Bought and paid for. Deal with it, suckers.

Thanks to Liz for alerting me to the recent obscenity from the Sterling supervisor, in which he rants about the Board of Supervisors supposedly “punishing” business leaders:

The pursuit of profit and prosperity is what makes America a great nation.

To attack free market leaders and business spokesman in Leesburg– our local seat of government– or on Wall Street– is an attack on all our freedoms..

..[T]his board has ochestrated and frequently hosted assaults in public on business leaders and spokesmen and spokesladies who simply come and give professional written testimony about what other business leaders think or say.

Top business leaders have been brought into the public gallows and condemned by members of the Loudoun County board of supervisors by name and accused of crimes, undue influence and illegal acts on a routine basis.

“Top business leaders” like OpenBand spokesman Ben Young, perhaps? He does seem intent on removing any obstacles – like competition – to his company’s “pursuit of profit and prosperity.” The rant is followed by this, about the “top business leaders” who have donated to Eugene’s campaign: “These donors and their companies have been generous on the record and make a very big difference.” Indeed.

Translation: “I get piles of cash from OpenBand because they expect me to vote in favor of their lifetime monopoly franchise on cable services in Broadlands. That’s exactly what I’m going to do. If you complain about it, I’ll just say that you hate capitalism.”

This obscene gesture directed at the rule of law (not to mention the free market) is consistent, at least. We’re talking about someone with the chutzpah to wail to his donors that he was attacked by “homosexual activists” and beaten with a rock – send money! – in his Falls Church office one night:

Dear xxxxx,

I’ve been putting off sending you this message for a while because I didn’t want to worry you.

But late one night while sorting through pro-family petitions from supporters like you a thug crept in through a door, threw a blanket over my head and pummeled me with a rock.

Thankfully, one of my volunteers heard when I yelled for help. I thank God when he came running into the room, this goon was startled and ran off. I wasn’t seriously hurt.

I’ve gotten death threats before — nearly two dozen this year alone — and I never take them lightly. But when they go beyond threatening and actually try to kill me, it’s a whole different story.

There’s more my friend…

No police report has ever been filed, of course.

What a pathetic little excuse for a man. Contact Al Nevarez to help keep Eugene’s ineffective whining in Falls Church.

47 thoughts on “Bought and paid for. Deal with it, suckers.

  1. Epluribusunum Post author

    Your obsession at TC seems to be with the race in Catoctin district. Why are you so inordinately interested in that race, by the way? You can’t vote here, after all.

  2. Epluribusunum Post author

    Loudoun County government does not discriminate on the basis of gender.

    Your continued defense of dishonorable Eugene’s behavior is immoral, yes. There is a basic moral code with regard to how we treat one another. We don’t use the word “it” to refer to human beings. I understand that you would like for me to stop saying it, but it is the truth.

  3. Barbara Munsey

    So, where is the impersonal pronoun in this? David, you told me I was obsessed over at tc. This last seems more than a bit obsessed: women you believe Eugene believes to be men are less than human to him–this is a women’s issue now. Okay.

  4. Barbara Munsey

    David, please answer the questions: Is there a specific transgendered woman who was fully qualified for an open, funded county position that was being interviewed, who you know for a fact was not hired NOT because someone else had more education, more experience, better skills, but because she was discriminated against purely for being transgendered, AND who was caused further pain by hearing the impersonal pronoun used to describe a hypothetical situation involving hypothetical people, AND who is a Sterling resident? Or is it really an impersonal pronoun used in discussion of a hypothetical situation raised in a protest action at the Board that Sterling district needs to address to your satisfaction at the polls?

    (That has to do with YOUR behavior in calling people immoral for not attacking as you wish, for accusing people of moral turpitude for not agreeing with you and campaigning against him on those grounds, of accusing people of a conspiracy to attack on websites, and so on.)

    It is your choice whether to answer or not, and the answer may be immaterial: you want him gone in a district you can’t vote in, and you seem very very angry that people aren’t responding to your declarations of absolutes in the way you wish, and that people might not vote the way you want them to about it. Your right, your choice.

  5. Epluribusunum Post author

    True, he actually did say that – In a subsequent email, after he had promised Supervisor Kurtz that he would apologize for his ugly slur, he doubled down instead. It is one of the most bizarre statements I’ve seen from someone in public office, which says quite a lot: “But if we allow Loudoun County to hire men who wear dresses, we may someday require men to wear dresses. The line has to be drawn somewhere.”

