you have declared yourself a representative of the “broad spectrum” of the communities of faith in Loudoun in one of your many posts on the subject in the press.
Much as you declare yourself the arbiter of speech, morality, meaning, and so on.
What the board (and the LTM) needs to understand is that, unless there is a guarantee that the displays will be unmolested, we don’t actually have a free speech zone. What we have at this moment is a nominal free speech zone in which there is unlawful viewpoint discrimination via the Heckler’s Veto.
I also find it funny that Barbara Munsey tries to justify the vandalism of the display no one is talking about, the Letter from Jesus. According to Barbara this display was also offensive, because its creator dared to share what she thinks “God really means.” How presumptuous! What does she think that the Pope does – or for that matter, any clergyperson?
My question is, would those who think the vandalism was a small thing have also thought it was a small thing if it was a creche that had been vandalized. I can hear the screams now.
The county ought to be apologizing to the people whose work was vandalized and finding the people who did the vandalizing and prosecuting them.
I’m beginning to believe that it would be better to have no displays at all. If you want a display put it on your own front lawn.
EB, I knew that 😉
Not sure whether “overt” has a legal definition, and is therefore the right word to use. However, there is quite a bit of settled law on the question, which is why I think Ken Reid and Scott York have both been talking about having a simple lighted tree and being done with it.
The question hinges on whether a given display has a legitimate secular purpose – a Christmas tree apparently does, because Christmas itself is a national holiday that has transcended it’s religious roots. In one of the commonly cited cases, the side trying to defend a state-sponsored display of a creche was unable to define a secular purpose for that symbol. Unlike a Christmas tree, the creche has been ruled to be an exclusively (overtly?) religious symbol, so should be at church. For comparison purposes, another court found that a KKK cross display did have a “legitimate secular purpose,” because the cross associated with the Klan’s message of terrorism wasn’t exclusively religious in nature (even though they call themselves a Christian organization).
The issue of vandalism goes beyond the one incident in which the person was identified, and the subsequent incident you don’t mention in which the culprit(s) were not, resulting in the first two displays being damaged or destroyed. The larger issue is that the rest of the displays will be going up over the next couple of weeks, and the message people have just been given is that if they don’t like one or all of them, they can just take them down. That seems like a bad precedent, in law and order terms. When people get away with ignoring the law, things have a way of escalating.
The other issue that is nearly consistently overlooked here is the fact that the courthouse is not just any public space. What might pass muster for the government building or Town Hall grounds still wouldn’t be appropriate at a courthouse because of the competing constitutional interests.
EPU that was a sarcastic “no”. I saw very well where Barbara Munsey was and wasn’t coming from.
David, who gets to decide what is “overt”? A sanctioned “mob” of those who prefer to forget that the First Amednment also guarantees no law restricting the free exercise of religion?
One citizen, identified and photographed, provides you with a specific issue of vandalism to address, and it’s a far far cry from the drama of MobRule!! and Nazis!!
elderberry, I think the organization of atheists are the literal dogs in the manger here (and that’s Aesop, so no religious overtones intended other than the happy pun in the reference)
Barbara: No, not “no displays,” just no overtly religious displays that appear to be government endorsement of specific religions. A single display, a community Christmas tree, would provide a public, celebratory focus for the community without violating anyone’s rights, offending anyone, or demeaning the one place we have the right to expect neutral justice.
EB: No, that doesn’t seem to be what she’s talking about. She has “acknowledged” that “it was vandalism,” but that’s it. There’s been no condemnation, or even mild criticism, of a citizen taking the law into her own hands – this after all the feigned support for freedom of speech in all its messiness, and claiming “I’m still of the opinion everyone should have their say.”
“Everyone” can only have their say when everyone is required to leave the displays alone. Otherwise we have mob rule, and only the mob gets to have their say.
The asinine behavior you are referring to is the destruction of the legally permitted examples of free speech.
NO?
Then it looks like the atheists may get their (“privileged”?) way, and no displays.
Sad that asinine behavior by some dogs in a literal Manger have to ruin it for everyone, if the ultimate vote is to do away with ALL displays.
(BTW, did you know there IS NO arborist’s report on record?)
No, it certainly isn’t the job of local government to make everyone happy – in this instance, it’s their job to make sure that everyone’s constitutional rights are upheld, no matter who is made unhappy by it.
