Found in my inbox this morning:
A politics fairy left a flyer under our pillow last night. No way to tell if it’s authentic, but it purports to be the remarks of this person:
Of this organization:
Who may or may not be this person:
Of this organization:
A group whose commitment to Loudoun County goes back all of eight months, according to the State Corporation Commission:
(Bets now being taken on how long they exist after November.)
The flyer says her remarks at a meeting on February 4, 2011, included these immortal words:
Action Teams of incorrigible virtues? Wonder if their team-mates will look like this:
Hard to see it, but the sign on this incorrigible Republican virtue says, “I am a corrupt politician,” and was worn in a display of (what the flyer calls) “fact-based discourse” opposing the passage of a clean-water ordinance for Loudoun County that marched through the board of supervisors’ meeting room in the middle of Tuesday’s business session.
Nothing informs a fact-based discourse like a pig-suit, eh?
The flyer closes with a few words of an unknown philosopher:
And this call to join their army:
A little “difference” from this crowd would be a welcome thing. They can start with some of their own advice and admit to some obvious facts. Here’s a start, with grammar to match their standards:
But that would be taking an easy shot, and after all the material they’ve supplied already, let’s not be hogs…
Pingback: The LCRC/LEC/CPR/RGI/WTP/??? – Loudoun Progress
Closing comments here since the discussion has moved to A Better Idea for Homeland Security
“Yes, David. It is a useless plea.”
I stand with Rep. Honda: “I’ll be damned if I’m going to stay quiet and not say something,” Honda said in an interview this week. “We have to show people that as Americans, we’re not going to put up with this kind of nonsense.”
I’m part of the human family, period. Any more questions?
This begs the question: How do you take offense at someone wearing a keffiyeh without making a negative, sweeping generalization about the pan-Arab world?
David, as I said to Paradox, I’ve tried not to make sweeping generalizations.
Yes, the symbol is widely apparent throughout the pan-Arab world, including on those who commit negative acts on occasion.
Are you a part of the pan-Arab world?
Do you feel I have made blanket judgments? I think I’ve tried not to sweepingly generalize, but intent and perception sometimes disagree.
I suspect this is probably a useless plea, but can we move this discussion to the appropriate thread?
Ok, it seems that you don’t get what I’m saying. The “documented lie” is the one that Rep. King is repeating: The lie that the Muslim community in general is suspect. The lie that Islam itself needs to be investigated. That is the point of his hearings.
Yes – for some, the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism and terrorism regardless of it’s context. And in almost all cases, that reaction is justified. The exception – and I think it’s both reasonable and necessary to struggle with people to see this as different – is in a reenactment or educational context. Saying that the context makes no difference is like objecting to the language in Huckleberry Finn, or to pictures of the swastika in textbooks.
The obvious difference between these things is that unlike the Confederate flag, the keffiyeh is very non-specific as a symbol. It’s an article of clothing seen everywhere in the pan-Arab world. To claim any kind of equivalency at all, you would have to accept the premise that there is a reasonable association between “the pan-Arab world” and a particular fundamentalist ideology. I reject that premise because it’s false, and it’s bigotry. You ought to reject it, too.
In some real places it’s also the law that the mentally challenged and children should be put to death by a method most doctors refuse to countenance … in certain instances.
Those places must be inherently unjust and worthy of blanket judgments as well.
Paradox, I’m not just talking about books.
Real places have documented occurences, as Iran did in July 2005, for one.
Places like the Bible?
David, for the sake of argument shall we pretend that you ARE naive, and do not know that some people feel those who celebrate even any aspect of Confederate history–as either American, regional, or family history–are not only celebrating but advocating racism, hatred, and so on.
That is why the SYMBOL of the Confederate flag needs yes, specificity, and acknowledgement of how it is being used.
Is it a symbol of history, or hate, at a reenactment?
For some, no matter the context, it IS a symbol of racist hatred.
How much time should anyone spend trying to “teach” them to feel differently about that? Especially for political reasons?
As I said on the other thread, you have yet to acknowledge that (however small) a minority DO use your symbol in the practice of violent and sometimes bigoted acts.
Is it “undocumented lie” that in some places, laws say women not only can but should be stoned, to death, in certain instances? That gay teenagers should be put to death? And that in some of these places where these things have happened, and where the religious law says it not only can, but should, that some of the people involved bear your symbol?
Yes, we have no real right to judge, do we. And how they may be dressed has nothing to do with what they’re DOING, with which we may disagree.
I know you know what I’m saying, David.
You may need to say it too, if you really expect to “teach” anyone any higher consciousness.