    Yes, a line most certainly does need to be drawn. I do believe that we have drawn it here, much to the displeasure of Eugene’s apologists.

    Readers should know that Eugene was unable to effectively criticize the actual language added to the human resources handbook – it is above reproach and is the same as the policies of every major employer in the region, because it’s just good business to prohibit discrimination. Decent people don’t want to come work for an outfit where that stuff is tolerated.

    The complete absence of controversy in that language required Eugene to conjure up this bizarre approach of talking about “men in dresses.” Here’s a news flash for dishonorable Eugene and anyone credulous enough to read his nonsense without laughing out loud: Men don’t apply for jobs wearing dresses. Why would they do that? When people do crossdress, they don’t do it at work. I think this is pretty well covered by professional dress codes – if one is a man, one expects to wear whatever the appropriate male attire is for that position. I am unaware of any workplace in which this would remotely be an issue. It’s completely irrelevant to any county employment policy. But if Eugene wanted to wear a dress to work, I guess he could. He’s basically self-employed by his family business.

    No, the purpose of his little email slur was to say that women applying for jobs wearing dresses are less than human, if Eugene believes them to be “men.” And for that, he and any of his volunteers willing to make excuses for his behavior deserve all the scorn and disgust that are coming to them, and more.

  6. Barbara Munsey

    The context is useful, depending on how it’s imaged, isn’t it?

    As noted at the time in discussion, there have been no complaints to the county re their hiring practices of discrimination on the basis of gender or gender identity.

    Are you arguing that the specific “statement and its meaning” as you understand it refer to a specific transwoman who was denied employent by Loudoun County on any basis OTHER than her status as a transgendered individual with full/best qualifications for a specific job that was funded, unfilled, and interviewing? And that she was caused further pain by specifically being referred to as something other than she or her? And that she is a resident of Sterling?

  7. Epluribusunum Post author

    The statement and its meaning are not in dispute. We have your answer then, after a fashion: You have chosen to be an apologist for Eugene’s indefensible behavior in referring to a group of people, among them his own constituents, as less than human. You are, right here, offering a defense of that behavior. As you say, no one can control or dictate that choice for you. It is entirely yours.

  8. Barbara Munsey

    David, as you note, “support” can have many meanings.

    As to the impersonal pronoun, I see you are in discussion at LTM on one of your letters where someone has pointed out that the use involved a hypothetical situation, which you seem to be arguing there as calling a specific transgendered woman a thing.

    It’s campaign season now, and this is the issue to which you give most of your activism, and as I’ve said, your right.

    Neither of us can vote about it (which is not the same as saying anyone can’t care about it–you do seem to have an issue with reframing things as you prefer), and little will be settled at the BoS about it.

    Actually settled, as opposed to spending time on.

    My experience with Eugene is that it is always worthwhile lobbying him on specific county issues, because to actually get anything done that they CAN (and should be) do(ing), it takes five votes, doesn’t it?

    And although he almost uniformly votes against the total package on some legislation (which then passes), he quite frequently makes up a crucial fifth in some of the planks of the package.

    As such, I have as a resident of another district on occasion been responded to on things that are important to me.

    I do not live in his district, and can’t vote about him.

    Neither can you.

    People who CAN vote for him do not seem to respond well to being told either how they should vote, or that they are stupid or somehow lesser for not voting how they’re told (as often happens in advocacy at the newspaper sites).

    It is your right to have any opinion you wish and express ithow you wish.

    You can’t dictate or control either the opinions of others, or whether they choose to be active in ways that you;d like.

  9. Paradox13

    Actually, you can support or oppose any elected official, in or out of District. Funny thing about this Democracy, is you can support, financially, verbally or whichever, any candidate you please.

    Thus, yes, it is relevant whether any of us support or oppose a given candidate.

    Also, Mr. Delgaudio does purport to represent all of us, insofar as he has served on regional and state commissions and councils as the Loudoun representative. And as that remains true, his serving in office in any capacity is all of our business. He cannot be ignored, or swept under the rug.

    And I, for one, stand against him.

  10. Epluribusunum Post author

    I don’t know, and Bill can correct me, but in context I would imagine that he’s not asking whether you sent Mr. Delgaudio a check or voted for him. He’s probably asking whether you agree with his behavior, as described here.

