Signs or Litter?

Most of us barely notice all those commercial signs stuck in the ground along the side of the roadways. They've just become part of the landscape in many places. But besides contributing to roadside clutter they can be a distracting safety hazard especially when placed at intersections where our attention should be focused on highway signs, stoplights, pedestrians, and other vehicles. Unfortunately sign purveyors know that is where cars are most likely to be slowing down or stopped and more likely to notice what they consider their important message.

Probably the ones seen the most are placed by housing developers or real estate agents. But there are plenty more for "affordable health insurance", "work from home opportunities", "drive a stock car", and "granite countertops", among other come-ons.

Most are placed illegally on Virginia Department of Transportation rights-of-way and the owner of each sign is subject to a fine of $100/day per sign.

Of course plenty of supporters of political candidates or propositions are subject to the same fines if they place signs on VDOT ROWs. But at least those are usually only seen for a limited time during campaign season.

Is it easy to tell whether a sign is actually on a public ROW? Not always. ROWs vary, often a lot. They're not simply the edge of a ditch or a certain distance from the edge of the roadway. They are a specific distance from the center of the roadway but that varies depending on the number of lanes and other factors.

Signs placed in a median strip or on a road sign or guard rail are always on VDOT ROWs and subject to removal and or fine.

So if you see a sign that you're sure is illegally placed can you legally remove it the same as if it were so much litter? That's a gray area. A person who threw a bottle out of their car onto the ROW has no expectation of ownership. A person who leaves their broken down car on the row certainly does. A sign left on the ROW falls somewhere in the middle. But I think of it as a lot closer to a piece of litter than a car.

A VDOT official told me that citizens should contact them to report a sign they think is placed illegally on a ROW although removal of such signs understandably usually gets a low priority.

The $100/day law is never enforced even though most all of these scofflaws leave their contact information on the signs. Losing their signs eventually is just a cost of doing business. If this method of advertising didn't work they wouldn't keep doing it.

The Town of Culpeper thankfully doesn't always turn a blind eye to such roadside clutter. Most roads in town are owned by the town. Developers who continually placed their signs on town road ROWs have been warned that they were running the risk of having their permits held up.

One city in Colorado allows signs in the ROWs Friday noon to Monday noon to allow for yard sales, open houses, etc. And no one wants to keep a kid from posting temporary lost puppy signs. But too many people are taking advantage of this low-cost, but unsightly and usually illegal form of advertising.

Real estate and development companies should know that when they place their signs up on VDOT ROWs, yes, customers may be helped to find their offerings, but their signs may also be advertising that they don't mind breaking the law, or care about cluttering the landscape or have concerns about safety hazards. Not an image I'd think they would want to project. I could find no mention of illegally posting signage in a public ROW in the State Real Estate Board regulations.

And VDOT needs to give a call to those granite countertop vendors, and others, who conveniently leave behind their phone numbers, and remind them of the $100/day fines. If that doesn't work I think one single prosecution would get the message across real quick that they should find another way to reach customers. Maybe the nice folks in the advertising department at the Culpeper Star Exponent have some ideas.

Did the "Surge" make things better or worse?

Did the "Surge" make things better or worse?
Culpeper Star Exponent
Oct. 9, 2008
Robert Legge

The level of violence in Iraq has decreased markedly since President Bush initiated the "surge" in 2007. Yet despite this universally acclaimed success Bush remains unpopular and John McCain, an early supporter of the "surge", has seen little benefit from the success, as reflected in the polls. That can probably be attributed to the doubts still prevalent about going to war in Iraq in the first place.

Even early "surge" doubter Barack Obama has belatedly admitted that the "surge" has worked "beyond our wildest dreams".

And while the "surge" was more than simply sending 25,000 more US troops mostly to Baghdad, that's what gets most of the attention and credit for quelling the violence.

But is it plausible that 25,000 more troops would turn a nation of 27 million careening toward civil war into relative peace? That an infusion of new troops could scare away all the suicide bombers who are virtually impossible to stop? Tough case to make.

The reduction of violence was caused by multiple factors, some were part of US policy, some of Iraqi origin. Yes, the increase in troops had a stabilizing effect on the most volatile part of Iraq- Baghdad. Perhaps it changed the dynamics of the situation as it showed the US resolve to stay engaged in the conflict even when things got difficult.

But the "surge" was not just about more troops. It included the policy of assassinating high level al Qaeda in Iraq leaders, tighter border security and a willingness to patrol the streets among the population making them feel more protected.

But the "surge" would never have been successful without Iraqi involvement. The Iraqi army grew by 100,000 during this period.

We also started paying Sunni militia members (many former insurgents) $360/month. The warlords who direct them usually get 20% of their salary. Many of them have gotten accustomed to the large and steady income.