It’s a tough place to be. The board is being assailed by people who want the policy changed just enough to make them happy – and that’s not possible. Freedom of speech is for everyone, not just those who express their opinions in ways that you and I might prefer.
And now they are faced with the fact of belligerent property destruction in broad daylight – people who would do that are people who feel that they can act with impunity. That’s a development which no one who values the rule of law can let stand, and it’s going to be expensive to protect all those displays 24/7.
Good policy, on all counts.
Stevens and I have pledged to always use our own names when we blog (or to otherwise identify ourselves). Though I did blog anonymously in the past, it was more about protecting privacy than about hiding who I was. Now the only thing I never post is my son’s name.
IOW, it isn’t necessarily the job of the local government to make EVERYONE HAPPY. lol
Liz, it was a guess at delgottago–it doesn’t really mirror either of your writing styles much, but it wouldn’t be beyond conjecture that either of you might seek a future office.
David, if they had to get a court order for the creche, then there was some action preceding that that banned it. In getting permission, I would find it understandable for someone to seek specific permission for what THEY were seeking, and not draft an entire policy, especially if they were told “in order to do A, you must obtain B”.
That was certainly generous to expand it, and again, understandable if the first court order obtained was specific to the creche, that another would be needed to include other displays. You have always seemed quite focused on this event, and that’s fine, but I don’t see it as the end all/be all of an example or resolution, as piecemeal court orders are not policy.
The current policy might bear some tweaking to be in line with high court rulings on the issue (as far as conversion attempts, denigration, etc), but a policy that treats all equally is better in my book, and I do tend to come down on the side of expression of free speech, rather than NO speech of any kind. To paraphrase a religious authority of yore, “The attention-seekers acting out we shall always have with us”.
As for the positive statement “we believe in reason” perhaps being offensive to someone who takes that to mean that they are being called names, well, anyone who wants to be offended these days is participating in a growth industry, that’s for sure. When compared to “religion is nothing but superstition”, I doubt “we believe in reason” would come in first in the offensiveness sweepstakes.
I do think policy could be aided through emphasis on positive language, a la striving to present at least a half full glass instead of throwing the contents of a half empty one at one’s neighbor, or simply practicing the golden rule (i.e. treat as you would LIKE TO BE treated, as opposed to the perennially offended’s seeming status of “I’m gonna treat you how it FEELS like you treated me, so there!”)
It’s a bit of a crapshoot, but “please do this positive thing” to me has a better chance at success in many situations, than “don’t you DARE do that negative thing!”
Barbara, I don’t get why you’re asking about Stevens and me in your first comment.
Interesting happenings in Leesburg. It seems that some citizens have taken it upon themselves to move things around on the lawn (you can kind of see why the grounds committee wants the whole thing to end, now) because they don’t like one of the displays. The one they don’t like is the Santa on a cross, which the owner explains as depicting how the true meaning of the Christmas season has been crucified by consumerism.
Yes, Santa-on-a-cross is no doubt a shocking image to some – but isn’t the meaning of it as I just described worth talking about? I would think a lot of Christians would welcome the opportunity to talk about that – publicly. At my church we’ve been talking about it a lot lately (not the display, the sentiment), but I thought we people of faith wanted it to be ok to raise this kind of issue outside of church.
First of all, that isn’t really true. There can be codified privilege, and de facto privilege enforced merely by the weight of tradition and custom. Both kinds exist, and it’s the de facto privilege that tends to be the most insidious. In this case, there was codification in the form of a court order specifically allowing the display of the creche, however (I forget what year it was initially issued). For the Interfaith holiday display to occur in 2008, the participants were required to obtain another court order, which Judge Horne was happy to issue. As I’ve pointed out many times before, that expansion to the other faith displays was due to the gracious invitation of the Welsh family, and for that reason it’s especially sad that they are now caught in the middle of this. I’m quite confident that they (and others) never viewed their display on public property as “privilege,” although objectively that’s what it was. You seem to want to believe that the use of the word privilege itself is meant to be disparaging, but it’s not.
We can try to police other people’s language until the cows come home, so thank you for discussing it in a rational manner instead. Those are helpful examples. The ‘positive statement of belief’ could also be described as telling one’s own story, while the second example would be an example of trying to tell someone else’s. One could also argue that if person A says “we believe in reason,” for example, person B could feel disparaged by the implication that their belief in a supernatural entity is contrary to reason. I like the distinction you’re making, I just wonder if in practice it would actually make people happy with the displays.
