Monthly Archives: January 2013

No more endearing hugs. Darn.

Posted on by |

In light of yesterday’s WaPo story by Caitlin Gibson, I think it’s safe to say that the lovefest between Scott York and Eugene Delgaudio has indeed run its course.

[Delgaudio attorney Charlie King] is probably just drinking the same clown juice that Delgaudio is, because I have no idea what the heck he’s talking about,

said York in response to King’s statement. In that statement, distributed to the media after the board unanimously stripped Delgaudio of his standing committee appointments at its first 2013 business meeting, King tries to suggest that this is all about York, that York has a “pattern” of alleging misconduct, ignoring the fact that Mr. Delgaudio is the subject of a criminal investigation.

A divorce settlement is pending, we hear.

As many have pointed out since the investigation began, and long before it was handed over to the special prosecutor, it is standard procedure to place an individual under investigation on suspension pending resolution of the matter. At the very least, Real Advocate and others argued, Mr. Delgaudio should be barred from shaping revisions to the county’s aide policies. Supervisor Williams attempted to call for stripping Mr. Delgaudio of these duties back in November, but was thwarted by York, allowing him to participate in the Finance, Government Services and Operations Committee making those revisions. Now it appears that York is the sole target of Mr. Delgaudio’s wrath, at least publicly.

Continue reading →

How “gun control” got its start

Posted on by |

He was a large man, wearing a combat-style uniform, beret, and heavy boots. He stood outside the door, watching people entering and exiting. One witness, who had summoned the police, said that the man’s presence made him feel intimidated, a feeling echoed by others in the building. When asked by a reporter what he was doing there, the man replied that he didn’t understand why they were trying to make it look like he was doing something wrong. He was just standing there, he said, serving his community.

Now, when considering that these witnesses felt “intimidated” by a man in a combat-style uniform standing outside their workplace and holding a nightstick, one might wonder what sorts of things other people might have going on in their lives to make them stand outside a building watching people like that?

Continue reading →

Lock ’em up, even if it doesn’t work

Posted on by |

Well, the guns-for-all – some mental health restrictions apply – “thinkers” may be experiencing cognitive dissonance. That is, if they’ve found time to seriously ponder thought control advocacy. An article in today’s Washington Post describes the state of the art in violence prediction. The analysts parse patients into two groups.

There have been numerous efforts to test these violence-predicting tools in recent decades. For example, Monahan and his colleagues incorporated 106 risk factors into a software interview program and administered it to patients being discharged from psychiatric units in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Of those judged to be low-risk by this tool, 90 percent committed no violence over the next six months. Of those judged to be high-risk, 49 percent committed violent acts.

Where does that leave our thought control advocates? Lock up the high-risk group and one innocent is deprived of his/her liberty for each potentially violent offender. Release the low-risk group and 10% are potential violent offenders. The numbers suck. The NRA wants to hand those numbers to government? Seriously? Could it be hyperbole? Maybe “dark political energy” will smooth out the looming gross injustice. Or, maybe, we should send Wayne LaPierre and his defenders to the corner, with a dunce hat, to pout.

BoS preparing to throw Delgaudio overboard?

Posted on by |

Update (Jan. 3): Mr. Delgaudio’s attorney has released a statement purporting to explain the board’s 8-0-1 (Clarke absent) vote to strip him of his committee appointments. King asserts that Delgaudio “voted for the committee assignments to avoid embroiling the entire Board in another controversy.” In light of Mr. Delgaudio’s conduct since taking office in 1999, this statement should cause us all to collapse upon the floor in a great heaving orgy of mirth (don’t worry, Barbara! We’re fine!). King also feels it’s “unfortunate” that the Chairman used the board’s regular Rules of Procedures in their customary fashion for making appointments in a new term, and would prefer that the board instead “pass a resolution, establish a committee, conduct an investigation and, if necessary, hold a hearing,” which wouldn’t embroil the entire board in another controversy at all.

Two observations: One, an internal investigation and hearing is what was suspended when evidence of criminal misconduct was “discovered” by York in the documents he had been holding in secret since March, and the investigation was turned over to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Two, King’s statement is carefully worded to hold just the Chairman responsible for the vote, as if the other supervisors couldn’t have withheld their approval. Does this mean we won’t be seeing any more hugs?

BoS preparing to throw Delgaudio overboard?

That’s one interpretation of today’s news, that the reorganization of the Board of Supervisors for 2013 has left the suddenly and curiously silent Mr. Delgaudio with no, count them, zero committee appointments. Now is that any way to treat a comrade you like and respect? Real Advocate speculates:

Perhaps the spectacle of his combative participation in the November 20 Finance, Government Services and Operations Committee meeting made everyone a bit uncomfortable. During that meeting, Delgaudio loudly objected to proposed changes to the board’s policy prohibiting the use of county aides in their Supervisor’s campaign or private business, the very activities for which he is being investigated.

Very loudly, as is his habit when trying to get attention. If you’ve never witnessed his voice rising in contrived petulant outrage, you’re really missing out. Here, he’s responding to a proposed revision that Supervisor Buona characterizes as “standard, and mirrors what I’ve seen in many other HR policies.” I’m afraid the transcript doesn’t really do this justice:

Continue reading →

The trouble with binary thinking, illustrated

Posted on by |

This actually appeared on the Fox News website last month. See a problem?

It’s the same problem exhibited by commenter “Suzie Q” here:

Someone who hates [sic] republicans isn’t a democrat?

It’s tempting to just laugh at stuff like this (and I’m not saying you shouldn’t). But clearly, there are people who actually conduct their lives on the basis of this kind of “logic,” and some of them participate in our democratic process. Here’s the thought process that led to this howler, broken into its simple-minded steps:

Continue reading →

Resolution – Save our children!

Posted on by |

We have this dramatic feast of a movie this holiday season, Les Miserables, based on Victor Hugo’s grand tragic novel (in 365 chapters), and a principal focus of that extraordinary tale of redemption is how ex-con Jean Valjean, a victim of disproportionate punishment and abuse, resists rage and adopts the orphan, Cosette, when her mother Fantine dies, and raises her as his own with love, kindness and at great risk and sacrifice.

Jean Valjean saved Cosette from the Thenardiers, a cruel corrupt couple, who forced Fantine’s illegitimate daughter, Cosette, to work at their inn while treating their own daughters, Eponine and Azelma, so kindly.

When we walk from the darkened theater, we may overlook how little has changed from this artistic recounting of real historic suffering to the present day.

There has been a recent story about adoption and children that makes this crystal clear.

Russia has put a stop to American adoptions of Russian Children.  The media, with rare exception, has covered this as if it is only a reprisal for America criticizing Russia’s human rights violations.  Citizens are screaming bloody murder, how could Russia do that to the children we would adopt?  But it’s more complicated than that.  It is more like how could we do what we have to the children from Russia adopted by Americans?

Continue reading →