Al Qaeda in Iraq made a grave tactical error in murdering many top Sunni leaders. This miscalculation eventually turned the majority Sunnis against their former allies and toward the Americans. Some top Shia leaders have convinced their militias to lay down their arms so they could participate in government power-sharing that was unavailable to them under Saddam.

There is some evidence that Iran has stopped exporting bomb-making supplies. It is also not hard to imagine that many people just grew tired of the violence and chaos.

Random deaths were also reduced because most of the formerly diverse neighborhoods are now ethnically cleansed. Five million Iraqis (20%) are now either internally displaced or have left for another county. In many neighborhoods there is simply no one left to kill.

Unfortunately some of the very things that have contributed to the lessening of violence have also made a long term solution more difficult. Baghdad is now controlled mostly by Shias. Sunnis trying to get their houses back risk death. The payments to thousands of Sunni tribesmen keeps them passive, but when they realize that they will never again dominate the government as they did under Saddam they may no longer see Americans as their friends.

Such payments have only contributed to the retribalization of Iraq. These increasingly powerful Sunni tribes contest Shia-dominated state authority, further decreasing the chances of real reconciliation. Failure to absorb the Sunnis into the military and economic life of Iraq will only decrease state authority, especially outside Baghdad, increase competition between the militias and destabilize the entire country. Criminal gangs of Kurds and Shias have also learned to exploit the lack of federal control.

There is little likelihood of any long term political settlement as long as we continue policies that work to splinter the country along religious lines. The perhaps unintended but all too evident consequences of increased warlordism have been a direct result of the widely lauded "surge". When we finally leave Iraq we will have left a far more divided country than the one we entered. The long term outlook is not nearly as promising as "surge" supporters would have us think.

Light at the end of the Election Tunnel

Light at the End of the Election Tunnel
Culpeper Star Exponent
Oct. 23, 2008
Robert Legge

The Light at the end of the Election Tunnel

I'm so ready for this election to be over with. Presidential election campaigns are too long, too expensive, and too negative and contentious.

I find the campaign speeches I see on TV really weird the way the audience cheers and boos in unison. Sometimes they seem briefly confused about whether to cheer or boo. Is the audience directed with cue cards? Candidates always say "I'll do this" or "I'll do that", and no one seems to care that we have a congress that holds the pursestrings that has to agree with "this" or "that" proposal.

But I can't help but think what a difficult time the eventual winner is going to have given the immense problems facing us. Of course most of the focus has been on the nosediving economy. In fact, Obama's poll numbers rose almost exactly as the Dow Jones sank. McCain's negative ads and rhetoric also hurt him, polls indicate.

But we have a host of other very serious issues that the next president will have to face. These include Iraq, where we will soon be asked to leave whether we're ready or not, Iran (do we really want to bomb their nuclear facilities?), Afghanistan (resurgent Taliban), Georgia (should we let them into NATO?), Latin America with their trend toward anti-Americanism) and even an impending Asian space race where we are largely being left behind.

Domestically we still have a housing crisis, energy crisis, and then there is Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid that no one wants to talk about. And with the $trillion bailout, huge deficits loom.

Even though the polls indicate a probable Obama victory, I still predict a very close race with the likelihood of 4 more years of a very divided citizenry. If McCain does pull off an upset, he will surely be faced with a very sour Democratic congress, that will make getting anything substantive done very difficult.

Voters could be facing a case of "careful what you wish for".

*************************

The race for the 7th Congressional District seat between Republican incumbent Eric Cantor and Anita Hartke appears to be another "no contest" for Cantor. It helps that Cantor has a 66-1 fundraising advantage. Cantor raised most of that money at fundraisers, such as at ritzy locales like Beverly Hills, Hollywood, and Aspen. If he wasn't there so often he might get to Culpeper once in a while. If you like the policies of George Bush, you'll like Eric Cantor, who voted with Mr. Bush 98% of the time.

*******************************

I think that both political parties miss out on leveraging the support from their millions of supporters. Both parties encourage them to "talk to your neighbors" and provides them with numerous talking points. But neither provides much help when it comes to HOW to talk to those undecided friends.

Proselytizing someone about your favorite candidate is generally not appreciated. And most people avoid doing that. But I think people-to-people contacts can be very effective. I'd hate to think that most people's opinions are based so much on yard signs, bumper stickers or TV ad sound bites.

In talking to friends, rather than recite the laundry list of issues, let the other person talk about what issues are important to them. Be ready to answer questions in as a non-partisan way as possible. You are more likely to have the desired result if you let people come to their own conclusions (with a little assist from yourself if needed) than if you try to inundate them with boiler plate talking points.

In the end, neither candidate will likely provide the nirvana their supporters may envision, nor be as evil as their detractors fear. I hope that we can get through this, then come together as best we can and then get right to work on improving this country.