I was going to ask my question here, but I just went ahead and asked it in a new post – this is pretty off-topic.
I think I’ve answered your question for me there, as well.
Pingback: A better idea for a Homeland Security hearing – Loudoun Progress
I know you’re not asking me, but I agree with you completely with regard to symbols having different meanings for different people. I’ve written about it before. Look at the interview with Greg Ahlemann. That was really the story, I think: “simply because you choose to use a symbol for your own meaning, does not mean you fully control the symbol.”
I in no way intend to silence anyone or refuse to hear their stories. The one thing that most needs to happen is that we hear each other’s stories. However, that does not mean that you can claim an equivalency between Islamophobia and …what? Is there a movement to accuse Confederate history buffs in general of harboring terrorists? Are people with a Confederate family history being branded as unpatriotic and associated with the idea of a worldwide conquering army that “Americans” are at war with? And is it even possible to associate the Confederate flag with anything other than the American Confederacy and subsequent Reconstruction? Specificity matters.
I understand what you’re saying. I get that some people have negative “associations” (that you seem unwilling to name explicitly) – and I reject the idea that I should endorse them with my silence and acquiescence. Those associations are based on deliberate, documented lies. If you don’t acknowledge that, then what are you saying, really?
and here is a link, re my earlier post about that symbol not only before it was bastardized by the nazis, but an emblem that is still retained in India among Hindus, Buddhists and Jains as a sacred symbol that has NO connotation with the nazi use:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://th06.deviantart.net/fs51/300W/i/2009/313/b/4/Swastika_by_avix.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.avix.deviantart.com/&usg=__Ar124cgknRGwJXghqfFYuqOV0tU=&h=450&w=300&sz=24&hl=en&start=180&zoom=1&tbnid=ClG413dX8ZI1QM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=79&ei=QwB3TaPUHYGclgfN-JDiBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DIndia,%2Bswastika,%2Bimages%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us%26biw%3D1003%26bih%3D543%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=125&oei=FAB3TezcLLO80QGF8eSsBw&page=11&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:180&tx=18&ty=91
Context is everything, isn’t it?
And none of us fully control how others perceive our own intent.
Ok, Mrs. Miller.
I’m talking about symbols, what they may mean to differing people, and the control (or lack thereof) that individuals exercise over them in choosing to use them, either consciously or not fully consciously.
Did you compare a haircut to a garment worn not only by people who have it as a tradition and heritage–their only flag, as it were–and a garment also employed by a small percentage of violent and dangerous people?
All I’m saying is that simply because you choose to use a symbol for your own meaning, does not mean you fully control the symbol.
How do you feel about the Confederate flag when it appears at Civil War reenactments? Is it history, or hateful?
And I am honestly curious about that, not intending snark.
Barbara, I’m sorry, did I just see you compare a scarf you can get for five bucks on almost any street corner in NYC to a swastika? The conversation’s over for me.
I know I watched you live. But it is always broadcast on both television and the web.
As I said, the scarf is both a positive symbol to some, and a negative symbol to others.
Some who hold each of those beliefs may hold others that you either agree with or don’t.
People DO make assumptions based on simple cues.
And you won’t have the opportunity to address each of those assumptions (positive or negative) with everyone who sees it.
I’m sorry, but I’m not sure to what you are referring here. You were in the board room when I spoke, not watching on television – or so I thought. Maybe you mean that you were in the lobby? And I confess not to know what you believe “the implications” of my scarf to be. That choice of words is troubling coming from someone not asking me to give quarter to bigotry.
Some clarification on both of these points may be helpful.
May I conclude that both you and Mrs. Miller see it as a “teaching moment”?
Not asking you to give quarter to bigotry David.
After our conversation in the lobby, I was surprised to see you sacrifice some of your time on the redistricting item to talk about something else, and after discussion here I was surprised to see you joking about the implications of your scarf on television.
@Barbara: Ideally? They should probably respond by examining their assumptions. I give no quarter to bigotry, regardless of the source, and don’t plan to change that.
Mrs. Miller, blond crew cuts can be associated with other hateful things, but the hairdo of that lone wolf in Oklahoma isn’t quite the same as a scarf that like it or no IS a symbol held as positive by some, and negative by others.
Look at the swastika–a symbol of hatred and evil as a result of how it was used in the 20th century. It meant something very different, and positive, centuries ago, didn’t it?
I am not targeting Muslims for hatred, nor am I pretending to comment on all terrorism in the US. I am asking David if it is possible to make TOO light of something that IS a symbol, for both sides, when symbols, language, etc are obviously very important to him?
