I would vote for Kelly Burk

Over at his own blog, my husband, Stevens Miller, has said that he would vote for Ken Reid if we lived in Leesburg.

I understand his reasons, and agree with a lot of what he says but from the same facts, I come to a different conclusion.

Yes, Kelly Burk is flaky and never remembers to turn off her cell phone. Yes, she's not a terribly clear thinker. Yes, she's been known to be petty and vindictive.

I would still vote for her, because I fear what we would get with Ken Reid. Ken Reid is a staunch conservative ala Dick Black and Eugene Delgaudio who is smart enough to at least try to hide that he is a Black/Delgaudio fan. If he is elected to the BOS, he could easily use that as a platform to get to the general assembly. We already have enough people running for the GA who think that birth control should be outlawed.

The anti-choice/anti-LGBT folks vote anti-choice/anti-LGBT at every level of government, because they know that local office is where you get your crop for next year's higher office candidates.

It's time for our side to start doing the same. We need to vote PRO-choice/PRO-LGBT at every level of government.

And, while Kelly isn't an ally of Choice, she did stand up to Delgaudio. I'd rather have tepid support than avid opposition.

So, if you live in Leesburg, and you're no Black/Delgaudio fan, vote for Kelly Burk.

Cliff Keirce, Andrea McGimsey, the Hatch Act, and you

Cliff Keirce, who has been a friend of the family since we moved into the Broadlands, has announced a run as an Independent candidate for Supervisor for the new Broad Run district.

Cliff is a widely known, very popular, well-liked, hugely qualified candidate for this office. He's been Stevens's Planning Commissioner for the last couple of years. Before that, he was on the Facilities Standards Manual Public Review Committee, all while serving on the Broadlands HOA (including as President) and the Loudoun Library Foundation Board. His wife and his children are wonderful people, and he and his family are seriously committed to serving the community.

The Hatch Act makes it impossible for him to run for a party nomination, but an Independent label suits Cliff better than either party label anyway.

Cliff is, by all measures, a terrific candidate and deserves to have the unqualified support of all who know him.

Meanwhile, Andrea McGimsey, current Potomac Supervisor, is also in the new Broad Run district and has announced that she is going to run for reelection. I agree with Andrea on most issues, she's been a phenomenal advocate for making Loudoun an environmentally responsible locality and her work on that topic has helped Loudoun win awards for energy efficient policies. She's kept her campaign promises to be a proponent of slow-growth and sustainable policies.

Andrea has earned the trust and admiration of many in Loudoun for her strong and outspoken advocacy of many issues. She's a popular and welcomed figure in Democratic and environmental circles and she has done outstanding work in many areas. She has been a good friend to the Community Services Board* and Loudoun Abused Women's Shelter**, as well as many other organizations of which I am fond. Just like Cliff, she deserves to have the unqualified support of all who know her.

And there's the problem. They are both running for the same seat on the Board of Supervisors, and as much I want them both on the board, we can only pick one.

(Before I start discussing the choice ahead, I would like to point out that in the HOA 4 plan, Andrea and Cliff were not drawn into the same district. Actually, they weren't drawn in together under any of the plans Stevens backed. So the very fact that voters are in a position of having to make this particular choice is pissing me off.)

Now, for the race itself:
First is the fact that this is going to be a 3-way race. Members of either party committee who think that Cliff would be a terrific candidate are in a bind, since it looks like both parties are going to have an official nominee. Members of the LCDC have pledged to help get Democratic candidates elected and pledged not to work against a Democratic candidate in a race where there is one. If there isn't one, LCDC members are  free to back whichever other candidate they choose. I'm assuming the situation is the same for those in the LCRC.

This means that I, like others on the LCDC who live in the new Broad Run, have three choices in this election:

1. Back Andrea
2. Leave the LCDC to back Cliff or
3. Sit down and shut up.

Now, if it weren't for the Hatch Act, Dems could say to Cliff, make a stand: Join the Dems. But that position is closed off to him by law and it's unfair to ask him.

Second, is the political reality of the new district. I can't speak to the politics of the other areas in the new Broad Run, but I CAN speak to the politics of the Broadlands. The people in Broadlands like to vote for the moderate. They don't like mean-spirited politicians: they didn't like Dick Black or Steve Snow and were ready to vote for reasonable Democrats to get rid of them. But, given a seemingly reasonable moderate Republican or, for preference, an Independent, they'll vote for that person over a Democratic candidate (see the Poisson/Greason election). Cliff Keirce has been elected, and re-elected, and re-re-elected to the HOA board in the Broadlands. The residents know him, like him, and expect him to be reasonable and a good advocate. People who have opposed him on various issues respect him and consider him fair-minded, even when they disagree with him vehemently. All of which is to say that I think that Cliff can win the Broadlands, no matter whether he runs in a 3-way race or a 2-way race.