Justice for Justine 2nd Anniversary

Justice for Justine 2nd Anniversary
Culpeper Star Exponent
November 4, 2008
Robert Legge

I attended the memorial service for Emerald Hill kindergarten teacher Justine Swartz (Abshire) last Monday. Last year's observance was held in a park in Orange near where Justine lived. But this one was held at the school where most of her students still attended and where she had many friends among the staff.

A maple tree was planted in her memory outside the school. It's nice to think that as that tree grows, it will provide colorful leaves and cooling comfort to students and teachers. I can see a bench there under those spreading branches someday.

Justine's mother, father, and daughter were there. I was a little nervous at first talking to them, thinking I might say something wrong. But I almost immediately sensed that they wanted me to feel comfortable and I did speak to all of them at length. I appreciated that.

Heidi Swartz, Justine's mother did get weepy when reading about Justine. But what are tears for if not to shed when reading about your daughter who died way too young.

I was a little disappointed that no one besides the family had stories to share in front of the whole group about their memories of Justine. But I guess that is not unusual. I have not attended many memorial services but I remember one I attended for a good friend where no one spoke up when the preacher asked if anyone had stories to share. I still regret that I didn't say anything and still wonder if I had that that may have broken the ice and others would have shared their recollections. But I understand that it can be hard to talk about those things.

I was glad to see the chief investigator to the case in attendance.

It cannot be stressed enough that this case is still open. I still think it will be solved. Those (and I think there are several) who have withheld information will come to regret that decision.

Justine was found lying in the road and initial reports indicated that she died as a result of being struck by a car. But subsequent findings have shown that Justine suffered 113 wounds, 23 to her head alone. No classic hit-and-run "strike marks".

A reasonable person could only conclude that she was killed somewhere else and left on the road to make it appear to be a simple, hit-and-run on a lonely road, even though it was a bright moonlit night.

Justine's husband Eric says he was the first person to find her at the scene of what now appears to have been a faked hit-and-run.

I can’t help but be reminded of another column I wrote a few months ago about a wife that was murdered by her husband who then committed suicide. Such murders do not happen out of the blue.

What keeps women in relationships when they must be aware of the potential consequences? I think most believe they can "fix" the problem. Most probably simply get used to it, after all, no one gets beat up on the first date and then stays in a long- term relationship. But those who have invested so much often don't want to give up. If they do, they may feel like a failure, having put so much in a relationship that they ended.

We all want to be optimistic that things will improve. That's only natural.

There are no easy answers. I was heartened to see signs up at Emerald Hill about their "No Bullying" program. I would hope that the schools continue similar programs through high school, where the models for abusive relationships often develop.

We all can contribute by treating our boyfriends, girlfriends, wives and husband in positive ways that hopefully will become the model for young people. I think that is one of many ways to keep Justine Swartz's memory alive.

Caffeine: The Other White Powder

Caffeine: The Other White Powder
Culpeper Star Exponent
Nov. 18, 2008
Robert Legge

Alertness aid tablets such as No-Doz are usually banned at schools because
they contain 200 mgs. of caffeine, about twice as much as a cup of coffee.
Yet most schools allow children to bring energy drinks that may contain even
more caffeine. No-Doz must carry an FDA warning label, unlike energy drinks
which are classified as "supplements", a striking inconsistency.

And while energy drink makers like to tout all the other ingredients in
their products, make no mistake, without mega-doses of caffeine they would
not be increasing sales by 50% every year.

One popular energy drink- Monster- doesn't even say on its label how much
caffeine it contains. They hide it under a pseudo-ingredient "energy blend"
that includes other stimulants such as guarana.

Energy drinks are primarily marketed to a young male clientele with a
message of risk-taking. Monster "Assault" comes in a camouflaged-covered can
with a red "M" that appears to be made from dripping blood.

There are dozens more caffeinated drinks such as Red Bull, Jolt, Vault, Amp,
Nos, and Rock Star. Even Vitamin Water has a caffeinated version. But the
industry has seen an arms race of sorts with many energy drink start-ups
like "Cocaine" relying on higher and higher caffeine content.

But another company figured out that people just wanted the buzz, not
necessarily all the liquid. Caffeine-rich "5-Hour Energy" comes in 2-oz.
bottles, small enough to be displayed on any convenience store counter.
Products such as this are called energy "shots" as in "shots" of whiskey.


NFL stars Braylon Edwards and Osi Umenyiora shill 5-hour Energy. Apparently
the NFL thinks it is just fine to promote instant performance enhancement in
a little bottle as long as its unregulated by the FDA. No doubt young high
school athletes are the target audience. Even Red Bull says right on the can
"increases endurance". But the Virginia High School League has no
prohibition on using such products before or during games.