To those with a personal reaction to what that scarf symbolizes, how should they respond to a joke about it?
I know people who perished in the Oklahoma City bombing, but I don’t assume anything about people sporting blond crew cuts.
The vast majority of terrorist incidents here in the States have been perpetrated by people of European descent and of a faith that does not associate with the keffeiya.
Targeting Muslims for fear and loathing regarding terrorism is racist and ignorant of the history of terrorism in our country.
A thought on the keffeiya portion of your speech last night:
I know words, perceptions, attitudes seem to be of great importance to you David, so I’m wondering, does maybe making TOO light of some people’s associations when they see a keffeiya perhaps seem a bit intolerant of the reasons some may hold that context?
IOW, you are aware that Loudoun County has an elementary school christened “Newton-Lee”. How did it get it’s name?
Thank you Ms. Pratt.
I’ve read some of the documents, and it appears Mr Pfotzer did cast votes on some of the items at those meetings.
If the REDC had determined not to vote in the process, because of a lack of consensus within the commission on items in the matrix, I remain puzzled by the fact that he voted.
Was he voting his personal beliefs on the matter, if no consensus existed on the commission?
Hi Ms Munsey ~
I’m not sure how to attach documents to this forum, but I checked, and the relevant minutes relating to Tom’s and my appointment are those of Octobre 2,2010. There was a subsequent meeting where Stephen Mackey replaced Tom Pfotzer, after which Stephen and I shared representation. You can get those, and all other relevant documents from Kellie Boles, who is the county staff person for REDC. I wasn’t present at the meetings where Tom was the sole person attending, so can’t verify exactly what he said or did. However, he did provide a written report of his participation to REDC, and I’m sure Kellie would be able to send that to you as well, since it’s part of the public record. My point was simply to correct the record by clarifying that REDC was in no way denied voting rights at these meetings. If you have other questions, do let me — or Kellie — know. Her email is Kellie.Boles@loudoun.gov. All best, Jane
Hi Jane, thanks for adding your perspective. I’m not sure why this is, but Sally Mann and Barbara are continuing a conversation with you (or more accurately, about your comment here) over at Too Conservative instead of addressing it here – there are suddenly a dozen or so new comments from them on an older post about the existence of this blog of all things. I don’t think there have even been any posts about the CBPO to comment about on Too Conservative, although I may have missed them – have there? Anyway, I just thought you should know in case you want to be part of that conversation.
“You all are the ones who are angry, angry at having the truth exposed,”
The LEC wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on their collective “edited for slurs”.
Ms. Pratt, can you point me please to the meeting minutes where Mr. Pfotzer was voted in as a representative of the council, and please correct me if I am wrong, but did he not vote at those few meetings where he was the sole representative of the council in the committee process?
Just to set the record straight on this earlier post… I am a member of REDC, and the REDC, by consensus, asked me to represent the REDC in the stakeholder process, together with Tom Pfotzer. Tom is not a member, but he and I were asked by REDC to carry out a survey of farmers’ concerns (those most opposed to CBPO), which we reported to REDC; and REDC then asked us to represent it in the stakeholder process. I was out of the country when the stakeholder process began, so Tom attended the first few meetings. Tom was later replaced by Stephen Mackey (Notaviva Vineyards) — and an REDC member — and Stephen and I shared REDC representation in stakeholder meetings.
REDC had full voting rights in that process. We (REDC) chose not to exercise that right because we lacked internal consensus on most issues. That did not stop any of us from participating in the meeting by reporting information back to REDC, and weighing in on a number of procedural issues. And REDC has, consistent with its mandate, advised the BOS – in writing – of its concerns and its positions in those areas where we do have consensus. In addition, REDC in its own meetings (which are open to the public – please do come!) has stated that it would participate actively in follow-up with the BOS as and when it develops consensus on additional issues affecting CBPO. Thanks for raising the issue, and helping us get the record correct.
Has anyone asserted a right not be photographed, or only expressed displeasure about the way it was done?
Yes, Bob Marshall always has his camera. I too find that odd at times, but a while back read a very sad interview where he said he took pictures of things that made him want to say something to his son.
His son died shortly before his first election to office, during the campaign.
You’re fine with Jonathan and his camera. That’s fine.
Other people may find it odd, intrusive or even rude.
That’s fine too.
I don’t really think the assertion of a right to not be photographed at a public rally in a public building has any merit whatsoever. It happens all the time. It happens to me, too; it’s part of being involved in a public process. Bob Marshall is notorious for doing it (he uses the excuse that it’s his “hobby.”) Much ado about nothing.