If Cliff were not in the race, I think the Broadlands would vote for Shawn Williams, unless Andrea can make a big enough stink about him being a Dick Black fan. The residents of the Broadlands don't want to be preached to by either side of the political spectrum. They're proud to live in a community with lots of environmentally-friendly features, but that doesn't mean they want to see any clothes-lines or compost piles. They may or may not care a great deal about social issues, regardless, they don't want the people representing them to be rabid about such issues either.

(Please note I am speaking in generalities here, each resident of the Broadlands is an individual and this generalization will not apply to all those individuals).

It is my opinion that if a candidate wins the Broadlands, they will win the new Broad Run.

Third, what can the opposition use? For the last several months Andrea has said many times from the dais, that her full-time job as the Executive Director for Oatlands makes it difficult for her to attend daytime BOS meetings, or to be prepared for the ones she attends. It makes her sound like she can't maintain the effort needed to stay on top of her committments. I think an opponent could use those statements to ask why she's running for a second term if she's finding it hard to keep up.

Against Cliff is the fact that he was a vocal proponent of the hospital in the Broadlands (which actually will be viewed positively in many quarters), and is a high-order nerd (collecting comic books and signed first editions - much like me, actually). He has large presence online and in the local papers, and that's always dangerous for a candidate who doesn't want his words used against him. His clothing sense is questionable (while I might see it as plus, I'm not sure if voters are going to welcome a guy knocking on their door in a Thor's Mighty Hammer t-shirt).

I wish I didn't have to choose between two terrific candidates. I wish that it were a 2-way race between one of these two great candidates and the LCRC's candidate. And it's my guess that there are many people who consider themselves Democrats who are feeling the same way today.

It's not my way to sit down and shut up, so I only have two choices. Stay with the LCDC and back Andrea, or leave the LCDC and back Cliff. I've never worked against a Democratic candidate before, nor have I ever worked against the person I thought was the better candidate. I've always felt that the Democratic candidate, if there was one in the race, was the better candidate, which is why I'm a member of the LCDC in the first place. But what if a committed Dem thinks that Cliff is the better candidate? For that matter, what if a Republican does?

What are your thoughts?

*I'm a member of the Board of the CSB.
**I did an internship with LAWS.

Expanding on my comments

Paradox13 put up a post about the redistricting over at Loudoun Progress. And I made a couple of comments there, which I'm going to expand on here.

Stevens disagrees with me on a lot of what I'm about to say, but this is my blog, my opinion, and here it goes.

I don't care one iota if there is one Western district or two. I think having an HOA or a town kept entirely in one district is a fine desire, but not something that ends up mattering a whole lot on election day. I do think that it matters if a district is contiguous. I do think it matters if you have to leave the district to reach another part of it, but ultimately, I think that there are many ways to split up Loudoun relatively equitably and Miller 5 (unamended) and HOA 4 were two of them.

I've said before that I am partisan only inasmuch as the Democratic party is the party that has, as part of its platform, a pledge (among other things) to protect the rights of women, minorities, LGBT, and people with disabilities.

In this county, we have an elected official whose day job it is to fight against the right of people who are gay.

There was one and only one partisan piece of redistricting that was included in both Miller 5 (unamended) and HOA 4. That piece was including MY precinct, Oak Grove, with Delgaudio's district.

And Sally Kurtz amended it into Andrea McGimsey's district.

Which is so phenomenally stupid that I am flabbergasted that Mike Turner is crowing about it.


Oak Grove has a net 100 reliable Democrats. Delgaudio won last time by 200 votes. Oak Grove was the keystone in the plan to get Delgaudio booted out this November. And the beauty of it was, it wasn't gerrymandering, because Oak Grove BELONGS in Sterling. It is otherwise isolated from the rest of the county. There was no way for Delgaudio to complain about it. It was natural to join it in. OF COURSE it should be joined in.


Now, instead of making the demise of Delgaudio's Board tenure a sure thing, Oak Grove is merely there to increase McGimsey's win margin, in an obvious bit of gerrymandering to pull us into her district.

I really like Andrea. I think she's been a good Supervisor. But if this bit of redistricting sends Delgaudio back to the Board next year (especially if he wins by less than 100 votes), I will never forget that it was she, and Mike Turner, and Sally Kurtz, and Kelly Burk, and Susan Buckley, and Jim Burton who made this happen.

And I will make sure that everyone, everywhere, who has ever heard of Delgaudio knows EXACTLY whose fault it is if he wins.

What my last name means

Miller. It's a very common name. Easy to spell. Easy to say. Almost...anonymous in its plain-vanilla ordinariness.

My former last name was not at all common. I was the only person in America with my former full legal name. Even in the days before facebook, it was a very obvious name. Many people all over the country had heard of at least one person with the same last name and asked if I were related to that person (usually my father's oldest brother. If not, it was my uncle one brother up from my father).