But caffeine is not just sold in liquid form. Kids can now enjoy their
morning oatmeal, potato chips, jelly beans, mints, and gum, all with a nice
little buzz. Some prefer their caffeine straight and there are plenty of
sources on the Internet such as partyenhancers.com where one can get
caffeine in powder form. Users can practice snorting inexpensive caffeine so
that they'll be all ready when they get access to high-priced cocaine.


Perhaps the most dangerous practices involving recreational use of caffeine
is mixing it with alcohol. Anheuser Busch promoted its Bud Extra, an
alcohol/caffeine beer with the tag line "You can sleep when you're 30".
Thankfully under pressure of 11 attorney's general they agreed to cease
production. But other brewers continue to mix the two drugs. Studies have
found that "wide-awake drunks" were more likely to engage in dangerous
behavior not realizing how impaired they were.

This is not going away. When a manufacturer can add a pennies worth of
caffeine and other stimulants to their products, charge another dollar, and
people still buy it, they're not going to stop. Caffeine has traditionally
been delivered via coffee- primarily an adult beverage. But by adding powder
caffeine to a super sweet product, drink makers, with some clever marketing,
have developed a whole new clientele of customers.

In sum, there are a number of concerns. First, is the issue of caffeine
intoxication, dependence, and withdrawal. The addition of caffeine to
alcohol increases the likelihood of alcohol-related injuries. Energy drinks
and shots will likely be a gateway to alcohol and drug use for many kids.
Young athletes looking for a competitive edge will surely be enticed by
these products.

As the president of the Virginia chapter of the American Academy of
Pediatrics told me via email "There is no good reason for children and
teenagers to consume these products".

I couldn't agree more. FDA, how about you?

$6 billion and "No Impact"?

Culpeper Star Exponent

Dec. 4, 2008

Robert Legge

It's hard to imagine life without the ability to read.

So naturally it's job #1 for all elementary schools. There have always been arguments about the best methods for teaching reading. In 1998, Congress appointed 14 reading experts to sort through the research to determine the best methods to teach reading in the nation's public schools.

The result was the National Reading Panel that issued their report in 2000. President Bush made its recommendations part of Reading First, a centerpiece of the No Child Left Behind Act. The federal Department of Education handed out $1 billion in Reading First grants each year to states that used prescribed "science-based" curricula.

Almost immediately there were complaints about what materials would satisfy the feds. In 2006, the DOE's inspector general admitted that the Reading First program had violated conflict of interest rules in awarding grants to favored commercial textbook publishers. The director of the program resigned after emails were released calling some less favored textbook publishers "dirtbags" intent on "crashing our party".

But officials went beyond the law, which prohibits federal employees from influencing or directing states’
decisions on curricula, tests, or instructional methods. Some DOE officials simply said that grant awarders were zealous in assuring that kids got the best materials.

But that excuse fell flat after a 2008 report from the DOE's research arm found that that the $6 billion spent on Reading First had had "no impact" on reading comprehension. Ouch. They hastened to point out that some first graders were better able to decode words mostly through phonics drills.

This should be no surprise. Returning to the National Reading Panel, a word search of the document finds 930 references to phonics or phonemic awareness. Motivate to read more got 19, literature-7, reading to child-2, and library-1.

In other words, the NRP was mostly about decoding skills that could be taught with drills and commercial materials, but precious little about the importance of encouraging reading at home where kids usually spend most of their day, especially during their first 4 years. Kids don't get excited about a favorite vowel or consonant blend. They get excited about a really cool book they are interested in. And excited readers usually become good readers.

Some struggling readers have learning disabilities that require special help, but the majority of struggling readers came to kindergarten unprepared to begin reading, having not been read to enough and/or had access to reading materials. Finland has led the world in student reading for decades. One reason is that most kids view TV with captioning. We can do that too.

Yet still we have the "Reading Wars" with some advocates promoting phonics and others lots of literature or "whole language". The Republican Party platform has included calls for more emphasis on phonics since 1996.

Most school systems have settled on a "balanced literacy" approach that includes both phonics and literacy-based programs. But students learn best when teachers customize lesson plans based on current assessments rather than rely on scripted commercial programs.

But most schools have become addicted to federal money no matter what strings are attached. VA DOE officials discount Reading First's dismal results. They only point to increasing 3rd grade SOL scores as evidence that it must be working. One school district (Fairfax) turned down the grant money this past year, finding it too restrictive. Complaints included increased testing taking away instruction time, only a prescribed list of materials allowed, and no adaptation allowed for special needs students.

In sum, Reading First was shamelessly used to promote those few companies with friends in high places. It also wasted the taxpayer's money as it did little to help kids read.

The National Reading Panel should be revisited. This time taking more time, keeping politics out, putting more emphasis on home support for literacy, not be dominated by university professors, include classroom teachers who are a better judge of what is practical for the classroom and putting far more emphasis on getting kids excited about reading.