I warned you about using epithets or slurs. Keep it up, indeed. You’ve now been placed in moderation.
Re the scarves–they’ve been available, widely so, for years, to the degree that while perhaps some people DO wear them as a political statement, many others who have no idea of the potential connotations of wearing a keffeiya simply think its a cool scarf.
I have a friend from NYC who used to wear one back in the 80s with true New Yorker panache, knowing exactly what she was doing–it was a political fashion statement that meant both–so it could be ironic when needed, and serious when needed.
In the past few years I’ve seen them all over the place, primarily from being dragged through malls and clothing shops with my teenage daughter.
There are racks of them available, and most people have no clue whatsoever what they are.
I’m not going to ascribe any significance to Jonathan’s for him, but he can’t be clueless as to the potential take-away simply because of the ubiquity of the fashion accessory.
Sometimes a scarf isn’t just a scarf (even if a cigar IS just a cigar).
I see the scarf as less of an issue in the context of the rally than the behavior with the camera. That could be perceived as a direct attempt to intimidate, no matter what the intent actually was, or is claimed to be.
And the thought of someone getting in John Flannery’s face and flashing flashing flashing flashing flashing photos and doing to him what he condones done to others is also an amusing thought.
Eugene just happily ignores it all, smiles, and addresses the people– YOu can’t upset him, that really bothers you doesn’t it?
John Flannery would have blown a gasket, turned purple and shouted and threatened to punch someone,,, in my opinion after watching him lose his temper time and time again over … nothing…. but someone who respectfully disagrees…
Faux science, faux “photographer,” faux outrage, faux “raaacist” smears if you point out something obvious…
Why did he take the scarf off to testify to the Board? was it just part of the get up to cause some sort of reaction to the people he wishes to offend? [edited for slurs], the scarf has been in the news and quite controversial…just interesting that was his choice and he only wore it while he was “photographing” the Eugene and the people there!
You all are the ones who are angry, angry at having the truth exposed, angry that there are real, yes real people, in large numbers who do not support this Ordinance, for lots of reasons… and the LCRC was at a meeting, so it was almost all non LCRC folks! Ha, that is the best of all… the rally conflicted with an LCRC meeting on redistricting and candidates presentations! The LCRC was not even there!
And did you hear Eugene, he was shocked as he looked at the crowd.. he said “Who are you all? I don’t know any of you?” He has been right on in picking up the LEC message, he GETS the truth, his playset accusation has been ACCURATE (Miller never bothered to read the proposed Ordinance as citizens did) and you all are making him look like a man of the people, as some other person said at the gathering… especially when you wear things that look exactly like [edited for slurs]
Keep it up!
hmmm no, very happy with the coverage! just telling all here why people were a little upset with the person with the scarf getting in their faces with a flash bulb– they thought he was LEC, and we told them, no. And no racial epithet intended by ME, but sure the scarf was intended to be provocative… no doubt a planned offense, hoping someone would bite… but alas everyone just ignored the annoying person with the flash in their face, getting just a little too close, taking many many photos, trying to blind people??? be annoying? harass the people there protesting as is their right? just not sure what the point was…
My understanding is that the LEC has tried to engage the press over and over, and has been ignored– they have submitted their own solutions, etc. and the press does not cover it. The Supervisors apparently do not read their submissions either (not the actual words of the Ordinance.)
LEC was EXTREMELY happy that they could not longer be ignored, and that they got coverage…. is what I am hearing…
First of all, if you are addressing me, it would be more clear if you used the ‘reply’ link at the bottom of the comment to which you wish to respond.
I did not attend the protest – I attended the public hearing. Your bizarre and ignorant references to people’s scarves are laughable, and not worthy of further response. In fact, it seems to me that they fall into the category of racist epithet – consider yourself warned.
Let me explain to you how this works. You cannot have a protest in a public building, and then demand that it be treated as if it’s a private event. You cannot simultaneously demand media coverage, and also demand to control who can watch and who can photograph your public event. Your comments here are nothing more than damage control – you are angry that you cannot control what is reported about who you are and what you do.
Re any black eyes for PEC,I think what we may be seeing is how stunned the group pushing this is to find that it didn’t just go right through on schedule.
Usually when there is a PEC-majority board in power, minimal process and perfunctory pass-alongs are fine, because the paid lobbyists and the astroturfed email lists get bodies armed with the right talking points to the right meetings, and then it is on record that “the people” have spoken, and the board’s (often predetermined) vote has some cover.
That didn’t work this time.