David, was the “privilege” ever codified? It’s only privilege if it is given to one and withheld from another, and I’ve seen to evidence anywhere that it was codified that ONLY Christians could display. Had it been so ordered, there would have been lawsuits long since.
“Unexamined privilege”? Framing.
You seem to profess a care for language (and you practice it ferociously, as with “unexamined privilege”–lol), so examine the difference between “Don’t turn off that light!” and “Please leave the light on.” One is a didactic negatve, and the other is a respectful positive request.
How about the difference between “We believe in reason, and science” as opposed to “Religion is but superstition and myth”. One is a positive statement of belief, the other denigrates what the speaker does NOT believe.
The ending of privilege is material fact, not a matter of “framing.” There was a long period of exclusive display privilege; then it ended. That’s what happened.
I agree that no one wishes to be talked down to or ridiculed, and that the perception of those who had unexamined privilege is that people are attacking them. I think it’s understandable, and that reaching out to those who feel that way by other people of faith and no faith would be better than escalating the ridicule and anger. I also think it would help to have a frank discussion of what people mean when they say their beliefs are being mocked or denigrated.
One thing I’ve seen suggested is that messages be limited* to ‘statements of one’s own beliefs’ without seeming to denigrate somebody else’s. But what really constitutes denigrating someone else’s beliefs? Do you have a workable definition? Anyone?
*In discussion here of limitations on constitutionally protected speech, such limitations shall be understood as voluntary.
David, I know you prefer to fram this as a matter of “privilege”, but much if not most of the rancor (IMO, for $.02) is in reaction to the deliberately silly displays like the 12 Days of Christmas” done with sexual and swearing double-entendre, and the displays by the atheists that seem to go a bit beyond expressing their own beliefs and dance on the line of mocking the beliefs of others.
I have read some of the writings of the local evangelical atheist in chief, who seems to take a rather pugnacious view akin to the activist tactics of Silence = Death.
I don’t think that translates well to a faith (or non-faith PRACTICED like a faith) belief system, from the AIDS crisis and other issues where that slogan began to be used widely. I don’t know of anyone who wants atheists exterminated (regardless of that bizarre study recently touted from the doctoral candidate in the social psych department at the University of British Columbia), I think most people of faith don’t wish to be talked down to or ridiculed during the season they celebrate, both in faith and in the secular realm.
The dismissive attitude and demeaning language crosses the line from “being sad their privilege is ended” into “why is this person attacking me?”
It’s unfortunate that some people have such a grave need for attention that they need to use the reactions of others to get their own affirmation of self, but free speech in all its glory, warts and all.
Because they feel they’re getting something out of it, at least that’s what I gather from what his defenders say. Expect this to be a perennial event for as long as people are capable of believing that the overwhelmingly dominant religion and culture, and the nearly universally observed national holiday Christmas, are under attack.
I think a lot of those people don’t have malicious intent to discriminate against non-Christians, they’ve just never had reason to give any thought to the constitutional issues before now, so it feels like an imposition. They just want things to be like they were, which is now impossible. I can see why they’re mad in a way; 1) they’re losing privilege, and 2) the whole mess has gone for most people from a pleasant and fairly innocuous experience to an unpleasant, rancorous and hurtful one. If they ignored or just didn’t notice the interfaith direction of the courthouse holiday displays before the ban, they could fall for the lie that there was suddenly an “outright banning of a nativity scene.” I think some listening and educational outreach would go farther than people shouting at each other about how their respective belief systems are being mocked. Just my .02
#1: This worked SO well for the last three election cycles, I can definitely see why you plan to continue it.
#2: “Dulles South” and “the Transition Zone” are not synonymous. Look it up. Before the transition zone was created, the land was in the Dulles South planning area, but the two are not interchangeable. I.e. there is more to the Dulles South region than the transition zone, which is now its OWN planning area, which may explain why crime stats have gone up as the region has grown, unless you’re positing a wave of white collar crime in the low density McMansion areas of the usual Dem/PEC protest bunch.
#3: Mr. Miller’s blog closed suddenly. What office is he planning to run for next, (or Mrs. Miller, who would be a formidable campaigner for herself after all the work she’s done for others), and when?