When I got married, I was happy to take on the anonymity of Miller. There are names I would not have traded for. In fact, a former boyfriend had a common last name that suited him very well, but would not have suited me at all. At 4'11", one does not take on a name that means, "tall building".

Changing one's name on marrying was and is a very un-feminist thing to do, and I consider myself a feminist. But Miller as a name was pretty darn seductive to someone whose name had been forever a thing to reckon with. Even my father pronounces it differently depending on if he introduces himself as Bob (emphasis on last syllable) or Robert (emphasis on first). So believe me when I tell you that I did not change my name lightly or without a lot of thought.

As a feminist, I think I made the poorer choice, the choice that makes it harder for others to remain themselves if they wish.

Perhaps the better choice would have been for both of us to have changed our names to something like Brown or Jones. I don't know.

I know that I made the choice that felt right to me at the time, and that still feels right to me as a person.

And the fact that men, in general, don't have to think about this? Is a privilege I haven't got.

But here's the thing. I got married in New York State in 1996. If I had wanted to marry another woman, I wouldn't have been able to, and still could not in NY or VA. So the ease of changing my name through marriage? Is a privilege.

Funny that.

For the sake of argument...

Let's take the other side seriously for a moment and assume, strictly for the sake of this discussion, that an embryo is a person from the moment of conception, and that it has the same rights as every other person has. You know that I think that's crap, but let's pretend it's not for now, okay?

An innocent person has a right to live, so an embryo has a right to live. (Hard to imagine an embryo as anything other than innocent, eh?) Killing an innocent person is wrong and we should prevent that. If we don't act to save that innocent embryo against its murder by abortion, we're as guilty of killing it as the person who performs the abortion is, and as guilty as the woman who has it performed on her is. Our only moral option is to prevent abortion, even if that means making it a crime to have or give one.

Seems pretty clear that, if we don't act to stop it, we are committing a moral wrong, because we are choosing to let an innocent person die. That's why we have to empower our police to arrest abortionists and their patients, our courts to prosecute them, and our prisons to lock them up. Heck, Virginia has the death penalty and prisons are expensive. Abortionists and their patients are not innocent. Execute them. If we don't, we're as bad as they are.

Some people point out that, if we use the power of government to control a pregnant woman's behavior, we're taking away her liberty. That's true, but we're talking life and death here! Any constitutional scholar will tell you that life interests outrank liberty interests under the constitution. So, government forcing choices on pregnant women is constitutionally okay, if that's what it takes to save an innocent person's life.

Right.

When was the last time you gave blood? Something like a quarter of a million people died in Haiti this year after a major earthquake struck their homes. Many died for lack of blood. Every single person who could have given a pint of blood, but didn't, might have saved an innocent life. But didn't. Why is that okay, but standing by and letting a woman make her own choice isn't? Because it should be your choice as to whether or not you give blood? How is it not, then, a woman's choice as to whether or not she gives birth? Because her choice kills and your choice doesn't? Sorry. You give blood, or someone dies. She gives birth, or someone dies. What gives anyone the right to compel a person to give birth, if no one has the right to compel a person to give blood? (By the way, giving blood is far less likely to kill you than giving birth.)

If an embryo is an innocent person, and it's morally wrong to allow others to kill an innocent person, and therefore we are morally obliged to compel a pregnant woman to give birth, are we not morally obliged to compel an able person to give blood?

Are we not obliged to compel every potential donor with a kidney to be tested for type and kept on file so their kidney can save an innocent life when that donor dies?

Heck, if you have two good kidneys, why should you be allowed to keep them both? Some people don't have one. Government simply must take one of yours or else some innocent person dies.

If you believe an embryo is a person and that government must force a pregnant woman to give that person birth, then roll up your sleeve. And keep next week open, too, because you're going to be due in surgery. Someone out there needs one of your kidneys, and by God, the government's gonna give it to him.

Nothing else would be moral.

EXCLUSIVE!!! Interview with Jeff Barnett: Pro-choice Edition

Jeff, thank you so much for taking the time to answer some questions for my blog. So let's start with the big one: where do you stand on Choice?



Thank you, Liz, for the invitation. The question you ask is a very important one to me, and it's something I've felt strongly about for much of my life. In a modern democracy - one that prides itself on being a free society - few things could be more important than a woman's right to control her own body. The decision to have a child should be made by a woman in consultation with her family, her doctor, and her god. The government has no place in that conversation.

What did you think of Cuccinelli's opinion on abortion providers in Virginia?




I disagree strongly with Mr. Cuccinelli's opinion. Singling out abortion providers for significantly stricter oversight is not so much an attempt to protect our health as an attempt to discriminate against certain outpatient centers and shut down clinics that perform abortions. I will discourage the Attorney General's office from using the people's tax dollars to crusade against constitutionally permissible and medically accepted treatment.