Also, in terms of the people being a little uncomfortable with whoever it was (David?) taking all the photos– first, people saw your [edited for slurs] scarf, and a lot of people thought you were with the LEC and it did make people feel uncomfortable, with you in everyone’s faces with your flash– and the scarf. People were told they would be filmed, but were a little offended by your attire, and LEC had to assure people that the person in the [edited for slurs] scarf was not with LEC. I wonder why you did that, if you were trying to be offensive? trying to pretend you were with the LEC or make people think that? why didn’t you ask if people minded if you took their photo? and why didn’t you identify yourself? I think you enjoy making mischief, and tried to be disruptive– people just ignored you because those people are civil and polite, unlike some of the folks on your “side.”
The fact that the encouragement to come to a rally went out by email (send it to your friends type email,) was planned for the same time that an LCRC meeting 1/2 hour away, that there were no professional press releases, that there was a letter from Roy Jacobsen published in a local paper–only one picked it up, asking people to come– shows one thing. It is a grass roots group, based on lots of volunteers, it is not professional with paid interns, paid lawyers, paid planners or any paid employees or professional press packages, which is what the PEC does (and one reason the papers always publish the PEC’s point of view, it is easy to do so… because they are professionally created press packages and timed to arrive before the various publishing deadlines, delivered at the right time, to the right people…etc.) LEC is truly a group of volunteer grass roots citizens of Loudoun–they do not have a professional press contact taking care of all these details… Lucky to have a professional videographer who was willing and able to volunteer to film the whole thing… or the press would have ignored it and just reported that “more people spoke in favor of the Ordinance than against…” Such is the bias of the reporting to date. The fact that some individuals from the LCRC, and from the TEA party, and Democrats (like the videographer) are united and have supported the truthfulness of the LEC should be very worrisome to this Board– this Board is ignoring the true grass roots group, calling them names, in favor of a very well organized true astro turf PEC out of county money, well paid PEC planners/lawyers/interns executing an agenda based on deception, “simple arithmetic errors,” convenient science, exaggeration, etc. and the people are not happy… this has been a huge black eye for the PEC and for this Board in terms of credibility, fairness and transparency.
Mr. Miller should carefully consider what the LEC is saying– it is not the LCRC, it is a broad coalition of people of many political beliefs…who want honesty in our government not kow towing to the big money west of the County with a huge agenda to make our county the battle ground for no growth, stop the “creep” so they do not have to fight it on their own turf… Mr. Miller has tried to persuade his own constituents to act against their interests, to make the PEC and big money in Fauquier, happy– he should realize the PEC money does not embrace him, they are simply using him.. he should hear what JF III says about him behind his back….
Pingback: Astroturf – Loudoun Progress
Clearly, you don’t understand the argument you’re trying to refute. I’m not sure where you got the idea of “hiding.” Are you quoting someone, or is that your word? Obviously, having a demonstration in a public building is not “hiding,” and that would indeed be hilarious. No, the issue is trying to control the message. Now, anyone would want to do that, it’s public relations 101. What’s amusing to me is the method used here.
The assertion that they were “hiding” is hilarious, since the LEC filmed the entire event, and gave it to all the press outlets. LTM and L2Day put it on their websites… yes, “hiding” from the press meanwhile filming the entire thing.. shows how twisted the logic is on this site! Haha.
Linda, I would be pretty alarmed about you and Joe if you didn’t know about it! No, clearly not a secret – after all, I knew about it too – just an unconventional approach to publicity.
Guys, I’m going to turn on threaded comments.
David, Even I knew about it and I am one of the least plugged in people I know. I think I’d seen mention of it on some blogs, though I can’t say for sure.
You may be right, the organizers may not have done a great job of publicizing it, but that is different from trying to hide it. If the emails did urge people to spread the word, they clearly were not worried about who might find out.
Hi Joe, nice to see you here. I think that is a very interesting comment, and it perhaps unintentionally reveals something about the insularity of what you think of as “far and wide.”
The joke Monday night with the reporters was “What? Don’t you read the Purcellville Gazette?” There clearly was no press release. The LTM had no one there. The Leesburg Today reporter got there just as your keynote speaker (the Sterling supervisor) was starting. So you did not inform the press, except for the Gazette, which had sufficient notice to have an editorial about it. Claiming after the fact that it was somehow up to all other local newspapers to “know” about your plans through emails forwarded within your own networks is an unconventional approach to publicity, to say the least. I have never heard of it being done that way before. My theory is that you wanted to take the press by surprise. But of course, it’s just a theory :).
Eric, you’ve been posting that contention for two days now, at the LTM, at L2Day and on the astroturf thread.