    So, why is it so hard for you to just answer the question, Barb – do you agree with Mr. Delgaudio’s behavior? Do you think there could ever be a circumstance in which it’s morally acceptable to refer to a human being as “it”? Yes or no?

    An argument that one can only “support” or “defend” an official if one lives in their district – wow, that’s really grasping at straws.

  11. Barbara Munsey

    I don’t live in his district, so I can neither support nor oppose him. I can’t vote for him, and don’t tell people who can what to think about him. They will make up their own minds based on the needs and choices there.

    David or Jonathan can’t really oppose or support him either in any way other than talking to others about him, which is certainly their right, but not always as effective as they wish.

  12. Barbara Munsey

    It’s the argument we have never stopped having.

    Your position seems to be that if I do not join you in attacking him, then I am actively defending him.

    And yes, the absence of one does not prove the presence of the other.

  13. Barbara Munsey

    David, if I DIDN’T reply to every reply to my previous comments, would I be “deliberately ignoring” them? and what pathology would that exhibit?

    You seem to be projecting the anger.


    Actually David, Mr. Hale’s post left little to the imagination, so I replied as courteously as I could. Do frame it for yourself and the casual reader as needed.

  14. Pariahdog

    Exposure is not the same thing as attack. History will judge whether or not the exposure has been effective.

    Are you defending him again? History will judge that too.

  15. Epluribusunum Post author

    So, the argument that choosing an action that you call “not doing something” is actually the absence of action – that’s the one you’ve decided to go with? Okay.

  16. Epluribusunum Post author

    Obviously the fact that lily white is in quotes was lost on Barbara (who I believe just posted five consecutive comments on this post…but isn’t mad. Not at all.) The governing bodies here are still not a reflection of the residents, that’s for sure.

    You would think that those things would be appalling and embarrassing to any normal person, Henry – but you would be wrong. Thanks for checking in, I hope you’re doing well.

  17. Barbara Munsey

    No, Eric, I am saying that in spite of David’s desire to control a LACK of something into a direct action in favor of something, absence of a negative still does not prove a positive, and never will.

  18. Barbara Munsey

    Jonathan the fact of the matter is you and David have attacked him in ways ultimately ineffective since I’ve known you: if you want to DO something about him, move to Sterling and either run against him or vote against him.

  19. Barbara Munsey

    How nice to hear from you, Mr. Hale. I didn’t know you’d moved.

    That hasn’t left the county “lily white”, however. I am surprised you would say that, as much of the county continues to grow in diversity. Did you know that a variety of people from differing backgrounds, some naturalized citizens, are running for office here this year? A couple are even Democrats, so you could vote for them.

  20. Barbara Munsey

    I’m not mad David. (Unless here in your world you are in charge of what I am feeling, too. Hadn’t considered that possibility. Okay, if it makes you feel better.)

  21. Epluribusunum Post author

    In my opinion, although Mr. Delgaudio engages in immoral behavior, he is himself amoral. He exhibits the characteristics of having sociopathic personality disorder, which is the clinical term for a person with no conscience. Everything he does is a carefully controlled act, including the emotion he feigned when he was called out by his board mates for crossing that line and then lying about it.

    That is to say, I don’t know that he actually would care what someone else called him. Understanding one’s own behavior in terms of the golden rule requires the capacity for empathy, which I don’t believe he has. I don’t believe that to be the case for those who continue to support and defend him with full knowledge of his behavior – and that includes his fellow Republican elected officials and candidates, some of whom have told me privately they can’t stand him but continue acting as if they can. I can only think that they are willing to assume the role of apologist for anything he does in exchange for personal gain. Hence I don’t understand how they are able to live with themselves. There is a point at which moral decency demands that you say enough is enough.

  22. Paradox13

    If morality is measured by the golden rule, then I submit Mr. Delgaudio is immoral. It is unimaginable that he would be okay with someone else calling him “it” from a position of official power. Or any number of other irredeemable actions.

  23. Eric the 1/2 troll

    “No Eric”

    So are you saying, Barb, that you do not defend E.D> as an example of a moral person. You really should be able to take a position on this. Is he, in your opinion, a moral person or not?

    FWIW, I do not view him to be an example of a moral person. Quite the opposite.

  24. Henry Hale

    I see “lilly white” Loudoun County hasn’t changed a bit since I had the displeasure of living out there. Barbara Munsey continues to show her stupidity, and David Weintraub and Co. continue to fight the good fight. Having such a high median income level in Loudoun County shows that money doesn’t equate to intelligence.