Would you be in favor of repealing the Stupak amendment [no insurance plan that uses Federal funds can cover abortion]?



The health care reform legislation was a monumental achievement, and we drew support from a wide variety of legislators to get it done. I won't do anything to jeopardize our commitment to providing medical care to millions of previously uninsured Americans.

If I have the chance to repeal the anti-choice provisions of the health care reform without damaging the law's broader goals, I will seize the opportunity. Realistically, however, I don't know how likely that is to happen right away. We got the much-needed votes to pass health care reform legislation from a lot of people who oppose choice, and we got them because the President gave his word that certain things would happen. The President isn't a man who takes his promises lightly, and I'm not a man who asks him to break them. Making sure these health care plans cover abortion is important. This is a battle that we're going to win, but not within the next few months.

The Stupak Amendment makes it all the more important, then, that we make sure that the other means of securing the procedure are available and fully funded. There are many private channels that we must reinforce in order to make sure that this procedure isn't only available to the wealthy. In the absence of public funding, we have an obligation as leaders to make sure women are aware of the full range of contraceptive, preventive, and emergency options available to them.

Do you agree that medically required abortions (ones where the fetus is already deceased, for example) should not be treated differently from other medical procedures and shouldn't require special insurance?


Yes, I agree. I understand why the issue of choice is, in many circumstances, contentious. People of good conscience can have powerful differences on these fundamental issues. But the idea that health insurance would not cover treatment that is medically necessary to save a woman's life is unacceptable.

Do you think that oral contraceptives should be available without a prescription?



Yes, I do: you shouldn't need a doctor's permission to take control of your own body. Nevertheless, I think that opponents of this practice have some important concerns that we should address as we move towards making a range of contraceptives more readily available. Oral contraceptives, like many drugs, affect the way the body works in significant ways, and they aren't without side effects, however rare. Furthermore, reliance on birth control that isn't being properly used can lead to some pretty significant consequences. For those two reasons, it's helpful to have guidance when beginning a significant new medical regimen of any kind, birth control or otherwise.

The way to fight the side effects of oral contraceptives and to make sure they aren't misused isn't with prohibition and restriction: it's with information and education. I believe that oral contraceptives should be available without a prescription, but I also think that it's important that, when possible, we continue to consult our doctors before making significant medical decisions.

Do you think that pharmacists should be required to provide legally prescribed medication to their customers and patients?



Yes. Freedom of choice and freedom over your body don't mean much if you can't access the medication you need.



Thank you again, Jeff, for taking the time to answer my questions.

Information on the RPA and the RPA Screening Area (from my post at Loudoun Progress)

It's clear from last night's Monday's Public Hearing on the RPA, and from the mail traffic I've been getting, that there's been a lack of clarity on the RPA and especially on the RPA Screening Area.

FACT: If you are in the RPA Screening Area and the PROJECT (deck, swingset, patio, vegetable garden) you want to complete is LESS THAN 2500 square feet in area, then you are cool.
You don't have to ask permission beyond what the county (or your HOA) already requires or do water testing or anything.

FACT: This means that the only folks who have to worry about whether they are in the RPA Screening Area, are landowners with Huge Tracts of Land that are looking to subdivide or build homes or large shopping areas. In which case, the $3400 fee for doing the testing is a small percentage of the price and is a cost of doing business.

QUESTION: So, who has a vested interest in sending out panicky emails to homeowners in Broadlands, Brambleton, Sterling, and other well-built-out areas of the county where the average size of a project is 240 square feet? Couldn't be builders and realtors? Could it?

FACT: The bulk of Eugene Delgaudio's campaign money comes from realtors and builders

FACT: Donny Ferguson, who wrote that Western Traditions blog post, is a former Eugene Delgaudio aide.


Here is a picture of a map overlaid with the RPA:



And here is a picture of the same map overlaid with the RPA Screening Area:



How do you find out if you are either area?

1. GO HERE: http://gisinter1.loudoun.gov/weblogis/agree.htm.


2. Click on Yes, and then click on the tab marked "Search".


3. Enter your address (it works best if you enter as little as possible - house number and first part of your street name).


4. Click Submit. Then click Map It on the linked list the site gives you.


5. Now click on the Map Layers tab in the new window.


6. Click on the drop-down box under "Layer Groups" and select "Environmental".


7. Now select the select "Draft RPA Screening Tool" and scroll down to click apply. If there is no beige on your site, you're not in that area.


8. Now, unselect that option and select "Draft Chesapeake Bay Area" and scroll down to click "apply" to see if you are in the RPA.
   If your site doesn't have any green in it? You're good.

If there is any brown on your site and you are doing a project that disturbs less than 2500 sq ft, this document says that you are okay.

If you are within the green area, then you'll need permission to do your project.