David actually introduced the Shockeys at L2Day, in the post directly after your “CPR-same group” post there.
Still waiting for some documentation of that.
(not with bated breath, or any real hope that some will be forthcoming, since this is the spaghetti ping pong method, as usual)
I said nothing about the Shockeys – while they were the instigators of CPR they were not the entire operation. As YOU said many of the players are the same hence my contention – “same group…different day…”
Sorry David–as we’ve agreed before, written words lack tone, and I interpreted this:
“I’m not asking Eric. I’m asking you. You do know the Shockeys, and the organization, correct?” as a somewhat brusque demand.
Eric made the conflation between their former group and the CBPO, and it appeared as if you were continuing it.
Just as, at Christmas, when we discussed that it was NOT hypocrisy for me to NOT say anything about the inclusive policy at the courthouse when it was executed, it appears the same situation has devolved here–the Shockeys have not been active on this issue, and were not present Monday night, yet here they are tossed into the mix as some sort of “proof” of undocumented claims about a relationship with the LEC.
I think you must be misunderstanding me. I didn’t say that I thought the Shockeys were behind LEC. It just strikes me as weird that they dropped off the map, and I wondered if you knew why? Why would you be asking me, if you know them and I don’t?
Eric and I are not the same person (seems an odd thing to have to say…).
Of course I do, David.
Were the Shockey’s present Monday night?
Have they spoken before the Board on the CBPO?
Was any official representation of CPR present Monday night?
I’m asking YOU, and Eric.
“One would think” is not proof.
Of course, having pointed that out, there is wiggle room for you to state that you never said that it WAS.
I’m not asking Eric. I’m asking you. You do know the Shockeys, and the organization, correct?
David, see Eric’s comments: according to him, CPR = LEC.
(and according to him, his interpretation of my words is that that is confirmed. Documentation still lacking, however)
Glad I missed that debacle.
I’ve been wondering whatever happened to the Shockeys. The last I heard about dearest Patricia, she was outside the fence at the Sarah Palin rally, screeching “NO RINOS” at someone on the inside whom she deemed insufficiently Republican. But yeah, where’s CPR? Do they still exist? One would think they would be weighing in on an issue their favorite supe is calling a “liberal land grab” or whatever today’s meme is.
It was not coordinated by Delgaudio, and it certainly was no secret. The people coordinating it sent emails far and wide for at least two weeks prior telling everyone to forward the info to everyone you know. Any media outlet that did not know about it was not paying attention.
I declare Pie!
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Pie_fight
“Unless this is really about fear…”
Why should we fear a warmed over CPR, Barb? I thought those guys were our saviors what with their rabid protection of my property rights and all. You shouldn”t be distancing yourself from them. EMBRACE your buddies.
Barb, see my answer on thread referenced.
“You need to do the same for your accusations.”
You did it for me. Same group…different day is my claim and you confirmed that with your aknowledgement that it is the same people in both cases.
CPR—->LEC
Eric, if anyone is carrying on….!
As I said to you on the other thread, I have provided documentation for my statements.
You need to do the same for your accusations.
“Unless this is really about fear, innuendo, conspiracy theories, and the like for election purposes solely that is…”
😀
“…in how I choose to vote this fall.”
So really, why all the hullabaloo? Why not just let the governing entities take their vote on the subject and (if you think this is such a big voting issue) let the citizens vote in a new crop to do away with it – if you think you can win that way, that is? Unless this is really about fear, innuendo, conspiracy theories, and the like for election purposes solely that is…in that case, carry on.
Eric, the exclusion of any voting voice for the REDC is simply another example of the bad process.
Just as exclusion of HOAs earlier on was a bad part of ther process which was somewhat rectified in the TLUC.
I have no control over any of this, other than any decision I make to participate in public input, and in how I choose to vote this fall.
“Eric, why play word games instead of discuss the issue?”
It is not about word games, Barb, it is a recognition that no matter WHAT process is followed, you will simply find something in that process you do not like and claim it is somehow invalid. You did it earlier with the HOAs, the problem de jour is you do not like the way the REDC was treated. If that were fixed to your satisfaction (not that I am suggesting it should be just because YOU don’t like it) you would probably next have a problem with LEC or some other group supposedly not being included. It is how you roll, Barb.
Eric, why play word games instead of discuss the issue?
Shall I mirror you, and say that “obviously” you feel the rural economic interests should have had no voice in the process?
I won’t, because that’s not what you said, nor do I believe it is what you would say in all honesty (except perhaps in “I know you are but what am I” mode).