    Eugene Delgaudio is one of the most despicable people who has ever disgraced this planet by his presence. His homophobia, racism, and bigotry are appalling and embarrassing to any intelligent person in or out of America and Earth.

  25. Pariahdog


    The fact of the matter is that you have defended Supervisor Delgaudio for as long as I have known you.

  26. Epluribusunum Post author

    Eric – yes, they wish to defend him, knowing full well what he is guilty of, but they also wish to not take responsibility for that defense. As you can see, they are mad as hell that I call attention to it.

  27. Barbara Munsey

    Jonathan, again you are ascribing the attributes of action to the lack of your desired action.

  28. Pariahdog

    Here is a report about the latest fundraising letter (smear) from Supervisor Delgaudio, where he engages in a guilt by association logical fallacy against a transexual TSA agent.

    What would you call this, moral terpitude? Wikipedia describes moral terpitude as:

    The concept of moral turpitude escapes precise definition but has been described as an “act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.”

    I don’t think the description is harsh enough for Eugene, but it seems like an accurate portrayal of his defenders.

  29. Barbara Munsey

    Wolverine, I can’t call it disgusting because it simply is the chosen paradigm with which David is most comfortable.

    And he is free to choose, and we are free to agree or disagree with whatever he decrees.

    In his own world, he can be king in whatever manner he chooses.

    It’s no sadder for him to NOT be able to rule the intersecting kingdoms of the real world, than it is for anyone else.

    It is no doubt very annoying to him! But, his blog, his kingdom.

  30. Barbara Munsey

    No Eric, you don’t understand (and I know you “don’t”, because if you pretended you did, you couldn’t continue to play Forrest Gump ping pong practice on it): NOT doing what David wants is DOING what he doesn’t want, whether you did or not. And only he decides, defines and declaims.

    The end!

  31. Eric the 1/2 troll

    Really, Wolv and Barb, you wish to defend E.D. as an example of a moral person? You two have really stepped off into lala land on that one.

  32. Epluribusunum Post author

    Please explain in full your moral justification for sending out letters filled with blatant falsehoods, such as the one cited, for the purpose of soliciting funds. Please explain in full your justification for a sitting elected official failing to recuse himself from voting on a matter that directly impacts the profit of a business that contributes significant campaign funds to that official. Please explain in full how under any circumstance it would be morally defensible to refer to another human being as “it.”

  33. Epluribusunum Post author

    Wolverine: Post-modern princess of moral relativism. Awesome.

    So, according to you, there’s no way of determining what is moral and immoral? It’s just all relative? I guess in your world it’s just a matter of personal opinion whether that whole slavery thing was wrong. And genocide, who among us can say whether that’s right or wrong – all viewpoints on that are equally valid, is that right? Sorry, but there is such a thing as right and wrong. Some things that people do are indefensible.

    How cowardly. The fact is that you can’t actually make a defense of his behavior – no one can – but you can’t bring yourself to cut the cord, so instead you make this laughable argument that everything is relative.

  34. Barbara Munsey

    I’m immoral too, Wolverine, because I don’t do what I’m told, using the words I’m told, when I’m told.

    Welcome to the club!

    You’ll do fine, as you appear to understand it perfectly.

  35. Wolverine

    Oh, I see it now. You have assigned to yourself the absolute right to decide what is morally indefensible and what is not. And the rule book you are using was written by yourself. Anyone who happens not to agree with you becomes classified as “immoral.” But wait! Is that not the same charge you constantly direct against Delgaudio? Could be you are both sinners in that regard.

  36. Epluribusunum Post author

    Playing dumb? I wouldn’t say that to any random commenter, but you’re not fooling anyone with the pretense of not knowing.

    Accepting pay-for-play contributions? Check (he could always prove me wrong by recusing himself from the OpenBand vote).

    Livelihood based entirely on bearing false witness about other people? Check.

    This? Check.

    If you can’t understand that this is morally indefensible, too bad. I won’t spell it out for you. Do your own work.

  37. Epluribusunum Post author

    The accuracy of your characterizations notwithstanding, I guess you would prefer voting for a guy who has repeatedly shown himself to be immoral – and you know it. That says something about you, like it or not.

  38. Wolverine

    And you want me to vote for a guy who thinks that opposition to Obama is all a matter of racism? Or who admonishes liberals for being afraid to play the “race card” in politics? Right.

Comments are closed.