“Eric, tell me, what do volcanoes contribute to greenhouse gases?”
Are you saying that man is the volcano, earthquake, tsunami of the living world? Ok, I’ll buy that.
“Yes, we are part of the environment.”
A benign part, in LEC’s viewpoint apparently.
“Why not include a rep from each rural industry the REDC exists to serve?”
Barb’s new HOAs…
“Please show me where I conflated that with a demand for the LEC to have a vote to pass the CBPO?”
simply said this will be next….it has been you MO from day one. I think it is simply a left over from your PC days…
Eric, tell me, what do volcanoes contribute to greenhouse gases?
How do humans contribute to that?
(Not to follow your lead too much in deflection, but man is not the only factor in affecting the natural environment.)
Yes, we are part of the environment. We are also going to have to live in the regulatory environment seeking to be created here, and to pay for it.
Eric, the fact that the (brief) president of a member group of the PEC astroturf Loudoun Clean Streams Coalition was briefly the voting representative of the Rural Economic Development Council in the extended stakeholder process conducted through the Transportation and Land Use Committee of the BoS, in spite of NOT even being a member of the REDC, and was then replaced by the At Large REDC member, but without voting privileges on behalf of the council, begs investigation.
A great deal of our Comp Plan is devoted to the rural economy, and a great deal of our resources. Why did they have voting privileges by a nonmember, followed by NO voting, from a member?
Why not include a rep from each rural industry the REDC exists to serve?
It was instructive to see how little was afforded that body in input, against the amount of lip service paid in planning and policy.
Please show me where I conflated that with a demand for the LEC to have a vote to pass the CBPO?
The only place everyone will get to vote is in November.
“Jonathan, “environment” doesn’t just mean the non-human part.”
Just so Barb doesn’t spin the discussion into a “what does environment mean” argument, from The American Heritage® Science Dictionary:
environment (ěn-vī’rən-mənt) Pronunciation Key
All of the biotic and abiotic factors that act on an organism, population, or ecological community and influence its survival and development. Biotic factors include the organisms themselves, their food, and their interactions. Abiotic factors include such items as sunlight, soil, air, water, climate, and pollution. Organisms respond to changes in their environment by evolutionary adaptations in form and behavior.
So in so far as man is an organism and man is also a factor that interacts with an organism, population, or ecological community, Barb is correct. Mankind and all his appurtenances are a part of the environment. The odd thing is that only man himself (in the generic sense) has the ability to seriously threaten the human (as well as non-human) environment. That is the salient point of this discussion and the irony of the LEC statement given that they obviously have no interest in mitigating this threat.
“The REDC didn’t even have a voting voice in the most recent iteration…”
Ahhhh…the new Barb Munsey demand for approval for passage – next up “LEC did not have a voting voice”?
“Our benthic counts seem inconclusive.”
Barb, the benthic counts are NOT inconclusive.
Paradox, neither do I see how some Board members will “get it right” if they continue to belittle those who come to address them, and developed a stakeholder process so full of holes.
The REDC didn’t even have a voting voice in the most recent iteration, and I see that as a stunning omission, given the amount of policy and resources we devote to the rural economy.
My personal opinion is that they have not only run out of time, and should turn away toward the things they HAVE to do in the immediate future (budget, redistricting), but that time has passed this particular quixoticism at the state level via the new EPA approved TMDLs/WIP and the new fertilizer bill. We should let those new issues set the pace for a more realistic evaluation of any additional effort (and expenditure) on our local part.
Jonathan, “environment” doesn’t just mean the non-human part. Your home, mine, your office, the stores in Leesburg, ALL are part of “the environment”.
Does “playground” only mean for abuse? What about swimming and wading, fishing, boating? Where do they espouse water being for abuse, and UNnecessary for life?
What is your beef with the Cooperative Extension? Are they a good source on those items with which you agree, and wrong here because a group with whom you disagree quotes them?
You accuse them of being simplistic–how complex is your response?
Here are some quotes from the Loudoun “Envoronmental” Council
Interesting definition of “environment”. Maybe some of the principles work at the sewage treatment plant. That’s their “environment”. But they vote. Watch out.
See! Water isn’t a necessity of life, it’s a “playground”.
And how does the LEC propose to “keep our waterways healthy and open for recreation”? They don’t. There is no “how” and no “know how” in LEC’s web site. There is only “just say no” and the only discussion of riparian buffers is to make them as narrow as possible. For example:
This is pretty hilarious.
Ms. Munsey, thank you for engaging us in this discussion.
Personally, I do not see how a loud rally with people in pig suits contributes to the reasoned consideration of the Ordinance in the interests of getting it right. The rally earlier this week seemed pretty clearly aimed at scuttling the CBPO, not “getting it right.”
And that is my issue. If these folks really and truly believe in getting it right, they’d be contributing to that effort rather than laying about with straw man arguments and simple falsehoods, actions which clearly seek to prevent the CBPO’s passage in any form.
Our dissolved oxygen suggests they are better than we’re being told they are by the alarmists.
Our benthic counts seem inconclusive.
Broad generalizations aren’t too valid themselves, at least IMO.
Now, can you please cite some evidence that the event was “astroturf” coordinated by Delgaudio?
I can think of one pro-CBPO group that gives a very good representation of the term.
This looks a lot like derailing to me. Do you or do you not honestly believe that the claim that our streams are “healthy” is true? Is that a valid thing to tell people?
David, you’re taking a page from Jonathan’s book here with the emotional language.
Please as I asked you on the LTM site, provide references that it is incontrovertibly an “astroturf” group “from the desk of Eugene Delgaudio”.
There are indeed valid concerns about the ordinance as written – we also talked with a few people who attended the protest, but did not immediately run off to the LCRC meeting, about those valid concerns. They need to be addressed, and will be addressed, because that is how good governance works. I will be the first person to insist on it. I know people who would be unfairly burdened in a way that doesn’t really serve the purpose of the ordinance well, and that’s not ok. There are also things that need to be done that are beyond the authority of the BoS. It’s not either/or.
The point is that the process of getting the ordinance right is not well served by an astroturf group making ludicrous claims that come straight from the desk of Mr. Eugene Delgaudio. The group exists for one reason only, and that reason will no longer exist after November 2011.
Politicizing a genuine problem that harms people and pretending the problem doesn’t exist for personal gain is disgusting behavior. What part of that do you not understand? Or are you also claiming that our streams are “healthy”? I invite you to come for a swim in the Catoctin in the event that you honestly don’t know any better.
David, as I said, some people seemed annoyed that Jonathan did not identify himself, nor did he ask. I imagine if he ostentatiously took any photos of any of the kids without identifying himself or a courtesy word to the parents, those parents might feel a bit annoyed too.
You all certainly seem in a lather over this–calling the press to see if the group issued any releases, having a photographer present (for what purpose?), this rather amazing blog post with rather amazing photos.
That group is organized as a 501(c)4, which is at least honest–anyone who donates either cash or in kind gets no tax benefit, because they up-front say they are political.
Can’t say the same for the PEC, or the Campaign for Loudoun’s Future. And where did PAC Voters for Loudoun’s Future evaporate to after getting this Board elected? The stationary just went back on the shelf, along with the other boxes that get rotated in and out once any particular name gets overexposed.
Paradox, some people who I know are affiliated with LEC agree with you that it is a remapping. That’s why some have been pretty irate that it has been handled as a simple change in the codified ordinance, which negates the needs for the notification of individual affected property owners that treating it honestly like zoning would require.
Like it or not, those folks have some legitimate points and beefs.
Railing at them or stalking them doesn’t do much to negate their valid points.
Barbara, they didn’t send out press releases. The only newspaper that knew beforehand was the Purcellville Gazette, which actually published a puff piece editorial about it. We all know who owns the Gazette. Reporters from the other papers were caught unaware and rushed someone there at the last minute if they were able to. We know this because we talked with them. Kudos especially to the Leesburg Today reporter, who managed to get a balanced story out of it in spite of everything.
Generally, if one has organized a political protest in a public place, one wants to get media coverage of it. It’s more than a little odd that 1) only one media outlet (published by a prominent Republican activist) was informed, and 2) people participating would be upset about having their picture taken. It’s pretty obvious that real investigative journalism wasn’t wanted there, only a pre-packaged message.
Well, nothing like eleveating the discourse–lol!
David, the sense I got from some of those who disliked Jonathan’s photography was not that it made them nervous, but that they found it annoying that he neither identified himself, nor asked permission–both of which real journalists usually do when they want to get in someone’s face with a flashbulb.
If they didn’t want “pesky reporters”, why does it have prominent coverage in both major local papers? Some one must be interfacing with those “pesky” folks, if the video and articles are up on the news websites.
I posted my thoughts on the matter on Leesburg Tomorrow yesterday. I still think this is just zoning, plain and simple.
*snort*
All I can say is…
Oh boy. There is SO much more to say about this. Jonathan was there last night taking photos, which made them extremely nervous for some reason. Also, it appears that they didn’t want pesky reporters poking around.